And here we are, six years later... Nothing has changed.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Six Years Later, Wide Open Borders
While watching MSNBC's replay of the 9/11/01 broadcast this morning, I heard something that I hadn't previously heard. The Today Show hosts were interviewing a security official moments after the second WTC tower was struck. They were still trying to figure out what caused the attacks. The official noted that we "live in an open society" and that we are not safe because of the fact that our borders are not secure. He noted that thousands of people cross illegally every year.
And here we are, six years later... Nothing has changed.
And here we are, six years later... Nothing has changed.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Los Democrats, en Espanol
In another sign that unrestricted immigration is destroying the process of assimilation while simultaneously balkanizing the United States, the 2008 Democratic presidential candidates conducted a debate in Spanish on Univision this evening.
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.
This event was "sold out" ... just like the candidates.
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.
This event was "sold out" ... just like the candidates.Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Arellano Returnado?
The arrogance of deported illegal alien felon Elvira Arellano is shocking. If you thought that her deportation to Mexico was the last we would hear from her, you are wrong.
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.
"Your laws mean nothing to me."
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:
Arellano said she would not back down from her request and was angered that Mexico was seeking a U.S. visa, adding that the Mexican government should not have to ask permission to send her north of the border.
"I'm not asking for any visa," she said. "I want a diplomatic post as ambassador of peace and justice, and I won't accept anything less."
Arellano's arrogance is actually a good thing. She is unknowingly blowing open the simmering conflict between the United States and Mexico while forcing the two governments to take a position. The American public will begin to fully understand Mexico's true intentions, namely the erasure of the U.S.-Mexico border. And we will get a better idea of the White House's vision for the future. If Bush allows Mexico to get its way, then it will solidify the American public against the amnesty-open-border cabal. It will make the demand for border security even greater. And the movement against permissive interpretation of the 14th Amendment (which allows for anchor-babies) might be strengthened as well.Keep yapping, Ms. Arellano.
"Your laws mean nothing to me."Sunday, September 2, 2007
Good Fences Make Good Neighbors
Meddling Mexicans are once again trying to eradicate the rule of law in the United States, and this time the loudest statements come from Felipe Calderon, the President of Mexico.
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.
Calderon: "We're sending a million more soon..."
Bush: "Just do it quietly, amigo..."
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.
Calderon: "We're sending a million more soon..."Bush: "Just do it quietly, amigo..."
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Arellano Deportado!
Just days ago Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) finally did its job and deported the convicted felon, social security fraudster, and illegal alien known as Elvira Arellano! Ms. Arellano -- a law-absconder branded an immigrant rights "activist" by the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times -- first came to the United States illegally in 1997. She then returned illegally once again and was working illegally at the Chicago-O'Hare airport when arrested by ICE in 2002. Shortly thereafter, she found a church willing to let her escape authorities and she has been evading the rule of law ever since. Although it was a decade in the making, the open border Tribune called her deportation "lightning-swift." No joke.
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.
"Celebration time, c'mon!"
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.
"Celebration time, c'mon!"Sunday, August 12, 2007
Bush's New Plan for Amnesty
Originally, the Bush White House thought it could use raw power to force an illegal alien amnesty down the taxpayer's throat. But they underestimated the public's opposition to immigration anarchy. They underestimated our willingness to call and fax Capitol Hill 'round the clock.
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."
and...
"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..."
and...
"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..."
and...
"Ultimately - ultimately, Congress will have to pass comprehensive immigration reform. Without reform, we're going to end up with a patchwork of laws nationwide."
and...
"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.
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."
and...
"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..."
and...
"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..."
and...
"Ultimately - ultimately, Congress will have to pass comprehensive immigration reform. Without reform, we're going to end up with a patchwork of laws nationwide."
and...
"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.
"We now believe in security (wink, wink)..."
Monday, August 6, 2007
On the Border: Giuliani = Bush
There is no reason to believe a President Rudy Giuliani would be any different than our current President when it comes to border security. Recall that moments after Bush signed the "border fence bill" -- which mandates about 700 miles of an actual double-wall between the United States and Mexico -- he immediately began talking about "virtual fences" and a "technological" fence. Those in the know fully understand that Bush will never enforce the border bill.
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.
FOLLOW UP:
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.
"I'm not quite what I seem..."
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.
FOLLOW UP:
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.
"I'm not quite what I seem..."Thursday, June 28, 2007
Goodbye Amnesty, Hello Enforcement!
Reminiscent of the Boston Tea Party, the American People today achieved a victory against the elite power structure that is Washington, D.C.!
