Thought For The Day
*
Irony at its best: 290 people get the Swine Flu and everybody wants to wear a mask. Ten million people irrefutably have AIDS and no one wants to wear a condom.
Muslim immigration and sclerotic welfare states push Europe right (sort of).
Spring 2009
When the New Left emerged in the 1960s, something else was born that would mark American elites for decades thereafter: the notion that social-democratic Western Europe was far superior to the capitalist United States. Pity the poor American professor whose every junket to a European academic conference was marred by his continental colleagues’ sneering over cocktails about his nation’s shame du jour—Vietnam, Watergate, Iraq—or about American racism, capital punishment, or health care. For much of the American Left, Western Europe was nothing less than an abstract symbol of progressive utopia.
Europe’s socialized health care was blighted by outrageous (and sometimes deadly) waiting lists and rationing, to name just one example. To name another: Timbro, a Swedish think tank, found in 2004 that Sweden was poorer than all but five U.S. states and Denmark poorer than all but nine. But in recent years, something has happened to complicate the Left’s fanciful picture even further: Western European voters’ widespread reaction against social democracy.
The shift has two principal, and related, causes. The more significant one is that over the last three decades, social-democratic Europe’s political, cultural, academic, and media elites have presided over, and vigorously defended, a vast wave of immigration from the Muslim world—the largest such influx in human history. According to Foreign Affairs, Muslims in Western Europe numbered between 15 and 20 million in 2005. One source estimates that Britain’s Muslim population rose from about 82,000 in 1961 to 553,000 in 1981 to 2 million in 2000—a demographic change roughly representative of Western Europe as a whole during that period. According to the London Times, the number of Muslims in the U.K. climbed by half a million between 2004 and 2008 alone—a rate of growth ten times that of the rest of that country’s population.
Yet instead of encouraging these immigrants to integrate and become part of their new societies, Western Europe’s governments have allowed them to form self-segregating parallel societies run more or less according to sharia. Many of the residents of these patriarchal enclaves subsist on government benefits, speak the language of their adopted country poorly or not at all, despise pluralistic democracy, look forward to Europe’s incorporation into the House of Islam, and support—at least in spirit—terrorism against the West. A 2006 Sunday Telegraph poll, for example, showed that 40 percent of British Muslims wanted sharia in Britain, 14 percent approved of attacks on Danish embassies in retribution for the famous Mohammed cartoons, 13 percent supported violence against those who insulted Islam, and 20 percent sympathized with the July 2005 London bombers.
Too often, such attitudes find their way into practice. Ubiquitous youth gangs, contemptuous of infidels, have made European cities increasingly dangerous for non-Muslims—especially women, Jews, and gays. In 2001, 65 percent of rapes in Norway were committed by what the country’s police call “non-Western” men—a category consisting overwhelmingly of Muslims, who make up just 2 percent of that country’s population. In 2005, 82 percent of crimes in Copenhagen were committed by members of immigrant groups, the majority of them Muslims.
Non-Muslims aren’t the only targets of Muslim violence. A mountain of evidence suggests that the rates of domestic abuse in these enclaves are astronomical. In Germany, reports Der Spiegel, “a disproportionately high percentage of women who flee to women’s shelters are Muslim”; in 2006, 56 percent of the women at Norwegian shelters were of foreign origin; Deborah Scroggins wrote in The Nation in 2005 that “Muslims make up only 5.5 percent of the Dutch population, but they account for more than half the women in battered women’s shelters.” Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-Dutch advocate for democracy and women’s rights, would no doubt say far more than half: when she was working with women in Dutch shelters, she writes, “there were hardly any white women” in them, “only women from Morocco, from Turkey, from Afghanistan—Muslim countries—alongside some Hindu women from Surinam.” When she and filmmaker Theo van Gogh tried to highlight the mistreatment of women under Islam in the 2004 film Submission: Part I, he was killed by a young Muslim extremist.
More and more Western Europeans, recognizing the threat to their safety and way of life, have turned their backs on the establishment, which has done little or nothing to address these problems, and begun voting for parties—some relatively new, and all considered right-wing—that have dared to speak up about them. One measure of the dimensions of this shift: owing to the rise in gay-bashings by Muslim youths, Dutch gays—who ten years ago constituted a reliable left-wing voting bloc—now support conservative parties by a nearly two-to-one margin.
The other major reason for the turn against the Left is economic. Western Europeans have long paid sky-high taxes for a social safety net that seems increasingly not worth the price. These taxes have slowed economic growth. Timbro’s Johnny Munkhammar noted in 2005 that Sweden, for instance, which in the first half of the twentieth century had the world’s second-highest growth rate, had since fallen to number 14, owing to enormous tax hikes.
Government revenues in Western Europe go largely to support the unemployed, thus discouraging work. Over the last decade or so, the overall unemployment rate in the EU 15—that is, Western Europe—has hovered at about 2.5 to 3 points higher than in the United States. In France and Germany, it has ascended into the double digits (and that was before the global financial crisis that began in 2008). Western Europe’s rate of long-term unemployment has consistently been several times higher than America’s, denoting the presence of a sizable minority either permanently jobless or working off the books, often for family businesses, while collecting unemployment benefits.
These two factors—immigration and the economy—are intimately connected. For while some immigrant groups in Europe, such as Hindus and East Asians, enjoy relatively low unemployment rates and healthy incomes, the largest immigrant group, Muslims, has become such a burden that governments have made extensive cutbacks in public services in order to keep up with welfare payments—closing clinics and emergency rooms, reducing staff in hospitals, cutting police and military spending, eliminating course offerings at public universities, and so on. According to a report issued last year by the think tank Contribuables Associés, immigration reduces France’s economic growth by two-thirds. In 2002, economist Lars Jansson estimated that immigration cost Swedish taxpayers about $27 billion annually and that fully 74 percent of immigrant-group members in Sweden lived off the taxpayers. And in 2006, the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise warned that Norway’s petroleum fund—which contains the massive profits from North Sea oil that have made the nation rich—could wind up drained to cover outlays to immigrants. (This in a country whose roads, as a report last year indicated, are in worse shape than Albania’s.)
The last few decades in Europe have made three things crystal-clear. First, social-democratic welfare systems work best, to the extent they do work, in ethnically and culturally homogeneous (and preferably small) nations whose citizens, viewing one another as members of an extended family, are loath to exploit government provisions for the needy. Second, the best way to destroy such welfare systems is to take in large numbers of immigrants from poor, oppressive, and corruption-ridden societies, whose rule of the road is to grab everything you can get your hands on. And third, the system will be wiped out even faster if many of those immigrants are fundamentalist Muslims who view bankrupting the West as a contribution to jihad. (emphasis added) Add to all this the growing power of an unelected European Union bureaucracy that has encouraged Muslim immigration and taken steps to punish criticism of it—criminalizing “incitement of racism, xenophobia, or hatred against a racial, ethnic, or religious group” in 2007, for example—and you can start to understand why Western Europeans who prize their freedoms are resisting the so-called leadership of their see-no-evil elites.
The November 2001 general election in Denmark is the most decisive—and successful—rejection so far of a Western European left-wing establishment. Alarmed by a widely publicized study showing that their country would have a Muslim majority within 60 years if immigration rates didn’t change, Danish voters sent the Social Democrats down to defeat for the first time since 1924. The new Liberal-Conservative governing coalition, which voters returned to power in 2005, has introduced the continent’s most sweeping immigration and integration reforms, including rules designed to thwart the near-universal practice in Europe’s Muslim communities of marrying one’s children off to cousins abroad so that they, too, may immigrate to the West. As a result, the flow of new Muslim arrivals has decreased significantly, allowing the government to focus resources on the immense challenge of trying to integrate Muslims already living in Denmark. Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen also defended free speech strongly during the 2006 Mohammed cartoon crisis, standing firm while Muslims around the world raged against Denmark and Western leaders begged him to back down.
The rightward shifts in Europe most widely reported in the U.S. have been those in Germany, where Angela Merkel became chancellor in 2005, and in France, where Nicolas Sarkozy took over the presidency in 2007. Those developments, as well as the third term that Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi won in 2008, were grounded largely in public recognition of the need for economic liberalization. By French standards, Sarkozy’s campaign rhetoric was nothing less than stunning: arguing that “the revolution of 1968”—a sacred event for the left-wing French establishment—had not liberated France but “brought us into moral decline,” Sarkozy insisted that if the French wanted growth, they needed to spend less time in cafés and more on the job.
In brave little Denmark’s backyard, two more countries have moved to the right. In Norway, the Progress Party—which the political and media establishment has smeared for a generation as racist and fiscally unserious—now rivals the Labor Party, architect of the country’s welfare state, thanks to voter concerns about immigration and public services. Though the financial crisis had caused support for the Progress Party to slip a bit, recent Muslim riots and debates about hijab have sent poll numbers skyward again, and the party seems a good bet to come out on top in next September’s parliamentary elections—though it will be in trouble if, as appears likely, other right-of-center parties refuse to join a Progress Party–led coalition. And in Sweden, perhaps the ultimate symbol of social democracy, voters motivated largely by concerns over unemployment and other economic issues unseated the long-powerful Social Democratic Party in 2006. In its place they installed a center-right coalition led by Fredrik Reinfeldt’s Moderates, who promised to help businesses and lower taxes.
But demonstrating a distinctively European species of schizophrenia, many on both the right and the left, while acknowledging the need for welfare-state reorganization, have ultimately resisted it—as if the philosophical leap required were simply too great. In Western Europe, after all, even the mainstream Right tends to be statist. “The concept of the cradle-to-grave welfare state is so deeply embedded in the Danish psyche that even the conservatives don’t dare touch it,” noted NPR correspondent Sylvia Poggioli in 2006. Ivo H. Daalder made the same point in a 2007 Brookings Institution report, writing that “when one talks about the right in Europe, you are talking about a very state interventionist political class that still believes that the government has a fundamental role in guiding how the economy is supposed to be run.”
It’s no surprise, then, that Europe’s new leaders have made relatively modest economic changes. True, Sarkozy has raised state employees’ retirement age (precipitating a transport strike) and ended France’s 35-hour workweek. But from the start, Social Democrats in Germany, whom Merkel’s slim margin of victory forced her to accept as coalition partners, have limited her ability to implement serious economic reforms. In April 2008, Judy Dempsey noted in the International Herald Tribune not only that the coalition had “run its course” but that Merkel herself had been “forced to move leftward,” hiking pensions and “rolling back radical labor reforms, ironically introduced by her Social Democratic predecessor, Gerhard Schröder, which were designed to bring older people back to work by reducing social welfare payments.” And with the onset of the economic crisis, notes German author Henryk Broder, “there is even an ongoing discussion about Enteignung [expropriation] and Verstaatlichung [nationalization], which was unthinkable a year ago.”
As for Sweden, shortly after the 2006 victory, BusinessWeek writers Stanley Reed and Ariane Sains paraphrased Reinfeldt as saying that his “idea isn’t to dismantle the cherished Swedish welfare state. . . . That would be too controversial.” Reinfeldt’s one major innovation has been a “partially successful” effort “to force people off the welfare rolls and into the labor market,” University of Lund social thinker Jonathan Friedman tells me. Reinfeldt’s economic plan has also involved increased privatization, somewhat lower taxes, and encouragement of entrepreneurship—all policies, as Friedman notes, “that were started by the previous government.”
Meanwhile, with the notable exception of Denmark, the new nonsocialist governments have left their predecessors’ disastrous immigration and integration policies almost entirely intact. Sarkozy’s defiant campaign rhetoric about Muslim rioters in the suburbs raised hopes for major change. But though he announced last July that illegal immigration would be a major focus during France’s EU presidency, he has done little even about legal immigration, most of which, in Western Europe, involves the importation of new spouses in arranged, usually forced, marriages. Sarkozy seems to believe that job creation and other economic measures will resolve France’s colossal integration challenges.
Merkel, meanwhile, shone briefly when she insisted that the Deutsche Oper proceed with a 2006 production of Mozart’s Idomeneo that Muslim leaders condemned as offensive. But the heavily hyped “national integration plan” that she introduced the following year rested on such half-measures as an increase in the number of government-sponsored German classes, an effort to encourage immigrants to play sports, and (incredibly) a program that addressed wife-beating—permitted by the Koran and extremely common in Muslim communities—by offering advice on the Internet. Merkel actually described these pathetic gestures as a “milestone”; Broder, more accurately, calls them “make-believe action,” another way to avoid conflicts in her coalition.
In Sweden, says Friedman, Reinfeldt has pursued “a variant of politics as usual” on immigration and integration. Lars Hedegaard, president of the International Free Press Society, insists that Swedish efforts to encourage employment “will undoubtedly prove ineffective over the long haul” because “the fundamental problem is demographics. Sweden remains Europe’s main importer of Muslim immigrants who are unwilling to assimilate and whose imams order them to detest Swedish culture. So long as the current government is unwilling to tackle this basic problem, everything else will be for naught.”
Sarkozy has undertaken one high-profile initiative, which seems disastrously ill-conceived in a uniquely Gallic way: developing closer, more formal ties between France and the Arab countries from which it receives most of its immigrants. At one point, he even spoke of a “Mediterranean Union.” Haaretz writer Michalis Firillas summed up Sarkozy’s plan tidily in January 2008: “For some, his Mediterranean Union is a containment policy. For others it is neocolonial. But there is also a sense that Sarkozy is betting on French grandeur, that aura of greatness, to bridge the disparate Mediterranean with a new and serious political body. Unfortunately, he may find that there are others with similar visions of grandeur, from Ankara to Cairo, from Jerusalem to Tangiers, who have their own Mediterranean visions.” Indeed, Sarkozy’s scheme appears to be a continuation of his left-wing predecessors’ efforts to bring the Arab world under French influence—efforts that ended up subsidizing the colonization of French suburbs by Arabs who now consider them part of the House of Islam.
Not only has Europe’s move to the right not always had concrete results; it also hasn’t been an across-the-board phenomenon. In Britain, the Tories seem poised to resume power after Labour’s long, slow decline. Yet the ideological gap between the parties has narrowed so much in recent years, and the leadership vacuum is so pronounced, that it’s difficult to imagine a Tory takeover’s having an impact remotely comparable with that of Margaret Thatcher’s 1979 election. On the contrary, conservative columnist Peter Hitchens recently charged that nowadays “you cannot become the government unless you bow to the views of the ‘Centre-Left’ media elite, especially the broadcast media elite.” That elite, alas—as vividly demonstrated last year by the archbishop of Canterbury’s speech contemplating the legitimacy of sharia in parts of Britain—is bent on appeasing fundamentalist Islam.
And Spain, in a move widely seen as capitulating to Islamists, responded to the March 2004 terrorist attacks in Madrid by voting for José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero’s Socialist Party, which had vowed to withdraw troops from Iraq immediately. Zapatero narrowly won reelection last year. As libertarian columnist Antonio Golmar explains, the centrist consensus established after King Juan Carlos’s introduction of democracy in the seventies has been shattered by Zapatero’s hard-left initiatives. These include the Historical Memory Law—which portrays leftist mass murderers during the Spanish civil war as heroic freedom fighters, while stigmatizing many of their innocent victims as fascists—and the introduction in all schools of “citizenship” classes that teach scorn for capitalism and representative democracy.
In response, some Spaniards have lurched rightward toward the national-Catholic, proto-fascist ideology of Franco’s time and become increasingly vocal within the conservative Partido Popular. Consequently, says Golmar, “moderates in Spain are trapped between a far-left administration and their cronies and the revival of the extreme right disguised in conservative and even libertarian clothing.” While America struggles to move beyond the antagonisms of the 1960s, then, Spain has entered an ideological battlefield reminiscent of the years preceding its civil war of the late thirties. There seems little room for those who loathe both the neo-Marxists and the neoreactionaries.
The situation in Spain is a reminder that not all “right turns” are created equal. If the Danes have affirmed individual liberty, human rights, sexual equality, the rule of law, and freedom of speech and religion, some Western Europeans have reacted to the mindless multiculturalism of their socialist leaders by embracing alternatives that seem uncomfortably close to fascism. Consider Austria’s recently deceased Jörg Haider, who belittled the Holocaust, honored Waffen-SS veterans, and found things to praise about Nazism. In 2000, his Freedom Party became part of a coalition government, leading the rest of the EU to isolate Austria diplomatically for a time, and last September, his new party, the Alliance for the Future of Austria, won 11 percent of the vote in parliamentary elections. Or take Jean-Marie Le Pen, who has called the Holocaust “a detail in the history of World War II” and advocated the forced quarantining of people who test HIV-positive—and whose far-right National Front came out on top in the first round of voting for the French presidency in 2002. The British National Party (BNP), which has a whites-only membership policy and has flatly denied the Holocaust, won more than 5 percent of the vote in London’s last mayoral election. Then there’s Vlaams Belang (Flemish Interest), formerly Vlaams Bloc, whose leaders have a regrettable tendency to be caught on film singing Nazi songs and buying Nazi books. In 2007, it won five out of 40 seats in the Belgian Senate.
For establishment politicians, journalists, and academics, these parties serve an exceedingly useful purpose: their existence makes it easy to tar any nonsocialist party with the fascist brush—labeling it racist and xenophobic, equating its leaders with the likes of Le Pen and Haider, and stigmatizing its supporters. No party in Europe has been subjected to more unfair attacks than Norway’s Progress Party, whose extraordinary electoral successes have outraged that country’s socialist elite. Like other parties on what we may call Europe’s respectable right, the Progress Party has expressly distanced itself from parties like the National Front and Vlaams Belang. Yet despite these disavowals, American media have routinely echoed the leftist establishment’s unjust calumnies.
A seminal example was a March 2002 New York Times article by Marlise Simons about Pim Fortuyn, the Dutch politician who, according to the article’s headline, was proudly gay, and marching the dutch to the right. Though Simons acknowledged that Fortuyn criticized Islam because it offered “no equality for men and women and because . . . the imams here preach in offensive terms about gays,” she nonetheless echoed the Dutch establishment’s characterization of him as a menace to Dutch values, making sure to mention that he had been widely compared with Mussolini and Haider. A few weeks later, Fortuyn was murdered by an environmental fanatic taken in by similar claptrap.
