Tuesday, December 18, 2007

The Border Fence That Never Was

Opponents of this summer's "comprehensive" immigration amnesty knew that President Bush's "promise" to enforce immigration laws after millions of illegal aliens were amnestied was a promise on which we could not rely. We all knew that a "comprehensive" amnesty failed in 1986 -- millions of illegal aliens were immediately amnestied and the enforcement never materialized... obviously. The result was a massive increase in more illegal immigration to the tune of at least 12 million illegal aliens as we sent the message: "sneak in and we'll reward you."

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.

"I think I see a hole in the Secure Fence Act..."

Saturday, December 15, 2007

Is Obama Smarter than a 5th Grader?

At a recent campaign stop in Iowa, presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was quizzed on the relationship between immigration and terrorism by a lone 5th grader named Beau Bowman. The kid should be commended as this is a subject the media has barely breached. Obama's troubling response, available on video, clearly illustrates that he fails to grasp how directly tied immigration and terrorism truly are. Here's the exchange:

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?"

Obama: "WOW!"

(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?"

Bowman: "Fifth."

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.
Obama claims that there are 20-30,000 terrorists around the globe who want to kill us. This is likely quite a low-ball figure. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) estimates that there are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. If only 10% of that population wants to kill us all, that means there are over 100 million terrorists waiting to kill your family. That's a population equivalent to a 1/3 of the total U.S. population of 300 million.

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.

"My name's Obama, and I am not smarter than a 5th grader."

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

Constitutional Convention on Immigration?

In what may be the start of one of the most significant changes to the U.S. Constitution in decades, some lawmakers in the State of Maryland are asking the State Legislature to officially call for a Constitutional Convention on the issue of states' rights and immigration. It would mark only the second Constitutional Convention in American history; the first ended in 1787. Although there is not much information, the official resolution is available, here: (PDF). Interestingly, just months ago, a state senator in South Carolina also motioned for a Convention on the immigration issue.

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

Los Republicanos, en Espanol

In another sign that unrestricted immigration is destroying the process of assimilation while simultaneously balkanizing the United States, most of the 2008 Republican presidential candidates took part in a debate in Spanish on Univision this evening.

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."

"AdiĆ³s, Estados Unidos!"

Thursday, December 6, 2007

Calderon on U.S. Aid: "Give it to me!"

In the latest unbelievable example of Mexico's overreaching arrogance, Mexican President Felipe Calderon is demanding BILLIONS in U.S. taxpayer money with no strings attached, while stating in the same breath that Americans have "a total lack of understanding and aggravation, hostility toward Mexico."

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.

"This is a stick-up! Give me your money! Give it to me!"