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?
Stay tuned.
"No amnesty? Aye caramba!"
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?
Stay tuned.
"No amnesty? Aye caramba!"Tuesday, June 26, 2007
White House: "Give us amnesty, or else!"
It should be obvious to most that the White House's push for "comprehensive immigration reform" is driven by Big Business' demand for cheap labor. That's really all the White House wants. If the current amnesty bill were to be amended in a way that it included ONLY border enforcement and employer sanction measures -- two elements of "comprehensive reform" that President Bush claims he supports -- you would hear the White House immediately claim the bill to be a failure.
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.
"Give in to my demands!"
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.
"Give in to my demands!"Saturday, June 23, 2007
Illegal Immigration = Modern Slavery
It is shocking how many parallels one can draw between advocates of illegal immigration and advocates of slavery 150 years ago.
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."
Sound familiar?
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.
"Los Angeles: Sun, sand, and slaves!"
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."
Sound familiar?
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.
"Los Angeles: Sun, sand, and slaves!"Thursday, June 21, 2007
Senator Boxer Halfway There
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) is coming close to understanding how illegal immigration destroys the livelihood of American workers and the Middle Class, generally.
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:
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/back504.html
"I really have no idea what I'm talking about!"
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:
Increasing the Supply of Labor Through Immigration:
Measuring the Impact on Native-born Workers
By Dr. George J. BorjasMeasuring the Impact on Native-born Workers
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/back504.html
"I really have no idea what I'm talking about!"Thursday, June 14, 2007
Senator Feinstein = President Bush
In yet another example of how power and money transcends partisan politics, California Senator Diane Feinstein recently responded to an e-mail I had sent her regarding President Bush's illegal alien amnesty. The fact is, the President could enforce existing immigration laws anytime he wants. He's chosen against enforcing them altogether. Just like his father, I might add.
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.
"I said, it's not an amnesty!"
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.
"I said, it's not an amnesty!"Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Idiot or Liar?
White House spokesman Tony Snow said just moments ago on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews that we need the Bush-Kennedy-McCain amnesty bill because it will give employers a way to verify the legal status of potential employees.
Matthews, a former government employee himself, asked Snow how an employer currently can verify employment eligibility status.
Snow said it was "virtually impossible" for employers to verify legal status due to a growing flood of false documents entering the black market.
But Snow missed a crucial fact that makes him either an Idiot or a Liar:
The DHS Basic Pilot Program, which provides verification of worker eligibility, has been in existence for over over 10 years! Employers simply enter the potential employee's name and social security number into a database. Within a short amount of time, the program lets the employer know whether the name and number match up. If not, then there's a strong likelihood that the id is fake.
There's only one problem: the program is not mandatory.
With one swift stroke of the pen, President Bush could require all businesses to sign up for the program through an executive order. Illegal hirings and false document rings would come to an end. For national security reasons alone this would be a good idea.
So is Snow an idiot, simply not knowing of the program's existence? Or is he a liar, pushing the amnesty bill on behalf of Big Business with the false claim that it is the only way to make sure illegal aliens are not being hired?
For more information on the program, see:
Preventing Illegal Employment:
Federal "Basic Pilot" Program is an
Effective and Business-Friendly Tool
http://www.cis.org/articles/2007/jmvtestimony013107.html
"Look into my lies... I mean, eyes!"
Matthews, a former government employee himself, asked Snow how an employer currently can verify employment eligibility status.
Snow said it was "virtually impossible" for employers to verify legal status due to a growing flood of false documents entering the black market.
But Snow missed a crucial fact that makes him either an Idiot or a Liar:
The DHS Basic Pilot Program, which provides verification of worker eligibility, has been in existence for over over 10 years! Employers simply enter the potential employee's name and social security number into a database. Within a short amount of time, the program lets the employer know whether the name and number match up. If not, then there's a strong likelihood that the id is fake.
There's only one problem: the program is not mandatory.
With one swift stroke of the pen, President Bush could require all businesses to sign up for the program through an executive order. Illegal hirings and false document rings would come to an end. For national security reasons alone this would be a good idea.
So is Snow an idiot, simply not knowing of the program's existence? Or is he a liar, pushing the amnesty bill on behalf of Big Business with the false claim that it is the only way to make sure illegal aliens are not being hired?