The same kind of incendiary rhetoric that Dutch journalists used against Fortuyn can now be seen in American left-wing coverage of any nonsocialist European party or politician. Typical was Gary Younge’s 2007 piece in The Nation: in europe, it’s the old right that’s full of hate. According to Younge, “the primary threat to democracy in Europe is not ‘Islamofascism’ . . . but plain old fascism. The kind whereby mostly white Europeans take to the streets to terrorize minorities.” This was nonsense on a breathtaking scale: though the rise of parties like the BNP is indeed distressing, the truth remains that for every act of anti-Muslim violence in Europe, there are—to make an exceedingly conservative guess—100 acts of Muslim-on-infidel violence.
Who will win the war for the soul of Western Europe? The Islamofascists and their multiculturalist appeasers, many of whom seem to believe that their job is not to defend democracy but to help make the transition to sharia as smooth as possible? The nativist cryptofascists? Or Pim Fortuyn’s freedom-loving heirs? Interestingly, while Western Europeans have been heading in one direction, Americans have chosen to go the other way, replacing a president more loathed by the European elite than any in history with a man whom the same elite has celebrated to an unprecedented degree, often depicting his election as a mystical act of atonement for all of America’s past sins, real or imagined.
The final question, then, is whether the Western European Left’s condescension toward America, and the American Left’s habit of holding Western Europe up as a socialist paradise, can survive the combination of Europe’s right turn and the elevation of Barack Obama. Stir in the international financial crisis, which will almost certainly cause a socioeconomic upheaval of untold dimensions in both hemispheres, and it seems reasonable to expect that the old pattern may be broken for good. Meaning that American professors will have a far less stressful time of it at European cocktail parties—at least until sharia comes along and forbids cocktails entirely.
by Bruce Bawer
Bruce Bawer is the author of the upcoming Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom
He blogs at brucebawer.com.
The continuing folly of our government's "regulatory" agencies (who seem not to be able to regulate their way out of a paper bag) underscores what I've already told you about this whole salmonella fiasco.
According to the latest news, the FDA seems to have FINALLY tracked the source of the recent outbreak of salmonella. And guess what? The source was traced to irrigation water and a Serrano pepper from a farm in (where else?) Mexico. This "key breakthrough" finally brings to an end the massive hunt for ground zero in the recent spread of Salmonella Saintpaul that first started back in April.
This time, it's not U.S. producers that are at fault, but the questionable sanitary practices of farmers from the Third World that are the root cause of the latest outbreak of nastiness here in the U.S. Would someone please tell me when our government is going to wise up to the fact that Mexico is NOT Canada South? This place is rife with the kind of health and food problems that routinely plague other impoverished Third World nations. Mexico's proximity to the U.S. doesn't mean that what happens there is any different than what happens in the poorest countries in Africa or Asia.
In light of this recent outbreak, a moratorium of six months to a year on ALL Mexican produce wouldn't be out of line. But thanks to disasters like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), that's never going to happen.
Naturally, Mexican officials are backpedaling, and have called the FDA's findings "premature." Enrique Sanchez, service director of Mexico's National Sanitation and Farm Food Quality, even sent a letter to the U.S. government "expressing our concern and most forceful complaint against this decision."
The unmitigated gall of the Mexican government never ceases to amaze me. It reminds me of when their president yelled at our president because we had the "nerve" to send the illegal immigrants from Mexico BACK to Mexico!
Sanchez said the FDA "has no scientific proof to make a decision that will harm Mexico enormously." Sanchez and the rest of the so-called Mexican government just don't get it: the FDA doesn't NEED to have any proof, scientific or otherwise, to issue a statement to protect the health of American citizens. Quite frankly, I don't care a whit for what kind of harm is done to Mexico! I'd rather see a dozen Mexican farms suffer than to have one American citizen be sickened by tainted Mexican produce.
Don't forget that when this outbreak first started, it was American tomato farmers who felt the brunt of FDA warnings - even though their product was not, ultimately, found to be at fault for the outbreak. If the U.S. government has the power to make its own farmers endure a crop ban, how can the Mexican government believe that their farms are somehow immune from this treatment?
The problem is that the Mexican government doesn't really take U.S. national sovereignty seriously. They figure that the U.S. and Mexico are essentially the same country, and that Mexican labor and goods should be able to flow freely over the border (in a northerly direction only, of course) with complete impunity. And Sanchez's outrageous assumption that the U.S. government needs to take into account what effect FDA safety measures will have on Mexico's economy just underscores this point.
Let's also remember that since the Salmonella Saintpaul outbreak was detected, upwards of 1,200 people have been infected with the virus, across 43 states, Washington, D.C., and Canada. As many as 242 have been hospitalized as a result of the infection. According to the CDC, there are usually only about 25 reported cases of this strain of salmonella per year.
Hopefully now that the source of this outbreak has been found, it will put the brakes on this latest scourge from Mexico. This incident is yet another object lesson in the dangers of allowing elements of the Third World to creep into the U.S. and endanger the health and welfare of our people. We should be shutting our southern border not only to people, but to fruits and vegetables, too.
Never picking a peck of Mexican peppers,
William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.
www.douglassreport.com
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
Recently, CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric reported on the staggering costs of health care for illegal immigrants, the bill for which, of course, is entirely footed by the American taxpayer. Now, Mexican groups like La Raza are up in arms over the report, which they claim promoted "anti-Latino falsehoods" and "demonized" illegal aliens.
Well, I've got news for our cousins from south of the border. Anyone that's here in the U.S. illegally deserves demonizing and immediate exportation (not necessarily in that order). And I'm not going to play the political correctness game and dance around the issue.
In the report, CBS reporter Byron Pitts talked with a pregnant Mexican woman who underwent an emergency C-section at a south Texas hospital. This woman did not pay anything for the $4,700 procedure because she qualifies for emergency Medicaid. The report also pointed out a study estimating that Americans are forced to pay - are you ready for this? - $1.1 billion per year for illegal immigrants' health care.
Of course, the illegal immigrant groups like La Raza and others had no facts to counter what they called the "anti-Latino falsehoods" in the CBS report. I guess we have to assume that it's just not fair to point out the negatives about the growing illegal population in our country.
Here's the most outrageous part: I looked into the Rand Corporation (a non-profit global policy think tank) study that the CBS report was based on, and La Raza is right - the CBS report was inaccurate. In fact, the report UNDER ESTIMATED the size of the financial kick-in-the-teeth that the American taxpayer is getting from illegal Mexican immigrants.
According to the statistics that appeared on-screen during the CBS report, the $1.1 billion per year was what taxpayers were paying for "all undocumented men, women, and children." However, the Rand study said the $1.1 billion tally was the healthcare costs ONLY for "non-elderly participants - those between 18 and 64."
So the TRUE cost of illegal immigrant healthcare in this country is likely SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER than the $1.1 billion claimed in the report. Take, for example, the child born during that emergency C-section mentioned in the CBS report. He or she will have 17 years of healthcare (not to mention the cost of postnatal care at the south Texas hospital where she was born) that won't be factored into Rand's figures.
Bob Knight, director of the Culture and Media Institute, called the CBS report a breath of fresh air, considering that most media coverage is largely biased heavily in favor of illegal immigrants.
"The mainstream media has pretended that there is no cost or downside to the millions of people coming over the border illegally," Knight said. "So these groups are trying to intimidate Couric and her colleagues at the major networks."
Knight rightly points out that America's left-leaning media essentially approves of the massive influx of illegal aliens as a way to increase the Democratic voter base. According to Knight, liberals think that once illegal aliens are enrolled in liberal welfare programs and government subsidies, they will eventually become what he calls "a new generation of Democratic voters."
Which is true enough. But I think it's wrong. Because if these brazen illegals have proven one thing, it's that they care little for American citizenship. All they want is American rights and jobs. I'm sure they'd happily accept the right to vote too, but they won't bother to attain citizenship to get it. They believe they're entitled to it. And liberals are not bothering to disabuse these criminals (yes, CRIMINALS - that's what they are) of the notion that they're not deserving of these privileges. After all, California came close to giving ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS LEGAL DRIVERS LICENSES. I wish I could believe that this won't happen. But some day, I'm sure it will.
Quite frankly, groups like La Raza make me ill. These people routinely have the gall to march through the streets of American cities carrying MEXICAN FLAGS while they are demanding the rights and privileges that are afforded only to AMERICAN CITIZENS. What's more, when protesting the CBS News report, a group similar to La Raza called the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) threatened the network by saying, "If CBS is playing to immigration hawks to boost its sagging ratings, the network risks being tuned out by the expanding Latino community. Advertisers know that by 2011, Hispanic buying power will total $1.2 trillion, almost 10 percent of all U.S. purchasing power."
So, ignore the facts or else? Charming. Isn't it nice that people like this have graced our nation with their presence? We can only hope that someone in our government will seal the borders before it's too late.
One mad Americano,
William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
Tucson Unified History Teacher Speaks Out on La Raza "Curriculum"
As a former teacher in Tucson Unified School District's hotly debated ethnic studies department, I submit my perspective for the public's consideration.
During the 2002-2003 school year, I taught a U.S. history course with a Mexican-American perspective. The course was part of the Raza/Chicano studies department. Within one week of the course beginning, I was told that I was a "teacher of record," meaning that I was expected only to assign grades. The Raza studies department staff would teach the class. I was assigned to be a "teacher of record" because some members of the Raza studies staff lacked teaching certificates. It was a convenient way of circumventing the rules.
I stated that I expected to do more than assign grades. I expected to be involved in teaching the class. The department was less than enthusiastic but agreed.
Immediately it was clear that the class was not a U.S. history course, which the state of Arizona requires for graduation. The class was similar to a sociology course one expects to see at a university. Where history was missing from the course, it was filled by controversial and biased curriculum.
The basic theme of the curriculum was that Mexican-Americans were and continue to be victims of a racist American society driven by the interests of middle and upper-class whites. In this narrative, whites are able to maintain their influence only if minorities are held down. Thus, social, political and economic events in America must be understood through this lens.
This biased and sole paradigm justified teaching that our community police officers are an extension of the white power structure and that they are the strongmen used "to keep minorities in their ghettos." It justified telling the class that there are fewer Mexican-Americans in Tucson Magnet High School's advanced placement courses because their "white teachers" do not believe they are capable and do not want them to get ahead. It justified teaching that the Southwestern United States was taken from Mexicans because of the insatiable greed of the Yankee who acquired his values from the corrupted ethos of Western civilization. It was taught that the Southwest is "Atzlan," the ancient homeland of the Aztecs, and still rightfully belongs to their descendants - to all people of indigenous Mexican heritage.
As an educator, I refused to be complicit in a curriculum that engendered racial hostility, irresponsibly demeaned America's civil institutions, undermined our public servants, discounted any virtues in Western civilization and taught disdain for American sovereignty. When I raised these concerns, I was told that I was a "racist," despite being Hispanic. Acknowledging my heritage, the Raza studies staff also informed me that I was a vendido, the Spanish term for "sellout."
The culmination of my challenge to the department's curriculum was my removal from that particular class. The Raza studies department and its district-level allies pressured the Tucson High administration to silence my concerns through reassignment to another class during that one period. The Raza studies department used the "racist" card, which is probably the most worn-out and desperate maneuver used to silence competing perspectives. It is fundamentally anti-intellectual because it immediately stops debate by threatening to destroy the reputation of those who would provide counter arguments. Unfortunately, I am not the only one to have been intimidated by the Raza studies department in this way.
The diplomatic and flattering language that the department and its proponents use to describe the Raza studies program is an attempt to avoid public scrutiny. When necessary, the department invokes terms such as "witch hunt" and "McCarthyism" to diminish the validity of whatever public scrutiny it does get. The proponents of this program may conceal its reality to the public. But as a former teacher in the program, I am witness to its ugly underbelly.
Arizona taxpayers should ask themselves whether they should pay for the messages engendered in these classrooms with their hard-earned tax dollars.
The Raza studies department has powerful allies in TUSD, on its governing board and in the U.S. House of Representatives and thus operates with much impunity.
Occasionally there are minor irritations from the state superintendent of public instruction and the Legislature.
Ultimately, Arizona taxpayers own TUSD and have the right to change it. The change will have to come from replacing the board if its members refuse to make the Raza studies department respect the public trust.
John A. Ward is a former teacher at Tucson High Magnet School.
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/opinion/85853.php
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
If you ask me, there's no greater threat to the country's well being than the virus of illegal immigration. (emphasis added)
You've read my rants on this topic before. But I heard something on the radio the other day that really set me off. It was a story on NPR. Apparently, last year, the US Customs and Immigration Service (USCIS) deported 20,000 illegal immigrants from El Salvador, compared to just 3,400 in 2004. If you ask me, that fact alone is cause for celebration! After all, when was the last time a government agency increased its output by more than five times! If USCIS could do the same for illegals of other national origins, our troubles would be over very quickly!
As you may have guessed, the lefties at NPR didn't see things quite the same way. Incredibly, the story focused on the "struggles" of the Salvadoran government and its economy as they wrestled with the vastly increased numbers of their own citizens being forcibly repatriated. That's right: NPR wants you to feel bad that poor little El Salvador is having a hard time dealing with this influx of its own citizens.
Typically, NPR sees the world through red-tinted, Marxist glasses; the poor and downtrodden must be helped and given every possible advantage, whether or not they legally deserve it or not. And NPR will shamelessly pluck at your heart-strings until your heart bleeds as much as theirs does. I was so incensed about this story that I went to the NPR website to find out more (glutton for punishment that I am) and discovered that the story I'd heard was actually just the first of a three-part series!
Part two of the story told of one Salvadoran deportee's "near-death trip" to the U.S. The hombre in question was "Julio," a 45-year-old diabetic. His story is littered with all the well-worn clichés you've come to expect from an illegal immigrant story. He was cheated by the smuggler he paid to get him to the States; he spent two days in the desert without food or shelter - blah, blah, blah. Well, I'm as compassionate as the next guy, but if Julio had stayed at home where he belonged, or better yet, TRIED TO ENTER THE U.S. THE LEGAL WAY, he wouldn't have experienced any of the "horrors" of his "near-death trip."
I appreciate that Julio and others like him are seeking a better life. And I hope they find it. But I refuse to believe that it's incumbent upon the U.S. government and the U.S. taxpayer to pick up the tab. Clearly, the immigrants that come here are not averse to hard work; I implore them to stay in their respective homelands and put their efforts into bettering the future of their native countries.
And as for the folks at NPR, all I have to say to them is, what are you thinking? You're as subtle as a sledgehammer to the head about where you stand on all this. You think only compassionless meanies would deny people like Julio their shot at the American Dream?
But then, what can I expect from a bunch of people who work on a non-profit radio station? People who've never had to compete for listenership, and who can spew their liberal tripe without even one thought to needing to make it profitable. Naturally, they believe that you should be free to do whatever you want and let the government pick up the tab: the taxpayers have been footing the bill for over a third of NPR's annual operating costs for decades.
NPR's thought process goes something like this: while you're taking out your checkbook to pay taxes to keep NPR in the black, why not include some more of your hard-earned cash so that Julio can have his insulin taken care of, decent healthcare for his family, an education for his kids, and everything else that a citizen of the United States can have. The fact that Julio isn't citizen shouldn't matter, should it?
Well, I'm here to say it should. It matters a lot. U.S. citizenship is a privilege, not a right. It's not something you give away like care packages. It's something that has to be earned. Legally.
Publicly calling out what's wrong with National Public Radio.
(If that were not enough,) with disturbing regularity, I seem to be telling you about more and more third world diseases and ailments that are popping up right here in the U.S. This is not good. I believe that these increases of tropical diseases are directly related to the increased number of illegal immigrants here in the States from all manner of unhygienic parts of the globe.
The parasitic worm disease called schistosomiasis is yet another example. Like many of these third world diseases, schistosomiasis is actually one of the most common parasitic infections in the whole world, infecting 207 million every year. Of course, the majority of these people are in the Asia, South America, Africa, the Middle East, and the Caribbean (and no, I don't mean Club Med).
Schistosomiasis is caused by flatworms that live in snail-infested fresh water; this water is contaminated by worm eggs when infected people urinate or defecate into it. Schistosomiasis is contracted when people swim, bathe, fish or rice farm in the contaminated water.
"This is a disease of poverty," McGarvey said. "If you had proper sewage disposal systems for humans and animals, you wouldn't be contaminating the environment with the [worm] eggs."
The good news if there is good news in a story like this is that the disease has merely increased worldwide; there's been no mention of a significant uptick here in the States .yet. But I wouldn't breath a sigh of relief. Researchers say we need more resources allocated to beating it back. One of the authors of the study, Steven McGarvey, director of the International Health Institute at Brown University, said, "We're basically ringing the bell; attention must be paid."
In other words, if we're not careful, this parasite could be coming to a town near you.
Yet another reason to build that fence!!
William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.
http://www.douglassreport.com
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
When Birth Rates Collide – Coping with Immigrants and High Birth Rates
An agrarian economy will naturally have a higher birth rate in part because children have a greater economic value and utility in an agrarian economy vs. a post-industrial economy, where children can quickly become an economic burden rather than an asset.
Third World cultures are likely to be less self-oriented and individualistic while being more religious and traditional and therefore have a higher birth rate. First World countries center around the individual and his or her sense of satisfaction. Consumerism has made satisfying individual needs into a ritual and the individual into the totem idol in the center of his own worship circle. This leaves little room for children and abortion is as much the bastard child of consumerism, as fast food and 300 television channels.
Child labor laws have drastically decreased the economic value of children, (except as child actors and celebrities); accordingly birth rates have dropped even in industrialized Second World nations with child labor laws. With children less able to contribute to the family and with an increasingly prolonged educational process that now culminates anywhere from ages 18 to 22 to a high of 26, high birth rates become increasingly difficult to support. Consumerism itself drastically raises spending on children and by children, making larger families all the more economically trying.
When Third World cultures enter First World nations, they enter an industrial economy whose birth rate they quickly exceed. These multiple births however are out of place in an industrial economy which is no longer meant to accommodate them. Supporting such a birth rate therefore becomes a problem that is foisted onto social services. Once a family becomes dependent on social welfare programs, it can often decide to milk the system for all it can get, creating endemic fraud. Even if does not go this route however, the children are often put to finding extralegal means of contributing to the family income, which generates crime and creates a criminal culture within the family and the community that can then last for generations.
There are a number of ways for First World nations to cope with this situation.
First of all set immigration quotas by birth rate. While some immigrants are needed, immigrants who out-reproduce you are not, since they create radical change that a nation's own culture cannot sustain. The melting pot only melts so far until it explodes.
If immigration quotas are set by family size and by the average birth rate of the country of origin, a country can better accommodate the collision of birth rates, taking in those immigrants whose birth rate is more compatible with their adopted country.
This would for example mean more Polish (10/1000), Chinese (13/1000) and Irish (14/1000) immigrants and less Pakistani (27/1000), Mexican (20/1000) and Somalian (45/1000) ones. Note how this compares to the American (14/1000), Canadian (11/1000), British (10/1000), French (13/1000) birth rates -- and decide for yourself which groups are more compatible birth rate wise.
The advantage of this is obvious. Large birth rates are more taxing and require heavy investment in schools and social services infrastructure. This diminishes the value of the immigrants to their host society and creates a heavy burden.
Secondly, increase native birth rates to better match those of the incoming populations. The common approach has been to do this through tax incentives and similar programs, but that has been demonstrated to be unsatisfactory. First World countries have adopted economies that make childbearing a burden, even with incentives and generous maternity leave and similar programs, all that is accomplished is to make the burden a little more manageable.
It is important to recognize that the entire economic structure in the West, from consumerism to high tax rates to heavy debt to extended educational processes that primarily serve as an advanced educational form of babysitting, effectively make large families difficult to sustain. Restoring the birth rates we used to have will require deemphasizing consumerism and the debt economy, reducing the tax burden significantly on native born families and enabling the return of the extended family, trimming the extended educational process and accepting a larger role for children and teenagers in contributing to family finances. While none of this is likely to happen, it is worth noting in order to contemplate what it would take to compete in terms of birth rates with incoming immigrant populations.
Thirdly the economic structure of the population in the target country and the country of origin must be heavily weighed in considering prospective immigration. People from a country of origin who are not capable of properly functioning in a Western economy without becoming a burden on social services should not be admitted. Western countries have no shortage of shopkeepers that we constantly need to be importing more and more of them.
Taking in immigrants who cannot function economically and demographically in a way that contributes positively to the country without excessive negatives, is unhelpful both to the host country and to the immigrants themselves.
The real problems of immigration stem from its unplanned and chaotic nature as random rules and a complete lack of oversight make no coherent attempt to plan the flow of immigration with a view to integration.
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
WHY ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS A THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES
In June, 2007 a solid eighty percent of the American people let Congress know they wanted the government to put the brakes on illegal immigration; they turned thumbs down on the President's guest worker amnesty plan; and they wanted tax-paid services to illegal’s stopped.
Most Americans understand that new laws are not needed to stop illegal immigration. What is necessary is repeal of some laws granting taxpayer-financed services to illegal’s along with enforcement of existing laws. These two acts would be enough to stop the migration. In simple fact, they are called "illegal" because they are breaking the law.
In truth, the battle over the Senate's guest worker-amnesty plan is really a battle over attempts to open the border as called for in programs such as North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). Both plans call for open borders and economic integration of North America. Open borders are required to fully implement the plans.
The Bush Administration and those promoting illegal immigration were frankly stunned at the force and determination of U.S. citizens to reject the Senates immigration plan. Proponents played a very heavy hand in attempting to force the scheme on a resisting citizenry. Such powerful forces are not used to losing. Today they continue to seek new ways to work around the opposition and pass the legislation, as a whole or incrementally.
However, the anti-illegal fervor refuses to abate and in fact, dramatic new developments are taking place in local communities across the nation that may well stop the unpopular Federal schemes.
Meanwhile, in an attempt to weaken the resolve of opponents, they are called fringe fanatics. A common tactic employed by immigration proponents is to accuse opponents of racism. They charge that opponents want to deny a new breed of immigrant the chance to become Americans as many of our immigrant forefathers did. They paint a Norman Rockwell-type picture of honest, hard working immigrants, planting gardens, working in fields, doing the work "no Americans want to do."
So, in town after town across the nation the battle rages. And that is really the point. Illegal immigration is not just a border issue. It is a national issue affecting every large city and almost every small town. It must be understood that illegal immigration is not just a matter of some unhappy peasants hoping to seek a better life. It is a $300 billion a year industry, combining the interests of multinational corporations with those of drug cartels and Latino street gangs. Caught in between are American communities and the American way of life. Some cities, especially those along the points of entry at the border have become dangerous no-mans lands, where no property is safe, no American citizen is able to leave their home unarmed and some politicians turn a blind eye as they profit under the table. As a result American civilization is beginning to break down. That is why so many Americans refuse to back down on the issue, continuing to demand a crack down, no matter what name calling they must endure.
THE ECONOMIC COST OF ILLEGALS
Federal law (the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act) mandates that all hospitals with emergency-room services must treat anyone who shows up - including illegal aliens. In most cities across the nation, illegal’s now use the emergency rooms as free primary care. And the hospitals have to keep taking them.
Health Care
The annual cost for uncompensated emergency care to Mexican Border States (California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas) is $200 million. California taxpayers paid $79 million for illegal alien health care. Four major Los Angeles hospitals were bankrupted and shut down in 2004. Texas paid $74 million. Georgia ran a $63 million deficit for 64,000 unpaid doctor visits in 2002. Cochise County, Arizona spent 30% of its annual budget on uncompensated care to illegal aliens. University Medical Care in Tucson, Arizona spent $10 million on uncompensated care to illegal aliens. 77 hospitals in the four Border States now face financial emergencies. Legal citizens are forced to fly emergency patients to other cities for treatment. Taxes are going up to compensate.
Meanwhile, as a result of the Federal Emergency Medical Act, Mexican ambulance drivers are transporting hospital patients unable to pay for medical care in Mexico to facilities in the United States. The ambulances are driving through unguarded potions of the border with "little resistance" at the instruction of Mexican officials.
Education
Federal laws and a Supreme Court decision mandate that schools cannot deny free education to illegal aliens. Over 300,000 pregnant women enter the nation illegally every year. Taxpayers pay for food, housing medical care and school. The average annual cost per child for education is $7,161, totaling $109 billion to educate illegal aliens annually. The average cost of bilingual education is $1,200 per illegal student. U.S. schools annually educate 1.1 million illegal children. Schools have become over crowded and unruly. Teacher shortages (especially those who speak Spanish) are a growing problem for local school districts.
One teacher has reported what it is like in the classrooms in schools where federal tax dollars pay for free medical, free baby sitters for student mothers as young as thirteen, and free breakfasts (where "the waste of food is monumental, with trays and trays of being dumped in the trash uneaten"), new computers are "carved with graffiti by students." "I have had to intervene several times for young and substitute teachers whose classes consist of many illegal immigrant students here in the country less than three months who raise so much hell with the female teachers, calling them "Putas" (whores) and throwing things that the teachers were in tears" she reports. Such is the atmosphere in today's schools which are overrun by illegal aliens who speak no English and there is no ability to control or discipline.
Moreover, state run colleges and universities are being forced to allow illegal aliens to receive in-state tuition discounts that are supposed to be reserved for residents of that state. In California, a law, (Assembly Bill 540) allows undocumented high school graduates who have been in residence for three years to enroll in community colleges and the California State University and University of California systems without paying nonresident tuition. The same is true in many other states across the country.
The Jobs Americans Don't Want
In 2003, illegal aliens displaced American workers at a cost in excess of $133 billion, while American college and high school students can't find summer jobs in yard care, landscape, fast food or service jobs - because illegal aliens work those jobs at a third of the wage - often under the table.
Crime
Crimes committed by alien criminals, such as rape, murder or drug distribution costs U.S. taxpayers $1.6 billion in prison costs alone. The figure doesn't include the cost of lost property, medical bills of the victims, time lost from work to recover, higher insurance costs, etc. Today, illegal aliens make up twenty nine percent of the U.S. prison population - or 500,000 illegals.
Latino gangs like Mara Salvatrucha 13 (MS13) constitute most of the crime from the ranks of the illegals. They originated in El Salvador and today their U.S. leadership still comes from there. They steal cars and use them to run drugs over the border. They terrorize local citizens with violence. They are the chief source of drug sales for the cartels. And they are racists.
MS13 is the largest and most violent of all gangs in the US today. They have overtaken the Crips and the Bloods both in size and violence. MS13, which began its operations in Los Angeles has now moved east and is prominent on the East Coast.
In Los Angeles, Mexican gangs declared "ethnic cleansing zones" in specific parts of the city. They kill whites and blacks. In New Jersey, recently, MS13 gang members killed three college students in execution style.
NO MANS LAND AT THE BORDER
No legal citizen of the United States of America, living under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights should have to live as those who reside near the U.S. / Mexican border. Here there are no property rights, no ability to be safe in their homes, and no peace. One dare not go to the movies, the grocery or visit a relative without carrying a weapon for protection. Through out the community the streets are teaming with drug dealers, loiterers and gangs bent on violence.
The illegal’s flood across their property having just crossed the border. As they pass over the ranches and private property they leave a trail of trash, human waste and dead farm animals and pets. Found in the trash that is dropped all along the trail are pieces of paper containing contact phone numbers. Also found are Korans dropped by obvious Muslims who have made their way across the border.
Sometimes the illegals walk right in to the living rooms and steal what they want. Many homes on the border are now little more than prisons for the residents, surrounded by barbed wire, searchlights, with loaded guns at the ready.
The Tucson, Arizona area is one of the prime crossing points for illegals. The organization for transporting illegals is almost a precision military operation. On the Mexican side of the border is a landing strip where planes fly in on a regular basis with their cargo. Some of it human; some drugs. It's all the same to those providing the transportation.
The planes land and the cargo is loaded onto busses with the windows whited out. Young girls prepare for the trip by taking birth control, for they know what awaits them on the trip across the border from their "travel assistants" - rape. It's just part of the price for crossing the border into the promised land of America.
The busses drive to a specific location on the border. Here the cargo is unloaded and the process of walking across the border begins. Each of the human cargo is given information on what to do once they reach the other side, including a phone number of someone to call. The number is not necessarily a local number. It may be a location in Virginia, or Maine or Utah. Anywhere in the U.S. The person on the other end gives instructions on how to gain transportation to their location where they will be brought into the illegal community in that city.
And so the journey across the border begins. Somewhere in the middle, between Mexico and the U.S. is a tree. From the branches of that tree hang women's panties. It's called the panty tree. Why? Trophies from the raped women of previous journeys. It's just the cost of doing business with the "Coyotes," the murderous thugs who run the illegal immigrant trade. They don't care who lives or dies. These are the ones who will leave illegal’s locked in trucks without food or water or ventilation. They charge enormous fees - up front. To them the cargo is all the same. They carry the drugs with the humans. They make deals with terrorists for the same trip. They rape, maim and kill. And go back for another load. Business is booming. For part two click below.
Once the cargo is inside the U.S., more buses are there to pick them up and transport them to drop off points. Here the phone calls are made for arrangements of more transportation across the nation. And in that highly organized manner, illegal aliens make their way into American cities.
Some are "Sanctuary Cities" where politicians have decided its good for the community to encourage illegal’s to live. In such communities (such as Phoenix, Arizona) no one can ask for the country of origin, even if a crime as horrible as murder is committed. The sanctuaries permit 20 million illegals, drug smugglers, child sex rings, ID forgery networks, and an assortment of run of the mill criminals to live lawlessly inside the United States. They are provided with income, identification, driver's licenses, credit, housing, education, and medical care at taxpayer expense.
As stated, it's a $300 billion a year industry. That buys a lot of politicians. Along the Border States no one talks about it. And, no surprise, a lot of politicians do nothing to stop it. Our fear and their greed are destroying the American dream.
MEANWHILE IN YOUR LOCAL COMMUNITY...
How a community treats the illegals is key as to how many come there. The main magnet is the establishment of a day labor center. The nation-wide illegal network knows where to send them. If a community opens its arms, of course they flock there. If a community stands up to them, they leave.
But that is easier said than done. First, federal laws or lack of enforcement hampers efforts against the illegals, no matter the sentiment of the community. Federal courts strike down local laws, such as just happened in Hazleton, Pennsylvania when a federal judge degreed that laws the community had passed to crack down on illegal’s were unconstitutional. Federal agencies say it is illegal for local police to ask if anyone is an illegal. The federal government argues that immigration is a federal issue and for local communities to take action interferes with U.S. foreign policy.
On the local level too, there is great pressure on elected officials to do nothing. Strong lobbying arms protect the illegals. The ACLU, of course, threatens lawsuits. But many Americans would be surprised to learn of the Hispanic forces behind much of the pressure applied to their local officials.
Many immigrant groups are joined together through the La Raza movement. These are the groups which organized the massive demonstrations in cities across the nation last year. It is past time for all Americans to know what is at the root of those demonstrations and the extent to which our nation is at risk to the La Raza movement.
One of the most prominent Hispanic organizations pushing for "immigrant rights" is the National Council of La Raza - the Council of "the Race." The mainstream media and most members of Congress depict La Raza as little more than a Hispanic Rotary Club. In 2005, La Raza received $15.2 million in federal grants, of which $7.9 million was in U.S. Department of Education grants for Charter Schools, and undisclosed amounts to get-out-the-vote efforts supporting La Raza political positions including lobbying for open borders and amnesty for illegal’s. Had the Senate's immigration bill passed, several million more dollars were budgeted for La Raza.
Behind the respectable front of the National Council of La Raza lies the real agenda of the La Raza movement. This radical agenda, pushed by secondary groups contains the reasons behind the demonstrations and the strong lobbying efforts in our communities.
Key among those secondary groups is the radical racist group Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or Chicano Student Movement of Astlan (MEChA). MEChA seeks to carve a racist nation out of the American West. MEChA opposes assimilation into American society. MEChA is a leader in the effort to "Reconquista" or reconquest our western states.
MEChA's founding principles state: "In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal gringo invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlan from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny...Aztlan belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and no to the foreign Europeans...For La Raza to do. Fuera de la Raza nada." That closing two-sentence motto is chilling to everyone who values equal rights for all. It says: "For The Race everything. Outside The Race, nothing."
These words don't come from a fringe radical element. These come straight from the official MEChA sites at Georgetown University, the University of Texas, UCLA, University of Michigan, University of Oregon, and many other colleges and universities around the country.
Another leading Hispanic group involved in community organization, promoting the pro illegal position is Mexicanos Sin Fronteras. The translation of the name means "Mexicans Without Borders." This group is active throughout the country and many times works with the "Zapatista Army of National Liberation." These groups seek to radicalize the Latino community. The official website of the Mexicanos Sin Fronteras states that it is "anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist in the capital of the most terrorist country of world-wide history" (Washington, DC). It goes on to say it pledges its support to "other campaigns" of the radical illegal Hispanics with material and financial assistance.
In Manassas, Virginia the Mexicanos Sin Fronteras and the Zapatista Army of National Liberation are the two most prominent "pro-Hispanic" voices. In fact, these two groups are spearheading the illegal alien lobby in Prince William County, where Manassas is located. This is the "mainstream opposition" to efforts to curb illegal immigration in that community. Together, these groups are holding rallies and calling for boycotts and even the violent overthrow of the United States. Again, these groups are not fringe radicals. They are the most prominent voices for the illegals.
FIGHTING BACK
While Congress fiddles and the Bush Administration issues meaningless pronouncements on "get tough" programs it never intends to enforce, local communities and state legislatures are beginning to fight back. And they are meeting with success.
State Legislatures, forced to deal with the failure of the federal government to fix the immigration laws, have considered 1,404 immigration bills this year and enacted 170 of them. These laws are aimed at curbing employment of illegals and making it more difficult to obtain state identification documents like driver's licenses.
In May, Oklahoma passed the "Taxpayer and Citizen protection Act" which denies illegal’s state identification, and requires all state and local agencies to verify citizenship status of all applicants before authorizing benefits.
On the local level incredible success is being achieved in Northern Virginia. Last year two residents of Herndon, Virginia, with no prior political experience, began an effort called Save Herndon. The issue was the establishment of a day labor center in the community. The center would give illegals a gathering place in the community to help them get jobs, identification and benefits from the community.
The two began a campaign that at once made a major issue out of the establishment of the center. When the mayor and the city council moved forward and voted to establish the center over the objections of a majority of the citizens, Save Herndon began a campaign to assure these representatives were not re-elected. They succeeded beyond their wildest expectations, helping to out the mayor and everyone on the city council who voted for the center.
Now the movement is growing across the Northern Virginia area. There is now Help Save Manassas, Help Save Loudoun (County), Help Save Fairfax, Help Save Virginia and Help Save Maryland. Together these purely grassroots movements have succeeded in enacting legislation in Loudoun County (the nation's fastest growing county) and in its neighbor, Prince William County which stops county tax-payer services to illegal’s.
Incredibly, under challenge from federal and state officials, the members of county commissioners are holding tough behind the laws.
The key, as stated earlier, is the day labor centers. If your city has one, then the message has gone out to the illegal infrastructure that your community welcomes them. Get rid of it and send the message that they are no longer welcome. If faced with lawsuits from the ACLU and La Raze, welcome them. Tell them you will gladly have a news conference to discuss their suit in front of the cameras. Do not be afraid.
Here are a few guidelines to help organize locally and face the coming onslaught of charges of racism.
DON'T express anger at what is happening to your community. DON'T express annoyance because illegal’s refuse to assimilate into your community or abide by your customs. DON'T make the issue economic and safety issues. Overcrowded housing and commercial vehicle zoning violations or that specific individuals are illegal aliens.