For more information on the program, see:
Preventing Illegal Employment:
Federal "Basic Pilot" Program is an
Effective and Business-Friendly Tool
http://www.cis.org/articles/2007/jmvtestimony013107.html
"Look into my lies... I mean, eyes!"Goodbye Middle Class
More evidence that the political parties could care less about the Middle Class and working poor was the firing of RNC fund raisers from the telecommunications department two weeks ago. The fund raisers are paid about $7 an hour and have the task of calling thousands of donors across the country asking for donations to the RNC. These calls are made to donors that give, on average, anywhere from $25 to $150 -- in other words, the fired fund raisers are looking for handouts from the Middle Class, not from corporate interests. Read all about it, here.
But the entire office of 65 people was fired because they just weren't bringing in the dough. We do know that the #1 issue potential donors were complaining about is the immigration, Bush-McCain amnesty. People don't want it to happen. As explained in a previous post, the immigration issue isn't one of "Left v. Right" -- it's an issue that divides people between the Wealthy and the Middle Class. Well, the donors simply stopped giving because they simply are tired of Bush avoiding his job of law enforcement. It's my assessment that the politicos in the RNC came to the conclusion that the constant phone calls from their office were more effective in stirring up emotions than in raising money.
But the RNC still needs money, of course. The result? The RNC is now focusing ALL of its fund raising efforts on the wealthy donors. This is mostly special interests and the business community. In other words, the RNC wants nothing to do with the Middle Class and is tired of hearing the voters complain. They falsely believe that the Republican Party can exist solely on the support of its most wealthy donors.
They underestimate the power of the vote. The Party will lose in 2008 like it did in 2006 as a result of people simply not showing up to vote. The only hope for the RNC is that it begins listening to the People. Under Mel Martinez's leadership, however, this is unlikely to happen.
"Goodbye, Middle Class!"
But the entire office of 65 people was fired because they just weren't bringing in the dough. We do know that the #1 issue potential donors were complaining about is the immigration, Bush-McCain amnesty. People don't want it to happen. As explained in a previous post, the immigration issue isn't one of "Left v. Right" -- it's an issue that divides people between the Wealthy and the Middle Class. Well, the donors simply stopped giving because they simply are tired of Bush avoiding his job of law enforcement. It's my assessment that the politicos in the RNC came to the conclusion that the constant phone calls from their office were more effective in stirring up emotions than in raising money.
But the RNC still needs money, of course. The result? The RNC is now focusing ALL of its fund raising efforts on the wealthy donors. This is mostly special interests and the business community. In other words, the RNC wants nothing to do with the Middle Class and is tired of hearing the voters complain. They falsely believe that the Republican Party can exist solely on the support of its most wealthy donors.
They underestimate the power of the vote. The Party will lose in 2008 like it did in 2006 as a result of people simply not showing up to vote. The only hope for the RNC is that it begins listening to the People. Under Mel Martinez's leadership, however, this is unlikely to happen.
"Goodbye, Middle Class!"
Sunday, January 7, 2007
Illegal Aliens "R" Us
Toys "R" Us, Inc. recently awarded a $25,000 prize to the "winner" of a New Year's Baby contest -- and then they had to withdraw the award when it became clear the the baby was born to a mother and father living in the United States illegally. According to a Toys "R" Us spokeswoman, the contest "eligibility rules required babies' mothers to be legal residents."
But then the pro-illegal alien, anti-sovereignty, open-borders crowd started screaming.
And Toys "R" Us buckled, awarded the $25,000 to the illegal alien family, and basically sent the message that Toys "R" Us sweepstakes rules don't matter in the slightest. Read all about it here, on CNN.com.
Now, we all should play EVERY contest offered by Toys "R" Us and break any sweepstakes rule necessary to assure a win. When we are disqualified, simply threaten a lawsuit. By their own actions, it's clear that rules apparently mean nothing.
It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who understands immigration and demographics that the first child born on 2007 was to an illegal immigrant. This has a huge negative economic impact on taxpayers. For example, in San Diego, a report was quietly released last Spring which shows that over 40% of births requiring Medi-Cal funded deliveries (read: California taxpayer-funded deliveries) were to illegal aliens. This is an 18% increase from just 2001! State-wide, the cost to taxpayers for "free" birthing is over $400 million, annually. Where will we be in 5 more years? If our borders remain wide-open, we should expect huge increases -- Why give birth in Mexico if the American taxpayer is willing to foot the bill? Read a report, here.
Of course, one important part of the story remains unknown: Where the hell is Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)? This news has spread across the country. But is ICE listening? Will they do their job and deport the federal law-breaking Toys "R" Us parents?
Don't hold your breath. They're not "terrorists" but are simply taking jobs from legal immigrants and citizens while lowering wages. That's not something that concerns the feds....
After reading the CNN article, call Toys "R" Us and voice your concern: at 973-617-3500.
But then the pro-illegal alien, anti-sovereignty, open-borders crowd started screaming.
And Toys "R" Us buckled, awarded the $25,000 to the illegal alien family, and basically sent the message that Toys "R" Us sweepstakes rules don't matter in the slightest. Read all about it here, on CNN.com.
Now, we all should play EVERY contest offered by Toys "R" Us and break any sweepstakes rule necessary to assure a win. When we are disqualified, simply threaten a lawsuit. By their own actions, it's clear that rules apparently mean nothing.
It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who understands immigration and demographics that the first child born on 2007 was to an illegal immigrant. This has a huge negative economic impact on taxpayers. For example, in San Diego, a report was quietly released last Spring which shows that over 40% of births requiring Medi-Cal funded deliveries (read: California taxpayer-funded deliveries) were to illegal aliens. This is an 18% increase from just 2001! State-wide, the cost to taxpayers for "free" birthing is over $400 million, annually. Where will we be in 5 more years? If our borders remain wide-open, we should expect huge increases -- Why give birth in Mexico if the American taxpayer is willing to foot the bill? Read a report, here.
Of course, one important part of the story remains unknown: Where the hell is Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)? This news has spread across the country. But is ICE listening? Will they do their job and deport the federal law-breaking Toys "R" Us parents?
Don't hold your breath. They're not "terrorists" but are simply taking jobs from legal immigrants and citizens while lowering wages. That's not something that concerns the feds....
After reading the CNN article, call Toys "R" Us and voice your concern: at 973-617-3500.
"We don't want to grow up!"
Thursday, January 4, 2007
Hasta la vista, Middle Class
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will soon propose that all children in California, including those in the state illegally, be guaranteed medical insurance as part of his "health-care overhaul," reports the Los Angeles Times.
The program would help at least 763,000 children and would cost the State of California (read, taxpayers) at least $400 million a year.
While the cost is steep, this program is a stepping stone to Schwarzenegger's larger plan: providing "free" health care to all people living uninsured in California. According to the Times, this larger plan would cost California taxpayers at least $10 BILLION a year.
The Times notes that "6.5 million Californians" are currently living without insurance. Of course, the Times errs in calling all of these individuals "Californians" -- what the Times does not mention is that there are about 3 million illegal aliens living in California. Perhaps half of the 6.5 million is made up of people who are citizens of a foreign nation.
The result: California taxpayers are paying for the failings of foreign governments that are happy to push their poverty north.
Californians already spend billions a year paying for illegal aliens in the form of public education, emergency medical treatment, prisons, etc. The economic and social impact of illegal immigration is narrow, however. California's poor don't pay taxes while the State's limousine liberals live in gated communities, send their children to private schools, and have financial advisers who shield their millions from the California Treasury.
It's middle class Californians who hand huge portions of their paychecks to the bureaucrats in Sacramento who seem bent on welcoming more and more foreign poverty in to the State. But this will not last indefinitely. The middle class is leaving California in droves to escape the onslaught of illegal immigration and ever-escalating tax rates. If things continue along the same path, we will see a return to the feudal state in California.
Only the wealthy will be able to afford to remain in California and the middle class will be completely replaced with a permanent, poverty-level class. It's a great setup for society's elites which is why our political leadership isn't trying to close our open borders. This is the new feudal society and it's coming to a state near you.
"Middle class... You're Terminated."
The program would help at least 763,000 children and would cost the State of California (read, taxpayers) at least $400 million a year.
While the cost is steep, this program is a stepping stone to Schwarzenegger's larger plan: providing "free" health care to all people living uninsured in California. According to the Times, this larger plan would cost California taxpayers at least $10 BILLION a year.
The Times notes that "6.5 million Californians" are currently living without insurance. Of course, the Times errs in calling all of these individuals "Californians" -- what the Times does not mention is that there are about 3 million illegal aliens living in California. Perhaps half of the 6.5 million is made up of people who are citizens of a foreign nation.
The result: California taxpayers are paying for the failings of foreign governments that are happy to push their poverty north.
Californians already spend billions a year paying for illegal aliens in the form of public education, emergency medical treatment, prisons, etc. The economic and social impact of illegal immigration is narrow, however. California's poor don't pay taxes while the State's limousine liberals live in gated communities, send their children to private schools, and have financial advisers who shield their millions from the California Treasury.