The pro-illegal’s will try to tell the public that there is uncertainty as to who is illegal, creating doubt. They will talk about how impossible it is to check everyone's legal status. It will be easy to charge racism.
Instead, make the issues about the abrogation of law. Focus your efforts against the individuals, businesses and politicians who create this problem and cheat honest business owners and workers by allowing illegal hiring practices under the table. In short, make the issue about enforcement of the law, cost and corruption. It's working in Virginia.
Today, we have the chance to not only stop the flood of illegal aliens, but in the process, deflate the size and power of the federal government in the process. It's time to organize Help Save America.
By Tom DeWeese
March 19, 2008
NewsWithViews.com
http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom106.htm
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
A friend of mine, George Sura, in Fort Collins, Colorado said, “Immigration is the most formidable weapon of mass destruction threatening America today. Ironically, invaders have put our country at risk without firing a shot. The White House, the heavies in Congress and the smaller fish in state legislatures do not seem to have the collective intellectual depth or common sense to see what is upon us and how rampant immigration will degrade the lives and opportunities of our progeny. Everyday brings American closer to irreversible chaos.
“Behind this issue are blind forces to reckon with. No politician, political party, corporation, religious fervor, investment, pop morality or individual aspiration should come before country. Ever! The brokers who recklessly advocate or condone pervasive immigration are steersmen with Titanic-like wheelhouse credentials. We need to throw such people out of the wheelhouse to bring this Republic back on a viable course.”
With McCain, Obama or Hillary certain to sit in the White House, you can expect more of the same invasion with even MORE help in the next four years.
You can expect an added eight to 10 million more immigrants by 2012 with another two million of their children. You can expect 20 to 30 million illegals to become legal American citizens with FULL voting rights. You can expect our English language to shatter like glass across the pavement and conflict in communities throughout America. You can expect downgrading of our educational standards to fit third world levels. You will see a profound degradation of the American Dream into the American Nightmare.
You will witness a cultural upheaval in America that rocks the foundation of this nation off its moorings.
Today, California sloshes knee deep in its 37.5 million population overload. It grows by 1,650 people daily! (Source: www.capsweb.org) By 2050, if this immigration-driven population phenomenon continues, California explodes to 79.1 million people. Source: “Projecting the U.S. Population to 2050” by Jack Martin and Stanley Fogel, March 2006.
If you think Los Angeles’ smog, traffic, water and power shortages create problems today, hold on to your girdle because you ain’t seen nothing yet!
In Dr. Otis Graham’s “Unguarded Gates: A History of America’s Immigration Crisis”, he writes, “Most Western elites continue urging the wealthy West not to stem the migrant tide, but to absorb our global brothers and sisters until their horrid ordeal has been endured and shared by all--ten billion humans packed onto an ecologically devastated planet.”
In literary terms, it’s called ‘hubris’ or false pride. Many of Shakespeare’s protagonists suffered this self-destructing trait. Today, Obama, Hillary and McCain maximize ‘hubris’ through their actions.
Hillary, McCain or Obama will not only legalize up to 30 million illegals, they will support doubling legal immigration to 2.1 million annually. They already voted for it in 2007. That’s like seeing your child with his clothes on fire running out of a burning building, but instead of spraying him with water, the firemen spray gasoline on your child. In this case, Hillary, McCain or Obama pour more ‘gasoline’ onto the fire by adding millions of immigrants into our country.
What astounds me stems from the fact that most Americans sit on the sidelines watching it happen, but don’t raise their voices in protest!
What are some of the results? We gang-tackle our civilization by adding incompatible cultures, religions and languages. We kill our educational system. We overload our infrastructure. We demean citizenship. Assimilation cannot occur. We fracture our identity. We devolve our nation. For a simple example: France burned in December 2006 when immigrants firebombed 10,000 cars, burned houses, killed French citizens and caused three weeks of mayhem.
With that child on fire illustration, what’s burning in this country? For starters, we’re burning the foundation of our society by destroying our most precious bond—our English language. Without a single language, we shall cease to continue as a cohesive civilization.
Samuel Huntington wrote the best seller: “Who Are We?” He stated, “By 2001 Congress appropriated $446 million for bilingual programs, supplemented by huge amounts of state funding.” Ironically, so many legal and illegal immigrants find they don’t have to speak English because none of their friends speak it. Koreans, Vietnamese, Hmongs, Middle Easterners, Russians and dozens of other immigrants can’t speak English and won’t invest in becoming Americans.
Thus, these new immigrants live in America, but they cannot speak and don’t think like Americans. What’s more, they don’t care. They’re not invested. They enclave themselves into their separate groups. Los Angeles stands as a polyglot of seething anti-American bias by Mexicans and their children. One look at Detroit’s growing Muslim population illustrates what happened to Paris, France, i.e., complete separation from the host country by new immigrants.
When you add millions of immigrants that can’t speak our national language, they emotionally, physically and intellectually separate. A nation cannot long survive when its citizens cannot speak to one another.
Dr. Vernon Briggs of Cornell University said, “Efforts in the United States to reduce the incidence of poverty have been hampered, since 1965, by the parallel revival from out of the nation’s distant past of the phenomenon of mass immigration.”
As these people pile up on our shores, can’t speak English and possess no skills, we engender separation. They succumb to a profound racism and distrust against their host country. “Immigrants devoted to their own cultures and religions are not influenced by the secular politically correct façade that dominates academia, news-media, entertainment, education, religious and political thinking today,” said James Walsh, former Associate General Counsel of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service. “They claim the right not to assimilate, and the day is coming when the question will be how can the United States regulate the defiantly unassimilated cultures, religions and mores of foreign lands? Such immigrants say their traditions trump the U.S. legal system. Balkanization of the United States has begun.”
For example, Muslims practice female genital mutilation. It’s 6th century Dark Ages barbarism in the 21st century. It’s occurs today in Detroit and Colorado and wherever Islam grows in America. Seven years ago, so many cases of infected little girls’ genitalia from razor and glass cuts, landed in Colorado hospitals from the ritual that lawmakers passed a new law to stop it. The practice didn’t stop; it torpedoed underground. What happens when Muslims become the majority and vote it into legal practice? What happens when Mexicans vote horse tripping, cock fighting, bull fighting, Santeria (animal sacrifice already occurring in Florida) and dog fighting into law?
Have you seen a country devolve? In the Middle East, Muslims stone women to death for adultery. They won’t let women drive. Women can’t go out in public without a male relative at their side. They demand separate swimming pool times for men and women. They make women hide their faces via a burka into “non-beingness.” Unfortunately for most people, Islam is a very aggressive religion with a prime directive to become “THE” world religion.
As to the “lifeboat” metaphor for America, how many people does it take to sink a lifeboat? Short answer: the last one to come aboard that overwhelms the craft’s ability to remain afloat. (emphasis added)
As we degrade our ability to maintain our civilization by adding disparate cultures, languages and the least educated and poorest of the planet, we reduce ourselves into the same kind of conditions they fled. At the same time, not one, single core problem has been solved in their countries. We import their dilemmas into our country. On top of that we add 100 million people to our country. And we stand around picking our noses and scratching our butts while Obama, Hillary and McCain flush our country into a miserable future.
As my grandfather said, “Those dang politicians keep serving us more outhouse soup, but we don’t have enough sense to close the door.”
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
( WASHINGTON, D.C. ) – Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Littleton) today sent a letter to Mexican President Felipe Calderon questioning the motives behind his current visit to the United States as well as the charges levied by Mr. Calderon against the fairness of American immigration policy. A copy of the letter is below:
President Calderon:
I was disappointed by misguided comments you recently made regarding U.S.-Mexico relations and U.S. immigration laws. Purveying misinformation and absurd allegations is hardly a positive step to building a constructive partnership.
According to the Associated Press you recently said, “You have two economies. One economy is intensive in capital, which is the American economy. One economy is intensive in labor, which is the Mexican economy. We are two complementary economies, and that phenomenon is impossible to stop.” Yes, both countries benefit by the 85% of Mexico’s manufacturing exports that come to the U.S., but people are not commodities. While I appreciate your concern for our joint prosperity, the economic and social ills that plague your country cannot be resolved by simply exporting your citizens to the United States.
It is undeniable that Mexico faces major challenges. Endemic corruption and the power of violent drug cartels still dominate everyday life across Mexico. Beyond the headlines, Mexico has deep institutional maladies. Mexico’s absurdly antiquated Napoleonic-inquisition styled legal system and the squandering of robust energy-industry opportunity by a poorly managed, state-run Pemex monopoly are just two examples of the kind of self-inflicted wounds that hobble your troubled nation.
I understand that you are attempting to resolve some of these problems and applaud your leadership in trying to do so. But what would contribute more to the long term stability of your economy and your country would be to focus more energy on addressing your domestic challenges and less on lobbying the U.S. to provide amnesty for Mexicans who have illegally entered this country with the blessing of your government. In doing so, you might be able to keep Mexico’s “best and brightest young men” in Mexico – where they can contribute more to Mexico’s economy than remittance payments. Unfortunately, your recent comments indicate that Mexico will continue its policy of encouraging illegal immigration and treating the United States as little more than a dumping ground for your social and economic problems.
In your speech yesterday to the California State legislature, you lectured the American people on how to improve our immigration policies. Why did you not propose that we model our policies on Mexico’s own policies toward illegal entry across your own southern border? Mexico expends enormous resources to prevent Guatemalans, Hondurans and Salvadorans from entering the country illegally, but you castigate the United States for wanting secure borders. Mr. President, in my neighborhood that is called hypocrisy.
You proposed in your Sacramento speech that “migration” be made “legal, safe and organized.” Mr. President, we already have such a program and it is called legal immigration. Over one million legal immigrants come through our ports of entry each year, not across our border fences. The American people set limits on the number of legal immigrants through our immigration laws, and it is not the job of the Mexican government to revise or expand those limits.
President Calderon, you are insulting the American people when you tell us that fifteen to twenty million illegal aliens in our country bring only benefits and no costs. I challenge you to give one concrete example of how the enforcement of our existing immigration laws violates anyone’s human rights. The people of Oklahoma are not anti-Mexican for passing laws to require verification of employment eligibility. The people of Indiana are not anti-immigrant for passing laws to require photo identification for voting. The people of California are not anti-Mexican for denying driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. The people of Arizona are not anti-immigrant for passing laws that deny welfare benefits to people who are in that state unlawfully.
It is no secret that the purpose of your visit is to influence the American election, and in fact your trip has been billed as a high-stakes effort to shape the immigration debate underway in the U.S. presidential race. What is perhaps more disappointing, however, is your attempt to insinuate that anti-amnesty sentiment here in the U.S. is the same as anti-Mexican sentiment. I am referring to your statement, “I need to change in the perception that the Americans are the enemy, and it is important to change the perception that the Mexicans are the enemy.”
It is both disingenuous and dangerous for you to inject this kind of xenophobia into this debate. The fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans support the enforcement of our immigration laws and take issue with the notion that we should reward illegal behavior, hardly qualifies as ethnic animosity or international enmity. What you must understand is that a treasured aspect of our national foundation is a respect for the rule of law. Perhaps if corruption were not so widespread and commonplace in Mexico, it would be easier for you to understand this.
President Calderon, in many ways your trip thus far has been a long series of mixed messages. You accuse the United States of recent protectionist trends, yet you heavily restrict foreign entry into Mexico’s energy sector through a massive, state-run Pemex monopoly. You assure American politicians that an open flow of cheap Mexican labor is not only benign but vitally necessary, but you take great care in securing your own southern border with Guatemala. You come to the United States purportedly to promote better political and economic ties with the U.S., but then issue a thinly veiled threat that Mexicans will regard the U.S. as an enemy if we refuse to provide millions of illegal aliens with unconditional amnesty.
President Calderon, I respectfully suggest that the next time you visit our country, rather than trying to influence U.S. policymakers or our election process, you take time to listen to Americans rather than lecture them. If you want to make changes in government policies, apply your energies to Mexico’s laundry list of problems rather than meddling in domestic American politics.
-------------------------
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
As a retired veteran of the ongoing Immigration Wars who resides on the outskirts of one of our nation's migrant capitals, I was surprised by an email newsletter I received from the typically excellent Eagle Forum dated December 6th, 2007 entitled “Support Builds for Pro-Enforcement Immigration Bill,” (eagleforum.org).
Subsequently I received another email from NumbersUSA, similar in sentiment. Their emails suggested that citizens should contact their elected representatives and encourage them to support the SAVE Act.
On January 4th, I received still another well-written article published at two Internet sources (familysecuritymatters.org and Aim.org), by author Sher Zieve regarding “Congress Shirking Its Duty in Border Control Meltdown.” At the end of this excellent article, Sher Zieve concluded with the afterthought that the SAVE Act (Secure America with Verification and Enforcement) “… may actually be our last hope. Take a look at it and get involved. It may very well be your last hope, too.”
Last hope? Or looking a little deeper, maybe the last nail in our coffin?
Because I am a contrarian, and cynical of human behavior (derived from three decades in federal law enforcement, and another decade on Arizona streets as a police officer, and repeated disappointments as a political observer in Washington, D.C.), it is a huge cause for concern when normally conservative and articulate Internet commentators appear desperate to find the smallest crumb of hope from Congress. While some sense of desperation from the rule-of-law contingent is understandable, considering the war zone on the borders, the question still remains: Why are so many people blindly embracing the SAVE Act as if it were the Holy Grail of immigration reform?
Think like a contrarian. What might be missing from this picture? What remains unsaid?
It is important that every citizen recognize at the outset of any discussion of immigration that the phrases "immigration reform," and particularly “comprehensive immigration reform,” represent ‘code words’ that mean only one thing – a consistent and defiant refusal by Congress and the Bush Administration to enforce existing laws.
The congressional solution to "open borders" and epidemic illegal alien lawlessness across the United States, and the threat of mind-boggling terrorism, is not enforcement of existing laws, but to rewrite immigration law turning previously lawless behavior retroactively into legal behavior - with amnesty given for the crimes committed by millions of illegal alien migrants.
The Bush Administration is either oblivious and insensitive to life and death on the streets of our cities, and along our dangerous border, or it is literally refusing to defend the country in a war being waged by Mexico against the United States. The latter suggestion begs the question, "Is the Bush Administration, in concert with Congress, consciously aiding a self-declared enemy to defeat the United States of America?" What other choices are there?
As for amnesty for illegal aliens in the United States, arguably it would be less of an atrocity, but equally insane, to grant amnesty to the September 11th Islamic highjackers since they've killed less than five percent of the number of United States citizens that have died at the hands of illegal aliens during the last two decades. Both ideas are beyond delusional and are equally insane - except to the politician who is willing to sell their soul.
Pause and reflect on a sobering fact. The United States Congress, and the Bush Administration, and many who aspire to become President of the United States of America, absolutely refuse to enforce the law – and not just immigration laws, but any laws. As a direct result of failed leadership and vacant moral values, lawless behavior now permeates political behavior from the President, down through the federal government’s administrative agencies (DHS, CIA, State Department) to Congress, to Governors, to state legislatures, to mayors, to police chiefs, to homeowners associations, and riddles the courts. Endemic lawlessness has ravaged the illegal alien community.
There exists no apparent respect for the law - all the way from the top of our national political and law enforcement structure, to the bottom. It follows logically that there will be less and less adherence to any rules of law at lower influence and income levels of society, and particularly in minority/illegal alien communities. At some point, laws that exist on paper will become meaningless from Massachusetts to California. We seem perilously close to going over that national cultural precipice today.
Justifiably, why should any United States citizen believe - ever again - that ANY law, whether newly crafted or already ‘on the books’ will be enforced, except for when it serves the agenda of ‘the government,’ or a special interest group or a minority interest?
From the perspective of a citizen soldier who has served in the trenches on the front lines in Southern Arizona, it appears far more likely to this observer that the SAVE Act is a giant Trojan Horse, intended from the outset to be a lethal strike against the combined efforts of all citizen border-enforcement advocates. Incredibly, this legislation is being willfully perpetrated by a dangerous coalition of some of the most corrupt and the most ignorant in Congress.
Let’s begin making the case with a quote from the Eagle Forum email:
“Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC) introduced the Secure America with Verification and Enforcement (SAVE) Act, H.R. 4088, and it already has over 100 cosponsors. The Senate version, S. 2368, was introduced by Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) and it is identical to the House bill. The SAVE Act tackles illegal immigration from three different directions: First, it increases technological surveillance and the number of Border Patrol agents. Second, it requires employers to use the E-verify program so they can be assured they are not hiring illegal aliens. Third, it will give the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) greater resources to strictly enforce current immigration laws and to better facilitate deportation when necessary.
How the SAVE Act Increases Border Security and Internal Enforcement:
• Increases the number of Border Patrol agents by 8,000 over five years.
• Employs the newest technology available, including satellite communication and aerial surveillance.
• Expands and mandates the use of E-verify, a free and effective program administered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) so employers can confirm the legal status of their workers. The bill will phase in all employers over four years.
• Allows for information sharing between DHS and the Social Security Administration so as to close the loophole of mismatch letters going unresolved.
• Expands detention capacity and resources for ICE.
• Increases the number of Federal District Court Judges so as to expedite deportation hearings.
The SAVE Act is a great piece of bipartisan legislation ….”
There were currently 133 cosponsors of the SAVE Act at last count. The list of names is too long to reprint here. Many of the names of the cosponsors would cause any reasonable political observer to question whether the co-sponsors had actually read the proposed legislation and comprehend the unintended consequences – but that’s nothing new.
In a vain attempt to keep this critique reasonably short and to the point, permit me to point out the obvious. Every illegal alien currently in the United States, whether for the first time, or after repeated deportations and re-entry, is a serial criminal, many of whom are guilty of multiple unconscionable violent crimes, over fifty percent of all property crimes over the previous two decades, drug importation, human trafficking, domestic violence, gang affiliation and associated criminal behavior, document and identity fraud, and disorderly conduct in every conceivable manner.