It's middle class Californians who hand huge portions of their paychecks to the bureaucrats in Sacramento who seem bent on welcoming more and more foreign poverty in to the State. But this will not last indefinitely. The middle class is leaving California in droves to escape the onslaught of illegal immigration and ever-escalating tax rates. If things continue along the same path, we will see a return to the feudal state in California.
Only the wealthy will be able to afford to remain in California and the middle class will be completely replaced with a permanent, poverty-level class. It's a great setup for society's elites which is why our political leadership isn't trying to close our open borders. This is the new feudal society and it's coming to a state near you.
"Middle class... You're Terminated."Wednesday, January 3, 2007
Mr. President, Don't Defund That Wall!
The New Year brings us a "bipartisan" effort of tearing down the will of the American Public. Too many talking heads on CNN and FoxNews were tricked into believing that President Bush's signature on the "Border Fence Bill" indicated that the President would actually secure the U.S. southern border once and for all. Those who follow the immigration debate closely knew that President Bush signed it begrudgingly with no actual intent to impede the flow of cheap labor into the country. He signed it because he knew a veto would make his open-border policy all too clear.
But just because he signed it doesn't mean he has to enforce it.
And like so many non-enforced immigration laws, the President is working with the Democratic leadership to make sure that the "Border Fence Bill" stays on paper.
Recent news hints at the all too real effort to "defund" the Border Fence Bill:
"But lately, there's been talk of a bipartisan coalition in Congress that could approve an immigration bill that gives illegal immigrants a path to legal residency and perhaps even defund 700 miles of border fencing approved in the last session." -- Ruben Navarrette Jr. (here, on CNN).
AND...
"A group of Republican and Democrat lawmakers, including Senators John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said last week that they were drafting new legislation that could possibly deny funding to the border fence, as well as provide for an easier path to citizenship than the original Senate bill..." (here, at the Miami Herald, 1/1/07).
One would think that a President would demand Congress provide funding for a bill he just signed into law. But that assumption rests on a belief that a President actually wants the bill to become a reality. However, President Bush is happy to see this bipartisan effort at erasing our national sovereignty. There's every reason to believe that the President is behind this effort.
Unfortunately, on the issue of illegal immigration and border security, the leadership in both parties is identical. It is clear that elites want more cheap labor (and bigger profits) and political ideology need not get in the way. It's also clear that the American Public is united in a desire to end illegal immigration. Unfortunately, this perspective divide will continue until we elect a statesman or stateswoman to the White House. Pandering, open-border politicians must become a thing of the past if we are ever to secure our sovereignty.
FOLLOW UP: As of December 2007, the Democrat Congress (with Bush's support, no doubt) is working to completely eliminate the "Secure Fence Act of 2006." Hoping that you won't notice, Congress is trying to swap an inferior single fence for the double fence mandated in the Act. Read all about it in the most recent post, available here.
"On open borders, we agree!"
But just because he signed it doesn't mean he has to enforce it.
And like so many non-enforced immigration laws, the President is working with the Democratic leadership to make sure that the "Border Fence Bill" stays on paper.
Recent news hints at the all too real effort to "defund" the Border Fence Bill:
"But lately, there's been talk of a bipartisan coalition in Congress that could approve an immigration bill that gives illegal immigrants a path to legal residency and perhaps even defund 700 miles of border fencing approved in the last session." -- Ruben Navarrette Jr. (here, on CNN).
AND...
"A group of Republican and Democrat lawmakers, including Senators John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said last week that they were drafting new legislation that could possibly deny funding to the border fence, as well as provide for an easier path to citizenship than the original Senate bill..." (here, at the Miami Herald, 1/1/07).
One would think that a President would demand Congress provide funding for a bill he just signed into law. But that assumption rests on a belief that a President actually wants the bill to become a reality. However, President Bush is happy to see this bipartisan effort at erasing our national sovereignty. There's every reason to believe that the President is behind this effort.
Unfortunately, on the issue of illegal immigration and border security, the leadership in both parties is identical. It is clear that elites want more cheap labor (and bigger profits) and political ideology need not get in the way. It's also clear that the American Public is united in a desire to end illegal immigration. Unfortunately, this perspective divide will continue until we elect a statesman or stateswoman to the White House. Pandering, open-border politicians must become a thing of the past if we are ever to secure our sovereignty.
FOLLOW UP: As of December 2007, the Democrat Congress (with Bush's support, no doubt) is working to completely eliminate the "Secure Fence Act of 2006." Hoping that you won't notice, Congress is trying to swap an inferior single fence for the double fence mandated in the Act. Read all about it in the most recent post, available here.
"On open borders, we agree!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