If that were not enough, add vehicular mayhem on United States highways as illegal aliens operate motor vehicles within our nation’s borders with reckless abandon, without driving privileges, and most without valid registration or insurance (quaint requirements in state law applicable only to United States citizens).
The Department of Homeland Security and the State of Arizona have recently gotten together and chosen a novel way to facilitate the unlawful transportation needs of millions of illegal aliens who commute to illegal jobs – jobs that United States citizens once held. With DHS sanction, Governor Napolitano of Arizona plans to begin issuing legal identification in the form of federally-sanctioned driver’s licenses with radio identification chips. These legal documents will be issued to alien migrants (from anywhere in the world) without proof of United States citizenship, legal immigrant status, and/or even a fraudulent birth certificate.
Since the public outcry was so great when New York attempted to issue driver’s licenses and other forms of legal identification to illegal aliens, the innovative “work around” solution now is that the illegal alien driver’s license will be a federal identification, and only the administration of the program and distribution of the driver's licenses delegated to the states. The clever scheme has all the appearances of the same game, same objective, same deceit, and same amnesty – just a different day.
Governor Napolitano and the Department of Homeland Security envision that a driver’s license should be accepted in lieu of, and will suffice for, a passport at the U.S.-Mexico border. Subsequently, these same driver’s licenses will be used to convey legal work eligibility because those who possess the federally-sanctioned driver’s licenses would be presumed to be in the country legally for employment purposes. Ask yourself, why would the Governor of the State of Arizona issue driver’s licenses to illegal aliens (which becomes a form of legal identification and a government sanction to use United States roadways to commute to jobs - jobs they are not legally entitled to have)? The SAVE Act and Governor Napolitano’s issuing of driver’s licenses to illegal aliens seems to be the groundwork for permanent legal residency, nothing less.
Governor Napolitano signed the agreement regarding driver’s licenses with Homeland Security Department Secretary Michael Chertoff on December 6, 2007. Apparently she did so without consultation with the Arizona State Legislature. Does Governor Napolitano have the authority to bind the State of Arizona in a federal agreement that violates federal immigration laws, contains state obligations to the federal government and relinquishes state sovereignty? Doubtfully, but we have yet to hear that the Arizona Legislature intends to repudiate the agreement.
Illegal alien's recklessly ricochet around the State of Arizona, and the country for that matter, committing a laundry list of crimes, both felonies and misdemeanors. When finally caught, refusing to be identified by using a myriad of Hispanic surnames, the combination of police, courts and detention facilities simply send them home to Mexico or Central America.
The SAVE Act does nothing to change any of that. In fact, the SAVE Act ups the ante in favor of the illegal aliens. To make the point crystal clear, when an illegal alien returns to the United States, aided by the Mexican government or MS-13, and is unfortunate or reckless enough to be apprehended for the umpteenth time, experience has taught the illegal aliens (and US citizens) that the Border Patrol/ICE will simply package them up and ship them home again at taxpayer expense, often in a luxurious bus or aircraft. Who pays for the deportation costs? Who pays for the carnage left behind from crimes committed and crimes yet undetected? Not the illegal alien, not the U.S. taxpayer-funded lawyers, and not the Mexican government.
How many lawyers will it take to represent 20 million illegal aliens? Who will be expected to pick up that tab?
If you have any doubts, read the legislation yourself, H.R. 4088, The SAVE Act of 2007 (Secure America with Verification and Enforcement). While it 'sounds good on paper,' the SAVE Act requires ONLY the development of a national strategy to secure the borders and all ports of entry to the United States by December 31, 2010. Specifically, the hypothetical strategy must: assess unspecified future terrorist threats years in advance without creditable intelligence; make risk assessment at ports of entry; address staffing needs; describe border security roles between federal, state, and local government; assess existing efforts and border technologies; ensure free flow of lawful travel; assess the need for additional detention facilities and beds; outline performance metrics to ensure accountability, and schedule implementation of the strategy’s objectives. That’s the SAVE Act in a nutshell.
In the meantime, sanctuary cities such of New York City, Phoenix and Houston continue to be a safe haven, a secure base from which illegal aliens can commit all forms of mindless violent and property crimes with seeming impunity. United States citizens and businesses continue to face withering accusations of racism as illegal aliens defiantly demand from city government’s to be insulated as a protected class of miscreants from all community responsibilities or criminal accountability.
At the state level, governors and courts are actively protecting illegal aliens by stalemating citizen initiatives or legislation that would curtail illegal alien social benefits or limit cross-border migration. At the municipal level, mayors and chiefs of police are actively providing physical, economic and criminal sanctuary to illegal aliens at the brutal expense of lawful United States citizens and business owners.
Unfortunately for U.S. citizens, Hispanic and Muslim activists and their checkbooks have undue policy influence because politicians are amazingly competent in selling their votes - if nothing else in life! Wise men have always understood that everything has a price. It would appear that politicians have been having an integrity fire sale and patriotism melt-down for decades. Bottom line: with very few exceptions, your elected congressmen are selling out your country.
In recent years, Congress has knowingly gone so far afield as to vote to fund an assortment of anti-American special interest groups. One example will suffice, i.e., the funding of La Raza by Congress with over a million dollars of taxpayer money. LaRaza, an admittedly racist Hispanic-supremacy organization, reportedly is subsidized not only by the Mexican government and the U.S. Congress, but by criminal enterprises with funding that flows through legally constituted special interest groups.
Enforce the laws? Sure, whatever you say. And Americans should believe the SAVE Act will be an exception. Forget the SAVE Act. Enforce existing immigration laws. Legislation that purports to do anything else is a sham.
After all is said and done, state and federal immigration policy for twenty years has been and continues to be, regardless of protestations to the contrary, "catch and release" – not enforcement. Enforcement implies accountability for crimes, and clearly there is NO accountability of any consequence.
Just how ridiculous is the SAVE Act? The SAVE Act clearly proposes to add additional layers of border bureaucracy, but what will it ultimately accomplish? Maybe a metaphor will help. With 8,000 new border agents and more taxpayer money for technology, the SAVE Act “pretends” to be putting more fishermen on the pond and more high-tech fish sensors on the boat. The premise is that more fishermen and better technology will catch more fish. But the problem is that we don’t want any more fish. This business of illegal alien migration isn’t a sport and it isn’t funny. In fact, we don’t want ANY illegal fish in our pond. The illegal fish are destroying the natural habitat of the native fish. The solution is to remove the illegal fish from the pond, by incentive preferably but by force if necessary, in order to preserve the beautiful natural habitat – and not to introduce more illegal fish and then hire more anglers (agents) at taxpayer expense and issue more fishing licenses.
Congress has betrayed the trust of so many Americans so often for so long, how can there ever be trust in legislation like the SAVE Act? How many instances of political infidelity for how many years by how many congressmen must Americans suffer before citizens throw the bums out of the ‘house’ into the street? These elite bullies have garnered their power and influence, passed laws to protect their position, surrounded themselves with law enforcement agencies for their own protection, voted themselves a king’s ransom of a retirement system and benefits, and now they’re laughing in our face! They’re literally challenging you and me! What are we going to do about it? It's not Left v. Right anymore, it's the State v. you.
In the vernacular, a schmuck is a stupid person, a jerk, a fool, or a gullible dolt - at the very least. We are perceived as schmucks by our elected representatives in Congress, and worse by an assortment of Mexicans, Europeans and Muslims, all of whom are gaming the “democratic system” and our naivety to further their own self-interests. The abuse of United States citizens has got to stop, both by Congress and by illegal aliens.
And so the cycle repeats, and the SAVE Act stands as credible evidence that politicians intend that the cycle of abuse will repeat endlessly. Sadistically, it also appears to be the wizard’s (President Bush’s) intent. Careful reading of the SAVE Act provides more than an ample justification to speculate that the real intention of the SAVE Act is to make it impossible to remove illegal aliens from the United States. If there was any intention – ever - to enforce immigration laws and deport illegal aliens, then just enforce the current laws and eliminate access to the taxpayer-funded social benefits. No SAVE Act would be needed.
So let’s agree up front that there is still no intention to enforce immigration laws regardless of new legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the president. Its simply another fraud, not unlike a shell game or 3-card Monte. When you encounter such games on the street, you would probably be unaware that most of the persons standing around a game are in league with the operator. The cosponsors of the SAVE Act are also in league, make no mistake.
Possibly the one aspect of the SAVE Act that should worry citizens the most is that the DHS seeks by this legislation to broadly expand their authority, power and reach. The SAVE Act authorizes the federal government to permanently seize substantial sovereign power from the States just when power should be flowing in the other direction.
United States citizens find themselves in quite a bind because Congress’ votes have been bought and paid for by foreign and domestic special interests. Regular old fashioned law abiding patriotic play-by-the-rules United States citizens, having elected their representatives in good faith, now realize they’re going to have to compete with special interests and well-funded activists and try to buy representation from their own representatives.
Has anybody stopped to consider that none of the top-tier candidates for President of the United States in 2008, in either party, has gone on record regarding what they would do with the 20-40 million illegal aliens currently in the United States, or whether they would build the double-layer border fence, or whether they would continue to extend unearned taxpayer-funded medical care, education and social benefits to non-citizens and their children? Duncan Hunter was on public record claiming he will build the fence, however candidate Huckabee has changed direction so many times even he must feel dizzy. No current candidate has said he will enforce existing immigration laws. Not one Republican or Democrat candidate has said they will actively prosecute those responsible for identity theft or fraudulent use of Social Security numbers.
With the SAVE Act, policing social security fraud permanently becomes the function of the Homeland Security Department. The criminal misuse of Social Security numbers by illegal aliens, and employers who accept, utilize and report fraudulent Social Security earnings is already a secret held more closely than nuclear technology. Identity theft remains a serious, pervasive and unresolved problem. What person is typically victimized by identity theft? Who in many cases is financially devastated? Not the illegal alien. When was the last time you heard of the prosecution of anyone for fraudulent use of a Social Security number to illegally obtain employment?
It’s time for some serious sole-searching. Are you finally willing to acknowledge, based on past performance, that the status quo suits Congress just fine, otherwise Congress would have stopped the social security fraud? Are you finally willing to acknowledge, based on past performance, that the status quo in illegal alien migration also suits Congress just fine, otherwise Congress and/or the Bush Administration would stopped it long ago? Does anybody seriously think Congress or the Bush Administration have had an epiphany and the SAVE Act somehow represents a “compassionate” change of conservative heart?
Here is another sobering thought: Has anybody stopped to ponder that the only people in the entire world who do NOT benefit from paying United States income taxes are the people who pay them? If all men were created equal, why are so many people, both in foreign countries and in the United States, still on some form of U.S. welfare and more illegal aliens are applying for benefits daily?
Moving on, what about the touted E-verify system of work eligibility? Consider for a moment that businesses are incorporated in a particular state and function according to the state laws in which they conduct business. While we would hope that employers would not hire illegal aliens, any decisions to limit employment eligibility reside in the sole jurisdiction of the individual state. If the state legislature and governor want to mandate use of a federal E-verification system as a prerequisite to hiring in Arizona, so be it, but nobody in Washington, D.C. has the constitutional jurisdiction or authority to mandate the E-verify program contained in the SAVE Act. E-verify may become a welcome adjunct to business law at the state level, but not immigration law at the federal level. Who is offered or denied employment in the State of Arizona is no business of any administrative agency, politician or civil service employee in Washington, D.C.
Do you really want a United States government administrative agency to begin deciding who gets a job and who doesn’t? Be very, very careful what you wish for because the day will soon come when United States citizens who fail to curry liberal favor begin to find their name on the “no-job” list – without recourse – or on the “no-fly” list or “no-gun” list, both of which already exist.
As for lists, you’ve probably heard about the government’s terrorism watch list … the list they won’t tell you who’s on, who’s not, how they got there or how to get off. The government’s terrorism watch list grew by 200,000 people in 2006 to more than 750,000 names. There are terrorists in this country, without a doubt because of open borders and lax enforcement, but does anyone really believe there are three-quarters of a million terrorists in this country?
If that were not enough, Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey is relentlessly pushing legislation that would terminate a citizen’s 2nd Amendment gun rights if their name just magically happened to turn up on that terrorism list. If you think it couldn’t happen, the history course(s) were lacking or non-existent in the public school indoctrination curriculum you experienced. Disarming citizens has always been the first priority of every eventual tyrant or ruling class throughout recorded human history.
We learned from the Washington Post in the week before Christmas, 2007 that the Department of Homeland Security (FBI) is embarking on a $1 billion effort to build the world's largest computer database of peoples' characteristics, a project that would give the government unprecedented abilities to identify individuals in the United States and abroad.
One more time for emphasis - please be very, very careful what you wish for. The Department of Homeland Security has no right under the Constitution or law to access Social Security records. There is no justification for such a massive invasion and probable future misuse of personal information. Arguably, we have in the making an American version of the infamous Soviet KGB, an intelligence organization that will keep a detailed computer database dossier on every aspect of the life of every United States citizen – from medical records to parking tickets. If you want to live in a political system that resembles the defunct Soviet Union, why not just move to Russia – but be sure to take your passport and a copy of George Orwell’s novel, ‘1984’.
Back to the point - because the unshakeable intent of Congress is now, and always has been, to grant amnesty to tens of millions of illegal aliens in exchange for campaign contributions, and the “Hispanic vote” to shore up the dwindling demographics of the liberal establishment, it is unlikely that Congress will make any effort to save United States citizens from the SAVE Act. As if more proof were needed, without any explanation, Congress has already stripped away the $3 billion in funds intended to build the double-layer border fence that was approved last year. Without telling the public, Congress pulled the plug on the U.S.-Mexico Border Fence that it voted to build with such enthusiasm and grandstanding (just before they asked voters to re-elect them). So what is the point of the SAVE Act except to try to scam the American public for the twentieth time into accepting the existence of an ever increasing number of illegal aliens in the United States? Many of these very same congressmen that defunded the border fence are touting the SAVE Act?
There is still one more small nagging detail. What about justice for past or present criminal acts committed by illegal aliens, criminal acts that accumulate year after year without justice? What about all the past deportations that were simply ignored or never enforced? What happened when the alien returned defiantly and reentered the United States? Where is the accountability for repeatedly crossing the border illegally, not to mention the crimes recklessly committed while in the United States?
Is there anybody (that is both awake and conscious) that does not believe that United States citizens deserve justice for what they have had to suffer - for the fraud, the violent crimes, deaths at the hands of illegal aliens that continue at the rate of 5,000 citizens per year, human trafficking, drug importation and property crimes – all facilitated for 20 years by elected representatives, such as Senator John McCain who is chief among men who seek to rule rather than govern, i.e., to become Caesar. If John McCain is unresponsive to 80-90 percent of his own state’s registered voters who want illegal alien migration into Arizona stopped, and has done nothing but pander to special interests for 20 years, is John McCain participating in governing as a representative of Arizona, or attempting to rule?
Maybe justice should begin with our elected representatives. Maybe Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano should be named as an unindicted co-conspirator on every homicide committed by an illegal alien in the State of Arizona.
Maybe Senator John McCain can explain why his refusal to enforce existing immigration laws is not a form of gross malfeasance in public office, and why facilitating illegal alien migration is not a cruel form of torture on every United States citizen?
Have you ever asked yourself, “How many United States crime victims at the hands of illegal aliens will finally be too many, even for a heartless politician?” Will 1,000,000 be too many? That sad milestone was passed a long time ago. Maybe Arizona Senator Jon Kyl has the answer? What are his “reasonable carnage” limits – otherwise known as acceptable collateral damage? If one rape in Iraq is too many, how many thousands of rapes of our cherished wives and daughters should be acceptable?
It should not be lost on voters that Senator Jon Kyl has just been promoted to the #2 position of Senate Republican leadership responsibility (Asst. Minority Whip) by his peers. This is the man who voted for construction of the border wall before he voted against funding it. Clearly, Republicans who voted for Senator Kyl to become Asst. Minority Whip proudly share his vacant value system – a belief system that says there are no limits on collateral damage suffered by citizens at the hands of illegal aliens in the United States. These are the very same men and women who are now among the 133 sponsors of the SAVE Act.
It may be a novel concept to liberals, including Democrats and liberal Republicans, but when someone says “enforce the laws,” THAT INCLUDES ACCOUNTABILITY, not just picking up illegal aliens off the street, filling out the paperwork and putting the alien on a bus back to Mexico. Enforcement includes accountability - or it is not enforcement. What part of ILLEGAL don’t American liberals and illegal aliens understand? Are we to assume that liberals in general and illegal aliens in particular will pick and choose which laws, if any, are applicable to them? So much for the SAVE Act.
United States citizens (except female teachers who rape young male students) are usually held accountable for crimes committed under state and federal laws. They do hard time. They are taken off the streets for extended periods of time both to protect society and to create a deterrent. They don’t get celebrity status and a “get-out-of-jail-free card” simply because they’re illegally in the United States. They’re not deported to their homes in a neighboring state or foreign country. They can't flee across an imaginary border to escape prosecution. Why should illegal aliens and potential terrorists be too good for the Rule of Law? Why not ask your congressman for an explanation why the potential Mexican votes are more important than those of United States citizens?
You already know the cynical answer. Hispanic activists, corporate interests, attorneys, and those who profit from the criminal enterprise of illegal alien migration, are buying congressional votes. You’re not. Pushing the SAVE Act through Congress is akin to putting more Congressmen in Washington, D.C. as if more congressmen will somehow lessen the political corruption.
There is only one thing that will ever stop illegal alien migration into the United States. Do you want the migration of illegal aliens to stop, or don't you?
Illegal aliens just like every other human being, including and exemplified by United States politicians, act with few exceptions in their own self-interest. Illegal aliens cross the border for only one reason – self interest. Illegal aliens must be made to fervently believe that they do not want to endure what they are going to find in the United States if they are found to have committed a crime as an illegal alien.
Besides, what illegal alien would want to come to the United States if there were no jobs readily available or social benefits waiting for them? Think about it; only a terrorist or a serial criminal would enter the United States illegally in the face of probable hardship.
The only solution to illegal alien migration, assuming that United States citizens have both the desire and the stomach to make it stop, is to create a credible disincentive to “illegal” migration - to make it socially and economically painful to be an illegal alien in the United States – of any ethnic origin or religious affiliation. If we as a nation (our congressmen) are not willing to strip away the taxpayer funded benefits lavished on illegal aliens, and protect United States jobs, American culture and the environment, why not just start printing and distributing engraved invitations?
Maybe we are all missing the point. Maybe Governor Napolitano’s DHS-sanctioned illegal alien radio-chip driver’s licenses are intended as an engraved invitation.
For those who are advocates of “hate crime” legislation, why not talk about the epitome of hate crimes? How about an illegal alien victimizing a United States citizen? If that crime scenario is not a hate crime, both against the United States and the citizen, nothing is. Men and women serving in uniform will tell you that desecrating the United States flag by flying it upside down subservient to the Mexican flag is among the worst of hate crimes.
For those who are environmental advocates, why not talk about the relentless destruction of the natural environment in the Southwest United States by illegal aliens, and their reckless consumption of valuable natural resources? Why should United States citizens, for example, have to subsidize the price of gasoline, and then be denied the supply of 50 million gallons of automobile gasoline required every day to transport illegal aliens to and from social services, education, medical care and illegal jobs?
The unfortunate reality is that sanctuary cities are still open for business, welcoming illegal aliens with chain migration, anchor baby citizenship, medical care, day labor centers and taxpayer-funded education. Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon and Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris are among the nation’s most notorious illegal alien enablers. Advocates of the SAVE Act don't care. What Rule of Law?
What about the border fence? Listen carefully. If you want a nation tomorrow, build the border fence today, and the converse applies. If you don’t care, so be it. The wall is the most effective and least expensive of all options – no exceptions – no debate. Doing nothing is likely to be the most expensive option in the long term, both in carnage and squandered tax dollars.
Do not allow yourself to be confused. Do you want a United States of America to exist or not? We are standing on the edge of a proverbial cliff and the advocates of illegal alien migration (and a North American Union) want us to jump off - voluntarily. They think we are that stupid. They think our patriotism, flag-flying, churchgoing, marriage, having children, owning a gun and driving an SUV is stupid. They think the goodness of America and its founding principles are stupid, particularly the part about private property and individual liberty. They think they're superior to 'We the People' and rest assured they intend to decide the future of our nation, or our city, or our homeowners association, because their brilliance is to be presumed, never challenged and without question. We love America and put our hand over our heart when the National Anthem is played (some congressmen don't). We proudly recite the Pledge of Allegiance (some candidates for president don't).
The issues of national sovereignty, free trade and the Rule of Law are not complicated. However, with each passing day that there is not a double-layer border fence, we lose a little more of the dwindling opportunity to regain control of our national sovereignty. Each day without decisive action to close the borders makes it more difficult to restore what was once the most successful culture in the history of mankind. The movement toward a collectivist hemispheric or world government already has considerable momentum. The important point to remember is that national borders are at the heart of the issue!
Opponents say that a double-layer border fence would be ineffective as a barrier to illegal aliens since the incentives to cross the border are simply too strong. The claim is that illegal aliens would only find another way – over, under or around. Why is it not logical to extrapolate using a little common sense? How can any number of border agents (standing shoulder to shoulder if necessary, 24/7, resembling a wall), including those authorized in the SAVE Act, ever hope to compete with the same social incentives that illegal alien activists say would defeat a rigid double-layer border fence?
Expensive technology (if it is not routinely vandalized) would be useful in telling us where and when illegal aliens are crossing the border, but technology is not going to stop the intruders, or apprehend them, or hold them accountable for their criminal activity, or most importantly, provide any disincentives to crossing the border.
Just as it is not in your best interests to unlawfully try to enter my house, illegal aliens from Mexico, or traversing Mexico, must be made to feel just as passionately as their American neighbors to the North that it is NOT in their best interests to illegally cross the United States/Mexico border. Nothing in the SAVE Act will lessen the current incentives to cross illegally, so what is the point of the SAVE Act? Everything in the SAVE Act intentionally avoids dealing with the incentives that attract illegal aliens into the United States. Nothing in the SAVE Act is designed to stem the illegal alien migration tsunami.
The actual point of the SAVE Act legislation may be insidious, i.e., to give every illegal alien some form of “a legal status” and identification that will entitle apprehended illegal aliens access to the United States judicial system, and appeals to higher courts, before their eventual deportation. As long as illegal aliens have some form of Congressionally mandated legal status, they are not illegal aliens under immigration law, just undocumented workers – people like you and me that have rights in United States courts and now have the legal sanction to remain on the streets of the United States until their immigration case is resolved, regardless of how long millions of such cases will take. If there are no illegal aliens, only undocumented workers, problem solved.
Do you recognize a pattern at work across the entire nation? Elected politicians at every level of government are simply ignoring existing laws. As long as the smorgasbord of social incentives for illegal aliens remains on the table, border agents might as well be standing in front of a runaway bus. Regardless of the numbers of new agents the SAVE Act would authorize, border agents have about the same chance of stopping a runaway bus as they do stopping illegal alien migration and drug trafficking without someone getting hurt or killed. If the border agent is lucky enough to survive an armed encounter with illegal aliens, it is probable the border agent will be prosecuted for violating the imaginary rights of the illegal alien and then inhumanely incarcerated.
The North Vietnamese imprisoned John McCain for attacking their country. We’ve imprisoned several of our own Border Patrol agents for defending our country. John McCain was tortured by his captors. Our Border Patrol agents have been brutally beaten in prison. Doesn’t it make you just swell up with pride?
United States citizens who care about the future of their nation are in a literal tug-of-war with their elected representatives, i.e., people who by their actions show they care nothing about anything but self-interest. Recognize that the U.S. Senate is absolutely defiant in their refusal to enforce all existing laws, not just immigration laws. Almost to the man and woman, Congress collectively remains determined to disregard the best interests of the United States and refuses to protect the nation’s borders from all enemies foreign and domestic.
The SAVE Act appears to be just another move in the open borders chess game, another shuffle of the cards, another variation of the shell-game we’ve become accustomed to – the con-job known as “comprehensive immigration reform.”
Red State Patriot
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
What is Phoenix PD Ops. Order 1.4.3 and Why Should You Care?
Stop the excuses: End Operations Order 1.4
By Sandra J. Miller
January 13, 2007
Police Chief Jack Harris’ Nov. 5 appearance at the Ahwatukee Crime Forum left me underwhelmed. His title, badge and uniform don’t fool me; he’s a bureaucrat, pure and simple.
How do I know? Because he talks like a bureaucrat: “It’s not my job,” or “It’s somebody else’s fault,” or “We can’t do that.” Put that litany of tired excuses out of their misery.
Excuse No. 1: “Asking about citizenship is racial profiling/violating constitutional rights.”
Handling foreign nationals isn’t new to the Phoenix Police Department; they’ve done it since 1969 when the U.S. joined the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Article 36 requires police to notify the consulate of arrested foreign nationals. That means Phoenix police have had guidelines in place to identify those foreign nationals for more than three decades.
Immigration is no more “complex” than tax laws, divorce laws, custody laws and criminal laws. That’s why lawyers specialize.
Past “kid-glove” handling of immigration law violations were due to political correctness and pandering, not complexity or public safety principles. Immigration violations should be treated like any other crime and its violators like any other lawbreakers.
Excuse No. 3: “It’s a federal law.”
So are bank robbery and kidnapping, yet the Phoenix Police Department doesn’t tell callers, “We don’t handle federal crimes, you’ll have to call the FBI.”
Excuse No. 4: “Too time-consuming.”
Bureaucrat Phil Gordon claimed the Phoenix police can’t do immigration checks during routine encounters: “If we start down that road, our chief, and I concur with him, believes that’s all our officers will be doing, they’ll be tied up doing this.”
Translation: “The illegal alien numbers have increased so much during 20 years of sanctuary that we now have too many to arrest.”
Gordon and Harris don’t claim “there are too many drug dealers to arrest,” or “there are too many child molesters for us to lock up,” or “there are so many drunk drivers for us to get off the road.”
Excuse No. 5: “Officers will be 'waiting around’ for Immigration & Customs Enforcement.”
Police are primary responders (first on the scene and last to leave) and routinely “wait around” for auxiliary services like fire, paramedics, ambulance and bomb squad. After everyone else leaves a traffic accident, officers remove highway debris. Do officers radio for help, tell the citizen “the bomb squad is on the way,” and take off?
What is Operations Order 1.4.3?
We’ve heard it’s a “sanctuary” order, but what does that mean?
Phoenix Police are forbidden to call “immigration” on illegal aliens for felonies like reckless endangerment, homicide, DUI, hit and run, aggravated assault, armed robbery, rape, forgery, fraudulent schemes, lewd behavior, extortion, identity theft, breaking and entering, kidnapping, burglary, robbery, manslaughter, hostage-taking, child molestation, public drunkenness, assault and battery, assault with a deadly weapon, except under Arizona’s new human smuggling law.
Upon printing this crime list in the Ahwatukee Foothills News Nov. 14, the intent was for Jack Harris to correct a hoped “misinterpretation.” Since then, Harris hasn’t even sent a card. The obvious conclusion is that the Nov. 14 interpretation is 100 percent correct.
Misdemeanors give the illegal alien an even better deal. No call to immigration and they’re generally released after promising to appear in court. Many then promptly go AWOL.
Ops 1.4.3 “Services” for illegals:
• Phoenix police officers can send illegal aliens to Chicanos por la Causa and Friendly House for help with immigration, housing and social services. Both agencies receive funding from public taxes and the United Way.
• Phoenix detectives will help illegal aliens, claiming “I’m a crime victim”, get a U-Visa for themselves and family members to remain in the U.S.
Tell Councilman Greg Stanton your opinion on this vital Phoenix issue at (602) 262-7491 or greg.stanton@phoenix.gov.
_______________
A computer analyst for 27 years, Sandra Miller moved to Ahwatukee Foothills 14 years ago and served as a director of the Mountain Park Ranch Homeowners Association. In 2004 she was a supporter of Proposition 200, which required proof of citizenship to register or vote.
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
Published at http://www.ahwatukee.com/articles/police_2124___article.html/immigration_excuse.html
Reprinted with permission of the author.
Do you know the story of the Incredible Disappearing Border Fence? It's an object lesson in gesture politics and homeland insecurity. It's a tale of hollow rhetoric, meaningless legislation and bipartisan betrayal. And in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses, it's a helpful learning tool as you assess the promises of immigration enforcement converts now running for president.
Last fall, Democrats and Republicans in Washington responded to continued public outrage over border chaos by passing the "Secure Fence Act." Did you question the timing? You should have. It's no coincidence they finally got off their duffs to respond just before the 2006 midterm elections. Lawmakers vowed grandiosely to keep America safe. The law specifically called for "at least 2 layers of reinforced fencing, the installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras and sensors" at five specific stretches of border totaling approximately 700 miles.
GOP leaders patted themselves on the back for their toughness. President Bush made a huge to-do in signing the bill into law. Never mind the lack of funding for the fence and the failure to address many other immediate reforms that could have been adopted immediately to strengthen immigration enforcement, close deportation loopholes and provide systemic relief at the border without the need for a single brick or bulldozer.
On the very day the bill was signed, open-borders politicians were already moving to water it down. Texas Republican Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn pushed for "flexibility to choose other options instead of fencing, if needed." Six months after passage of the Secure Fence Act -- now interpreted by Washington as the Flexible Non-Fence Act or, as I call it, the FINO (Fence in Name Only) Act -- 700 miles shrunk to "somewhere in the ballpark" of 370 miles. A 14-mile fence-building project in San Diego was stalled for years by environmental legal challenges and budget shortfalls. The first deadline -- a May 30, 2007 requirement for installation of an "interlocking surveillance camera system" along the border in California and Arizona -- passed unmet. GOP Rep. Duncan Hunter, one of the few Republican presidential candidates to walk the talk on border security, blasted the Bush administration for suffering from "a case of 'the slows' on border enforcement."
More than a year after the law's passage, the citizen watchdog group Grassfire reports that just five miles of double-layer fencing has been built in the first 12 months of implementation of the act. Five lousy miles. The Government Accountability Office claims 70 miles were erected -- but most of that fencing failed to meet the specifications of the law.
Is Congress up in arms? Will there be accountability? Don't make me snort. Instead of demanding that the law be enforced, the pols are sabotaging the law. As part of the omnibus spending package passed this week, House Democrats incorporated Senate Republicans' provisions to remove the two-layer fencing requirements and the specific target list of fencing locations.
GOP Rep. Peter T. King, who sponsored the Secure Fence Act, told the Washington Times: "This is either a blatant oversight or a deliberate attempt to disregard the border security of our country. As it's currently written, the omnibus language guts the Secure Fence Act almost entirely. Quite simply, it is unacceptable."
But so totally, totally predictable.
Republican Leader John Boehner tried to blame the House Democrat majority: "The fact that this was buried in a bloated, 3,500-page omnibus speaks volumes about the Democrats' unserious approach on border security and illegal immigration," he said. "Gutting the Secure Fence Act will make our borders less secure, but it's consistent with the pattern of behavior we've seen all year from this majority." But it's border state Republicans who've been gunning to undermine the law while the ink was still fresh.
To add insult to injury and homeland insecurity upon homeland insecurity, Congress failed to adopt a ban on federal aid to sanctuary cities that prevent government employees and law enforcement officers from asking about immigration status; voted to stall implementation of stricter ID standards at border crossings; and miraculously found enough money to provide $10 million in "emergency" funding for attorneys of illegal aliens.
Next time you hear a leading presidential candidate try to woo you with his nine-point immigration enforcement plan or his secure ID plan or his Secure Borders platform, point to the Incredible Disappearing Border Fence. Poof! That is what happens to election-season homeland security promises. Why would theirs be any different?
Michelle Malkin
December 19, 2007
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/homeland.php?id=1385927
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
Drug Dealers Pardoned;
Border Patrol Agents Remain in Prison
December 14, 2007
By Sher Zieve
My disappointment with our current political and governmental administration reached an all-time high this week. The reason? While U.S. Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean are left to languish in jail for actually doing their jobs, President Bush has opted to pardon eight (count them – eight) drug dealers. (Was this to ensure that the drug dealers’ families and friends would have an even “jollier” time this time of year than they would have without certain “products”? One can only surmise.)
And as continues to be the case, Agents Ramos and Compean were ignored – much the same way the building of a protective southern border security fence is being substantively ignored by our government “leaders”; leaders who are not only going against the wishes of U.S. citizens, but appear to be hoping that “We the People” will – at some point – forget about the border fence entirely.
Hmmm…
It seems drug dealers are allowed, by our government, to infect our society and way of life with their viruses – even encouraged to do so with these latest pardons – while U.S. citizens are punished for fighting them.
Could this be the real reason Compean and Ramos were prosecuted by U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton? Were they (and are we) being sent the unambiguous dictate that drug dealers must be allowed to ply their trade – which includes crossing our southern border to do so – without any interference from local and federal law enforcement and any of the U.S. citizenry? Is this a warning “We the People” to “back off” or also face jail time? Sure sounds like it. But apparently, this mandate applies to only a certain class of drugs and their suppliers.
Our government, via a U.S. Senate subcommittee, is on its way to taking over control of Major League Baseball with one of its seemingly endless investigations – this time over steroid use. So, per our government, steroid use by the players in baseball will now carry a prison sentence with the full weight of the U.S. government behind it.
Note: No Senate investigations are currently reported to be ongoing with regard to other professional sports. Steroids are already banned. But, apparently, other highly addictive drugs – which impact the general population areas of the country – are allowed and even supported. And again – drug dealers are being pardoned while those attempting to stop them are being jailed under increasingly trumped up charges based upon seemingly false evidence or the suppression of said “evidence’s” lack of substantiation. This is scary, folks.
There are so many things wrong with these actions that it boggles the mind. We now appear to have a government that is overtly fighting against the people who elected its members to fight for them. With an increasingly sickening certainty and inevitability, those whom we elect to political office can’t seem to become elites quickly enough.
These “elites” are the ones who have – or will soon have – the means to protect themselves from their own ill-conceived decisions…decisions that will allow this cream-of-the-crop class to remain in their selective and superior positions while the rest of us must now fight for our lives. While these now privileged politicians pass legislation designed to better themselves, their families and supporters, the rest of us are left to fend for ourselves against said politicians who have now seized power away from us. When criminals are let out of jail, those trying to stop criminals are placed into or forced to remain in jail and members of the U.S. Congress use their color of their authority and power to advance their own political and personal agendas, “We the People” are in tremendous peril.
And so is our country. Either fight back against them, or prepare yourselves to become a member of the great and unwashed masses.
The time required to save the country may no longer be on our side.
Original article can be read on the Internet at:
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/homeland.php?id=1385884
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
Take yourself back to September 11th, 2001 and recall where you were at 9 am on that fateful morning. Look at the photograph above and reflect on what you were told or heard that brought you to a television screen. Do you remember your emotions as you watched in stunned disbelief with the rest of America as events unfolded.
Do you remember seeing people jump from the tower’s windows to certain death, and the north side of the Pentagon in flames? Do you remember the legion of rescue workers doing anything possible in Washington, D.C. and New York to render aid with no expectation of reward other than knowing they were saving lives - and more often than not giving their own? Do you remember the brave souls, those American patriots that gave their lives heroically in Pennsylvania, in the finest traditions of United States citizenship, to protect many more American citizens from certain death? They willingly made the ultimate sacrifice as honorably as our soldiers who would follow in the War on Terror. First one tower, and then the second tower collapsed, extinguishing the lives of thousands of intelligent, talented, and dedicated human beings.
Do you remember feeling an empty disbelief followed by a visceral disgust that there could be an organized group of defective human beings called "Muslims" willing to commit an atrocity of this magnitude on innocent people? Slowly, most Americans came to realize they had been at war for decades with a cult called Islam that claimed the legitimacy of a religion.
For a short period of time, during “the Innocent Days,” there were only patriots - no liberals or conservatives, no Democrats or Republicans, no Christians, Jews or Agnostics. Who was President of the United States or Mayor of New York was not important. Who was an American meant everything.
In the weeks that followed, three prominent types of Americans emerged from that fateful day. One had a prideful resolve, not felt since Pearl Harbor, demonstrated both in the midst of the crisis and during the aftermath. They were called, "Americans."
Another type immediately began to disgrace their citizenship by seeking ways to profit, blame, cast doubt, stir unrest and project guilt for the attack onto the current or a previous Administration, and various United States corporations. To this day, collectively they are called "liberals" or "Democrats," interchangably. A third group, distinct from the "Americans" and "liberals," worked tirelessly following September 11th, 2001. Their goal was to exploit the attack on the United States for personal gain. They are what we call, "politicians."
How will September 11th, 2007 be remembered? Consider the alternatives.
Consider two alternative scenarios for the first fourteen days following September 11th:
1. What if the FBI or the President had announced that they were going to immediately begin screening all aviation travelers (get over it or don’t travel), screen libraries for people checking out books on bomb-making (for the safety of families and children in schools), develop an intelligence dossier on every Muslim in America, and follow every possible terrorist lead regardless of any possible offense to any artificial subset of society? What if the President announced that pilots would hereafter be armed for the defense of the aircraft and protection of their passengers (no choice), and all cockpit doors would be fortified (get over it or don’t fly)? What if the President had announced that soft targets throughout the country vulnerable to terrorism, such as water systems, harbors, airports and nuclear plants, would be dramatically hardened with additional security? What if the President had announced that valid passports would be required to enter the United States of America at any Port of Entry? What if the President promulgated an Executive Order that anyone entering the USA illegally after September 11, 2001 would be considered a terrorist until such suspicions could be proven unfounded? What if the President announced that all Islamic males who were in America legally, and who were not U.S. citizens, must register within 30 days? Those that did not register would be considered terrorists. What if the FBI rounded up all non-citizen Islamic males illegally in the United States and deported them without recourse due to a proclaimed national emergency?
2. Alternatively, what if the President or the FBI announced that there was no serious threat of terrorism and no policies would change?
Which alternative would have been rational or irrational in the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001? Which choice would have angered you?
Now consider the Hurricane Katrina, Rita and Wilma alternatives:
1. What if FEMA or the President announced that they were going to staff, operate, supply, coordinate, fund, rescue, rebuild and transport everyone and everything associated with the relief effort, beginning at the instant devastation was certain, as rapidly as they could respond, even if it meant bypassing federal law, state law and elected local governments, and all relief organizations?
2. Alternatively, what if FEMA or the President announced authoritatively that disaster recovery and the welfare of the citizens of every state was, by law, the primary responsibility of individual states, and only secondarily would the federal government assist? What if the President announced that he would respect the inherent sovereignty of state governments first, and would only respond upon written request of State Governors, working in cooperation with civilian relief agencies, after a comprehensive damage assessment had been completed, relief needs were known, and a state-level relief infrastructure was implemented?
Which of those choices would have angered you in the weeks following the hurricanes?
Now ask yourself, why is national defense (our lives, our families, our children, our jobs, our culture and our value systems) somehow less important to Democrats and liberal Republicans, and the Main Stream Media than hurricane-related property damage on the Gulf Coast of Mexico?
Why is the defense of our nation from another terrorist event, protection of our economy, preservation of our manufacturing and technological advantage, safeguarding other forms of industry and particularly jobs, and protecting our sovereignty at the border somehow evil in the eyes of liberals – all of whom hide behind various labels of Party affiliation? You know who they are.
Why is anything pro-American viewed by Democrats and liberal Republicans as unfair, conceived in lies? Why are Congressmen and the media so willing to divulge classified information and give aid and comfort to enemies of the United States? Why do many politicians think that people of other nations are unworthy of freedom and United States citizens are unworthy of liberty?
Why are the deaths of American servicemen and women greeted with media celebration of milestones? How could liberals in Congress willingly vote to send our young men and women into war and then work tirelessly to insure their defeat, accusing the young soldiers of war crimes at every opportunity?
Why are strategic American military bases foolishly being closed across the country in the guise of cost-cutting? Liberals in Congress view their base-closure actions as a form of political sport, however future generations of Americans will come to realize that it was a cruel hoax, based on liberal anti-military sentiment, that caused whole geographic areas of the United States to become unprotected and vunerable to terrorism.
Why are advanced weapon systems and desperately needed troop equipment somehow unworthy of funding by Congress, but NO amount of money and speed of response would have been sufficient in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina?
Why are modern nuclear energy facilities, oil exploration and new oil refineries STILL blocked by Congress when new capacity would reduce United States dependency on foreign oil from such places as Mexico, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia?
How many contradictions can be numbly ignored? Is it probable to surmise, even probable to conclude, that United States Congressmen are on the ‘take’ and so pervasively corrupt and consumed with self-interest that they are willing to sell out their own nation for campaign contributions that originate from foreign sources - from Mexico, China and Saudi Arabia - buying their votes to act against the national interests of the United States?
Why are the lives of “Joe 6-pack” and his family, and the lives of our servicemen and women worth so little? Why do Democrats and liberal Republicans see no need for a strong national defense, energy self-sufficiency, effective and inviolable border control that complies with existing laws, and competent foreign intelligence?
Why have the lives of 50,000 United States citizens been literally sacrificed to illegal aliens, with no end in sight? How many American families who have lost a son or daughter, husband or wife in the War on Terror would proudly proclaim that their family's sacrifice was for "open borders," which is the number one oxymoron of the 21st Century?
Almost seven years later and counting; why does ‘Who is an American?’ mean nothing to those who with authority to protect our borders, and particularly Congress and the Bush Administration? It would appear self-interst is stronger than a politician's sense of duty.
Is anybody listening?
Prominent politicians and media elites have refused to listen to a huge majority of United States citizens, choosing instead to rule rather than govern. Liberal state governors, legislatures and politicians in Congress steadfastly refuse to embrace their own responsibilities of United States citizenship, which should include a defense against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
For decades, these same liberal luminaries have been intent on demonstrating that allegiance to the United States is not important and a world government would be preferrable. However, they fail to understand that it is the American "heart" which has made the United States great. The American heart is that individual nucleus of loyalty to a faith of personal choosing, country and family. It is the American heart that forms the core of our nation's excellence, initiative, integrity, moral character, voluntary charity, duty and responsibility of citizenship.
Why, then, is it not reasonable to compare politicians with a large, ugly and odiferous snail, going nowhere slowly, doing nothing constructive, serving no useful purpose, feeding off the fruits of fellow citizens, pathologically seeking power, and leaving behind an unmistakable trail of corruption and slime so plainly visible that every legal United States voter should be able to trace them in November, 2008.
Only one question remains. How many registered voters really have an aberrant fetish for slime? Voters face some difficult decisions in 2008. The choices seem limited to two choices, a liberal Republican or an extreme socialist Democrat? Neither choice will return conservative "citizen legislators" or sanity to Congress anytime soon. Neither choice will seal the nation's borders, develop domestic energy resources, return excellence to education, protect citizens from crime and terrorism, resurrect manufacturing in the United States and create jobs, and put an end to the incessant taxation and growth of government.
Being an equal opportunity offender, it appears to be a ‘given’ that either Senator Hillary R. Clinton (the Queen of corruption) or Barrack Hussein Obama (the closet Muslim) may become the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in 2008. This comes on the heels of such patriots as presidential candidate Senator John Kerry in 2004 and ex-Vice President Al Gore in 2000. Given the narrow outcome of recent elections, it would appear that too many United States voters have demonstrated their penchant for collectivism, or too many ineligible people are voting.
Not to be outdone on the Republican side, Mayor Rudy Guiliani, a closet advocate of amnesty for illegal aliens, has said he will secure our nation's borders but at the same time renounced enforcement of immigrations laws as they apply to illegal aliens currently in the United States. Governor Mitt Romney has a bicoastal reputation for changing his position on important issues on each tidal change and lunar cycle. While either Rudy Guiliani or Mitt Romney would be excellent administrators in the Office of the President, and Hillary Clinton would be an excellent Czar with all that implies, and John Mccain would be a formidable Caesar, and Senator Obama would be an outstanding advocate of all things racial and Muslim, at this point in history the United States needs a conservative leader. Where are the viable alternatives of Newt Gingrich, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo when we sorely need them? And what about Fred Thompson who spent a year "gaming" the system saying he couldn't make up his mind? If it takes that long for Fred to make a decision, to light his own fuse, we are left wondering if Fred is a conservative firecracker, as he wants to portray himself, or a "dud."
Why does, ‘Who is an American?’ still mean nothing to the 'front runners' in both political parties? Why do liberals in general, and politicians and academicians in particular, all of whom feed at the public trough (in elected office, or whose life is taxpayer funded), think of themselves as elite emmisaries of a world- or hemispheric-government without personal allegiance to the United States of America? As Ann Coulter observed, if liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. Neither are good choices for the White House.
As the real United States citizens begin to focus on the merits of the candidates for the presidency of the United States in 2008, maybe we should avoid those candidates with an emphasis of, “Who am I?” (front runners) and focus instead on the words and actions of the second tier of candidates, those who emphasize, “Who are we?”
We are Americans.
We are Americans and we will never forget.
We are not Mexicans. Nor are we members of the Cult of Islam dedicated to the annihilation of Christians and Jews. Nor do we advocate for one race at the expense of all other Americans.
We are Americans, not the North American Union.
No fence, no campaign contributions, no votes. Yes, that's my final answer.
Too subtle?
Red State Patriot
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
An "oxymoron" describes a phrase, instead of a single word. It is constructed by combining a contradiction or a perceived contradiction in terms, like "deafening silence" or "cruel kindness."
An oxymoron may be used intentionally for rhetorical effect, or to draw attention to a glaring contradiction. An oxymoron may also result from a person's humorous and unintentional mutterings.
The word “oxymoron” is derived from the Greek words 'oxy' (sharp) and 'moros' (dull). Arguably, it describes anything that is bright/stupid. Identifying a phrase as an oxymoron illustrates that combining those particular words into a phrase, while humorous, is nonsensical at best.
Here are a few phrases that immediately come to mind:
Inductive logic
Anecdotal evidence
Civil war
Microsoft works
Credible liar
Empty calories
Good grief
Tragic comedy
Junk food
Pretty ugly
Original copy
Butthead
Crisis management
Victimless crime
Standard deviation
Other oxymora have political overtones:
Democratic leadership
Congressional ethics
Government dignitaries
Compassionate conservatism
Political Science
And now my newest favorites:
Illegal immigration
Guest workers
Open borders
Should we also add 'United States Senator' and 'Rule of Law' to the list?
Red State Patriot
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
Senators from states depicted as green voted for amnesty; Senators from red states voted against amnesty; and the vote in grey states was mixed. Map source: Congress.org
"Atrocious" is a word seldom used except to describe something that is extremely wicked, cruel, brutal, appalling, horrifying, utterly revolting, of exceedinly poor quality, or outrageous. How better to characterize the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, S.1639 than atrocious? The attempt by the Bush Administration and members of Congress to pass the "amnesty" legislation was truly an atrocious act on an epoch scale.
After six weeks of working toward a compromise (attempting to manipulate public opinion) on immigration reform (code words for rewriting immigration laws because Congress and the Bush Administration refused to enforce existing laws), the Senate failed to reach the 60 votes needed to close the debate (achieve Cloture) on S.1639 and move the legislation forward for a final vote and almost certain passage.
On the Cloture Motion on June 28, 2007 (Senate Roll Call No. 235) 110th Congress, 1st Session: Cloture was rejected: 46 Aye – 53 Nay
A “YES” vote for Cloture on S.1639 was probably accurately portrayed to the American people by the alternative Internet media as a vote for illegal alien amnesty and fast-track implementation of the North American Union.
Even in the face of massive and unprecedented nationwide public opposition to amnesty legislation, both Senator John McCain and Senator Jon Kyl from Arizona defied their constituency, defied common sense, defied the rule of law, defied their birthright and voted for cloture, i.e., voted as advocates of illegal aliens instead of advocates of United States citizens. It is fortunate for Arizona voters that there are still people like AZ Represenative Russell K. Pearce, and a few others.
Other extremely important issues remain to be resolved. For example, S.1639 contained carefully crafted language that received very little attention, language that would have fast-tracked the North American Union. It is conceivable that S.1639 was all about the North American Union from the beginning, and less about illegal alien amnesty, except that one feature conveniently facilitated the other. Arguably, S.1639 was intended to begin the eventual dissolution of the sovereign borders of the United States of America. S.1639 would have made illegal alien migration literally unenforceable, both at our nation's land borders and on our shorelines. Our nation’s heartland could easily have become a 3-ring criminal and terrorist circus act had S.1639 become law.
Since people are most often motivated solely by self-interest, what possible enticement could have been so overwhelming that these two men, Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl, would consciously choose to abandon their fellow citizens and their United States citizenship with such a vote?
As an aside, have you noticed how quiet the print and visual media has suddenly become about enforcing existing immigration laws? They're hoping you will forget about that nagging, not-so-little detail in your exuberation of having defeated S.1639.
It seems urgent that Americans make a concerted attempt to drive that "enforcement" nail home – right now - hard – and with finality. The issue of migrating illegal aliens is far from over simply because a "legislative atrocity" was defeated. The bigger issue remains, i.e., a Congress that seeks to "rule" rather than "serve." It will not be over (the fat lady will not sing again) until the Rule of Law is restored throughout the United States of America.
Red State Patriot
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
Courts and state agencies defy will of the people
Arizona collects taxes in English, gives them away in Spanish
By Linda Bentley
PHOENIX – Last week Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas filed a special action with the Arizona Supreme Court to compel Maricopa County courts to comply with Proposition 100, denying bail to illegal aliens charged with serious felonies, as passed by 78 percent of voters during the November 2006 election. However, as of May 2007, an analysis by the county attorney’s office of 699 cases handled, showed only 6 percent of illegal aliens accused of serious felonies were denied bail. A previous analysis by the county attorney’s office revealed only 14.5 percent of defendants in 185 cases in which illegal aliens charged with serious felonies were denied bail.
Arizona Supreme Court Justice Ruth McGregor instituted special hearings nearly three months ago after learning Maricopa County Superior Court employees were instructed not to inquire as to the citizenship of suspects.
In April, Superior Court Judge Barbara Rodriguez Mundell said the court decided against inquiring about defendants’ legal status so it could “remain a neutral and impartial tribunal.” The court opined only the Department of Homeland Security has the authority to determine someone’s immigration status.
In other words, an illegal alien cannot even be taken at his or her word that he or she is here illegally.
And, since Proposition 103 went into effect, making English the official language of Arizona, Mundell continues to hold Spanish DUI court entirely in Spanish, without providing any English accommodations for those who wish to listen in who do not speak Spanish.
I called the Arizona Department of Economic Security today. I still had to press one to continue in English. Instructions immediately thereafter were in Spanish, telling those who wished to continue in Spanish, to “marque dos” (press two).
I then called Arizona’s Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS). The initial message on how to proceed with the call is in Spanish, telling the caller to press one to proceed in Spanish. Then the message reverts back to English, where it continued with, “If you know your party’s extension …”
AHCCCS’s Web site also has an “Español” option to click that explains all the programs under AHCCCS in Spanish, with a direct line to a person who can answer any questions about the program in Spanish.
The AHCCCS application is also available in Spanish.
However, when calling the Arizona Department of Revenue, an agency where taxes are primarily collected instead of being redistributed (emphasis added), the automated recording is entirely in English.
The Arizona State Lottery’s Web site has an “En Español” option, while the Arizona Department of Transportation Motor Vehicle Division continues to post its 73-page driver license instruction manual in Spanish, although it’s with a disclaimer that the translation is from the original English text, it is unofficial and non-binding on the state or any political subdivision of the state.
Meanwhile, the county attorney’s office has also been working with the legislature to ensure full enforcement of Proposition 100. The House approved a measure that would make probable cause the burden of proof in Simpson hearings, held to determine if the defendant is in the country illegally.
Because accused persons would still be protected by the higher burden of proof required to prove the elements of the crime charged whenever bail is denied, the probable cause standard to prove illegal entry would not deprive anyone of his constitutional right.
Although 94 percent of illegal aliens were granted bail, it is unknown how many of them, if any, were able to post bond and be released.
Red State Patriot: The message from the Superior Court to the AZ State Legislature and all United States citizens is clear: "What rule of law? Not only are we the law, we are above the law."
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
Response from Tom Dworzanski: SB 1265 was signed into law today, July 2nd. It established "probable cause" as the standard for setting bail. I didn't think she would sign it into law but Nappy did. If she did not, it would have gone onto the ballot for the next election where it would have been overwhelmingly approved by the voters.
Original article: http://www.sonorannews.com/headline5.html
Two burglars, having exchanged an agreement to share their loot, broke into the house of a United States citizen one night. One of the burglars was a Mexican and the other a Congessman. The Congressman genuinely thought the Mexican deserved more than the Mexican government was providing to their own citizens and was only too willing to make up the difference by taking it from his own unsuspecting neighbors. The two burglars shone their flashlights around, diligently looking for valuables, identification or money. When the Mexican pickup a Social Security Card to place in his pocket, they both heard what sounded like the strange, disembodied, low rumbling voices of thousands of people saying in unison from the dark, “Jesus is watching you.”
The burglar had to be one of the following because every other Congressman had an ironclad alibi:
Bennett (R-UT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Burr (R-NC)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Gregg (R-NH) Kyl (R-AZ), who also voted for the border fence before voting not to fund it.
Lott (R-MS)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Pryor (D-AR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stevens (R-AK)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
The Congressman nearly jumped out of his skin, clicked his flashlight off, and froze. He quickly made a call on his cell phone to someone named Harry saying something about holding off on the “Bill.” When he heard nothing more after a bit, and thought the commotion had ended, he spoke briefly again into the cell phone saying, "Harry, it's safe, go ahead.”
After hanging up, the Congressman shook his head, momentarily a little unnerved, and promised himself a long taxpayer-funded vacation after the next big campaign contribution. He clicked the flashlight on again and began searching for more valuables to redistribute to the Mexican. Just as he pulled the home owner’s Health Care Insurance Card from a drawer and was reaching for their children’s Student ID card, clear as a bell he thought he heard the voices again, millions of people saying, “Jesus is watching you.”
Freaked out (speaking in the vernacular), the Congressman shone his flashlight around frantically, looking for the source of the voices. The Mexican never flinched and continued to ransack the house. Finally, in the corner of the room, the Congressman’s flashlight beam came to rest on a parrot.
Did you say that?" the Congressman hissed in a half-whisper at the parrot.
"Yep," the parrot confessed, then squawked, "I'm just trying to warn you."
The Congressman relaxed. "Warn me, huh? Who in the world do you think you are?"
"Moses," replied the parrot.
"Moses?" the Congressman laughed. "What kind of voter would name a bird Moses?"
"The kind of voter that would name a Rottweiler, ‘Jesus.’"
Without liberty, law becomes oppression. Without law, liberty becomes licentiousness.
Red State Patriot
June 23, 2007
What is this thing called licentiousness? A licentious person is one lacking in moral discipline, one who ignores legal restraint, and one who has no regard for accepted rules or standards. A synonym for licentiousness is “dissolution,” meaning the eventual termination or extinction by disintegration or dispersion. It doesn’t require a superior intellect to understand that without law, our nation’s future is certain, and only the timing of our last sovereign breath remains to be determined for the history books.
The Bush-McCain-Kyl-Kennedy immigration reform bill is not dead. Far worse, it is a Trojan Horse of historical proportions. The proponents are as licentious as ever, forcing their bill through Congress with raw power, despite the fact that a huge vocal majority of American citizens oppose it. The American people are not licentious and they want their existing laws enforced. The power brokers and special interests in Washington, D.C. and state capitols flatly refuse. Their cumulative arrogance is stupefying. The White House’s press statement defiantly said it all: "This Bill Is Alive and Well!”
Are you aware the United States government has suspended its own passport requirements for American citizens who are traveling to and from Mexico and Canada? Our government was reportedly overwhelmed because the passport services we provide to our own citizens were all but unresponsive, but that is not the whole story. Those same government officials now insist they will be able to process a "Z" visa for 12-20+ million illegal immigrants, complete with background checks, in one day – 24 hours. American citizens wait up to three months or longer for the federal government to process their passport applications? Twenty-four hours for a criminal illegal alien Z-Visa and 3 months for an American citizen?
United States' citizens have also been promised that our government will “start” to enforce the law against those who came here illegally after Jan. 1, 2007. Our government expects us to believe that they have the resources, commitment and intelligence to be able to figure out which illegal alien was here before January 1, 2007. If 20+ million illegal aliens are given amnesty, who in government is seriously going to try to distinguish between illegal aliens who arrived during the last two decades - and the next ten million illegal aliens who will soon flood our shores? How are we or they to prove when any particular illegal arrived?
Are you aware the proposed "amnesty bill" actually codifies the right of cities and counties to continue their policies as a Sanctuary City, i.e., to give sanctuary to illegal aliens including probable terrorists, known MS-13 gang members and felons convicted of violent crimes? Or, maybe you have you said to yourself, "Where’s the fence!?" Despite the huge success of the border fence in the San Diego area, and legislation authorizing construction of an additional 700 miles of border fence, President Bush will not allow the same success to be repeated in other geographic areas. Are you aware that the Administration has recently cut the budget for the National Guard’s work at the southern border, even though the government's widely touted program to hire more Border Patrol agents is hopelessly behind in meeting its manpower goals? Enforcement promises are apparently as empty today as they turned out to be 20 years ago, particularly when Border Patrol Agents are incarcerated for protecting themselves from assault and the United States of America from drugs and invasion. Arizona Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano is reported to be elated at the turn of events.
The historical comparison between past Presidents and President Bush has become clear. President Carter tried to convince Americans to accept malaise as the best we could do, or hope for, and to lower our expectations (because we were Americans). Ronald Reagan recognized that government was not the solution to any problem; it was the problem. Ronald Reagan told us we had every right to dream great dreams if for no other reason than we were Americans. William Jefferson Clinton taught us sincerity is everything. When you can fake that, you've got it made. Hillary taught us that meanness don't jes' happen overnight. President H.W. Bush's legacy will likely be successfully snatching defeat in Iraq from the jaws of victory on the recommendations of Colin Powell. How many lives has that Presidency cost the rest of the world?
President G. W. Bush has taken the seat immediately adjacent to Jimmy Carter in the back row of the annals of history. President Bush says that Americans must bow to reality. The “Bush reality” is that because millions of aliens have entered the United States illegally, it is our “duty” as United States citizens to abandon our national sovereignty, give over our national wealth in the form of income redistribution, and support these criminals by providing them the unearned benefits of citizenship with no expectation of anything in return.
Illegal alien migration has been left unchecked for decades. Unrestrained migration is now consuming our national culture and heritage from the inside out. Our government has failed to enforce the law and failed its citizens; American citizens have failed at nothing but trusting elected politicians who it turns out were seeking self-interest instead of our national interest. Now, faced with a national-health crisis in the Rule of Law, President George W. Bush, has chosen to invoke the Schiavo option. Beyond comprehension, President Bush has unilaterally directed the death of our nation’s sovereignty. Arguably, President Bush is convinced that the patient is already brain-dead (Bill of Rights all but a historical footnote) and believes his unconstitutional choice of a “life and death decision” is his “right” to make without regard to the “will of the people.” Not only does the U.S. Constitution not provide a living will, there is a viable and coherent voting electorate, none of whom (with a few liberal exceptions) are more than metaphorically brain dead. United States’ citizens will not (should not) allow themselves to be deprived of nutrition (jobs and security) and hydration (education and faith) in a way that effectively ends their culture and birthright. Senator John McCain, who has every intention of inheriting the national estate from George W. Bush, is more than willing to facilitate George Bush’s descent into infamy. He probably views the situation more as the Kevorkian option.
The simple fact is this: the Bush Administration, and a number of powerful figures in the U.S. Senate (including John McCain and Jon Kyl), have recently intimated in public interviews that if American citizens do not agree to pass an amnesty bill for millions of illegal aliens, they (Congress) will never make an effort to enforce the immigration laws. Congress is already not enforcing the law (any laws). While their threat is both hollow and moot, their threats should be seen for what they are - an extraordinary effort to blackmail the American people by proclaiming defiantly they will intentionally and recklessly fail to perform their sworn duties and defend the United States Constitution.
A very unfortunate trend began some forty years ago. Political entities, with incredible wealth derived from oil revenues or commerce based on cheap labor, began looking at investment opportunities. The result is that today, many U.S. corporations are under the direct or indirect ownership and/or control of foreign governments (such as China and Saudi Arabia) – even the Fox News Channel. Concurrently, campaign contributions have flowed freely to our U.S. Senators through these corporations, in search of favorable congressional influence, both from foreign governments and a potpourri of political action committees with questionable agendas. It would appear that, one by one, the Senate votes needed to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” legislation (which in reality officially begins the dissolution of the United States of America) have been cynically sold by our elected representatives to foreign nations (including Mexico) for campaign contributions.
Isn't it time to take our government back? If not now, then when? The United States should not be for sale by a cabal of traitors whose only devotion is to themselves and who have engineered their own election to public office in an attempt to gain personal access to taxpayer funds in the U.S. Treasury.
In conclusion, imagine a Twilight Zone episode in which the President of the United States asserts that because those in both federal and state governments intentionally failed for decades to control the border, and intentionally failed to enforce immigration or employment laws, we simply need a new law to replace the old law? The Simpson-Mazzoli immigration law was passed 20 years ago and not surprisingly, it promised the same things. The agenda then was unabashedly amnesty. The licentious agenda today is one of national dissolution - nothing less.
The comprehensive immigration reform bill before Congress will do exactly what our Senators claim - it will eliminate illegal alien migration, but not the way you expect. The comprehensive immigration reform law has been written to end the legal status of "illegal alien," and with it the need to enforce sovereign borders. The whole notion of an "illegal alien" will become quaint folklore. Illegal aliens already in the United States will be legal, and those who arrive tomorrow will be legal, and all those who have plans to cross the border into the United States in the immediate future will become legal. Nobody in the United States will be an "illegal alien." All illegal aliens, including felons convicted of violent crimes, terrorists, and violent MS-13 gang members will have temporary legal status. There will be no such thing as an illegal alien, and therefore no immigration problem! There will no longer be a need for immmigration enforcement, deportation, or for that matter even immigration laws. What is the point of all this?
Make no mistake; the new comprehensive immigration reform law has been intentionally crafted so as to make United States borders into "only a momentary commercial and security check point" in compliance with the North American Union - rather than a sovereign demarkation that defines the jurisdiction of the United States and controls the migration of people. What illegal immigration? What could you be talking about?
Calling the Senate Bill an "amnesty bill" is a smokescreen knowingly foisted on the American people, an intentionally misleading point of debate. If you fell into the trap of seeing the immigration reform bill in emotional humanitarian terms, you were "had." You should be angry. The so-called "amnesty bill" is in reality nothing but the next step in an intentional and unilateral dissolution of the borders of the United States of America to advance the North American Union, an act which renders unnecessary any future enforcement of the borders except as it relates to commerce and national security. With passage of the Trojan Horse "amnesty bill," national sovereignty ends and the United States becomes nothing more than a transshipment point between China, Mexico and Canada. The refusal to build the fence, reducing National Guard presence at the border, and the termination of passport requirements between Mexico and Canada are small parts of the larger implementation of the North American Union.
One more time for the record, there is not much time left to be an American. We had better do something very, very soon if we care.
Red State Patriot
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
Response by LS:
The politicians (of either party) who allowed the "Mexican Problem" to occur and who now want to grant amnesty to the millions of illegals whom they have allowed to invade us, should be publicly hung in Yankee Stadium.
The End of Times – The End of Borders
by Red State Patriot
June 15, 2007
The intent of the Senate's cunning comprehensive immigration reform legislation is that the border itself will constructively disappear with the stroke of President Bush’s pen.
Twenty million illegal aliens, and probably many more, have ignored United States immigration laws and unlawfully entered the United States. Having broken into our “house,” whether they came across the Mexican or Canadian border, the foreign burglars continued their crime spree. They broke scores of laws and brutally victimized American citizens and their children. Do you care?
Now they refuse to leave. Do you care?
Others, hundreds of thousands, who first entered lawfully through a Port of Entry with a valid Visa refused to leave when their Visa expired. They simply disappeared into society. Do you care?
Do twenty million illegal aliens constitute a “deluge?” Maybe a tsunami (tidal wave) is more accurate? You saw the devastation to coastal areas of the Indian Ocean from the 2004 tsunami that killed over 300,000 people, 168,000 in Indonesia alone.
As a tsunami approaches land, it takes on the characteristics of a violent onrushing tide, hence the name tidal wave. You saw the aftermath on television and in the print media; the destruction was almost total and death was everywhere.
While a tsunami is one of the deadliest of natural disasters, the effect of unrestrained illegal migration into the United States is no different than an onrushing tide. The migration tsunami could have been, but was not blocked at the shores. The devastation has reached every corner of America and harmed every family. Economic destabilization and criminal destruction is widespread. Entire communities have been culturally overrun, some obliterated. Millions of American lives have been irreparably altered. It could have been prevented. The laws were in place. Politicians simply refused to permit law enforcement agencies to enforce the laws. As a result, 3-5,000 Americans have died annually in the tsunami at the hands of illegal aliens. Maybe one of the victims was your child or loved one. Entire generations of families have been destroyed by gang violence. Human trafficking and drug smuggling has never been worse in the history of the United States. More Spanish than English is being spoken in public schools. The children of American citizens are not being educated. Emergency room physicians have become the family doctors of illegal aliens. Entire hospitals have closed – bankrupt - required by our government to provide free medical care. Gasoline prices are artificially high caused in part by the extra demand created by millions of illegal aliens for products intended for consumption by Americans. It could have been stopped. Why did our Congressman willfully allow this to happen? Why did our President? Why do they allow it to continue?
As I sat Thursday evening, June 7th and watched Hannity and Combs on the Fox television network, the disgust I felt was palpable. I thought to myself, “Why doesn’t anyone understand?” Politicians are hugely profiting from the carnage being inflicted on American citizens. They are recklessly and intentionally facilitating our nation’s extermination in pursuit of their own self-interest, an assertion not disputed by anyone but an ideologue. There can be no other explanation than self-interest for the inaction to enforce existing laws - short of insanity.
How can it be that everyday liberals and conservatives, good decent folks, don’t understand that there is nothing wrong with the existing immigration laws? Nobody – not one person you will talk to - can tell you what specific part of the current immigration law is flawed – only that they don’t like it, say that it is unenforceable, or believe that somehow it isn’t “fair.” Congress, if you asked, would tell you they are all-seeing and all-knowing, but strangely didn’t find anything wrong in 1986 when they passed the last immigration reform legislation and distributed 2.7 million "green cards." Surely they wouldn’t have knowingly passed a flawed immigration bill?
Amnesty for millions was the 1986 solution to our government’s having failed (willfully) to enforce earlier immigration laws. In 1986 we trusted that Congress, including John McCain who voted against amnesty in 1986, would enforce the newest immigration law rather than find a way to profit from it. Regrettably, so did President Ronald Reagan who signed the first amnesty legislation into law.
Think of it this way. Just because Congress passed the legislation to provide equipment to the troops, they voted against funding it. Just because Congress passed the legislation to build a border wall last year, they made no effort to fund the construction. The administration has kept reducing the total miles of border fencing. To date, only 3 miles have been built. The funds intended for the border wall have been diverted by the Administration to other uses.
Clearly, the President and Congress have made only a token public relations effort to implement the legislation that authorized a border fence. Arguably, more efforts have been made to obstruct the legislation than enforce it – just as probably occurred with earlier attempts at immigration reform.
It is quite possible there is one or two paragraphs in the 1986 law that could be improved by rewording it, fine – but there is not one thing that justifies scrapping the law. There is no excuse for not having enforced immigration laws for 21 years. What if we waited 21 years to rebuild the levies in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, and spent the money elsewhere?
While it probably should have been obvious in 1986, the virus of refusing to enforce existing laws was already firmly established and spreading across society. I don’t think the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta has a cure for moral and ethical degeneracy. It is not that our laws are broken; it is our law enforcement that is broken. It is our President, Congressmen and Governors that are broken.
The bill before the U.S. Senate has an insidious intent that has not been recognized.
The instant the “comprehensive immigration reform” bill passes, widely criticized as incoherent but skillfully crafted, not only will all illegal aliens in the United States suddenly become ‘legal,’ all future illegal aliens will have an instant path to entry and legalization. In deadly reality, the Senate's immigration reform bill puts an end, once and for all, to the concept of “illegal alien.” There will never again be another illegal alien. Immigration enforcement will become as unnecessary as a border wall. The intent of this cunning "comprehensive immigration reform legislation" is that the border itself will constructively disappear with the stroke of President Bush’s pen.
The immigration reform bill, about to be imposed on United States citizens, is but the ultimate subterfuge to dissolve the United States of America and transform what remains into the controversial borderless North American Union (NAU). American citizens have been taken to the proverbial cleaners. Many members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives are complicit, chief among them Arizona's Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl. With the President’s signature on the immigration reform bill, the United States of America will immediately begin the process of dissolution. National sovereignty will have ended once and for all and assimilation into the NAU will accelerate. The lid on your coffin will have been nailed shut. There is very little time remaining to be an American.
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
Response by David C.:
Why don't they just make Mexico a state and be done with it? One huge welfare state. For whatever reason, Bush simply does not want a fence or apparently, even a border. What makes him think that way? Is it truly just pressure from corporations who want cheap labor or could there be more to it than that? If Congress allows all the illegal’s to become citizens, I guess we should just open up our country to the whole world. Do away with ALL immigration laws. That's effectively what they are doing.
Sen. Kyl Poses False Choice on Immigration Bill
by Rep. Steve King, Iowa's 5th District
The Senate immigration "bargain" is amnesty. No question. Since most Americans understand that, it is surprising when some of my fellow conservatives, like Sen. Jon Kyl (R.-Ariz.), claim that the bill is anything but amnesty. But if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.
This entire drama strikes me as one that could be played out on the high seas. Our ship, the U.S.S. America, carries passengers and crew numbering more than 300 million. That number includes some 12 to 20 million stowaways. The ship is skippered by Captain Bush. Ted Kennedy leads a faction of senior officers known as the Open Borders Lobby while many House Republicans lead a corps of officers who base their decisions on the Rule of Law. These Rule of Law officers hold fast to their principles because they have never sailed the ship.
These opposing camps of senior officers are in a battle to decide the destiny of the entire ship -- whether America will give up its ‘Exceptionalism’ to open the border, or adhere to the Rule of Law.
Sen. John Kyl of Arizona has emerged as the amnesty bill's conservative promoter. So it appears that Kyl has left the Rule of Law officer corps.
In a recent column,* Senator Kyl justified his stance by suggesting he had a choice between helping to author a compromise or to stand on the sidelines and watch the passage of a much more liberal bill written by Democrat leaders. (Editorial comment: It is hard to imagine the bill could have been any more liberal short of deleting the borders entirely and repudiating United States sovereignty, which is the ultimate outcome of the current amnesty bill – just another “slow bleed” strategy.)
I simply don't accept the idea that those are our only choices. When given the choice between standing with the Constitution and the Rule of Law, or compromising my principles to get the lesser of two evils, I must uphold the Constitution and Rule of Law every time. (Emphasis added)
Back on the ship, the crew of the "U.S.S. America", 144 million strong, trims the sails, swabs the deck, cooks in the galley, cares for the sick, bails the bilge, and steers the course. The passengers number an additional 156 million, including: the retired who have had their turn at the oars, the children who will get their turn, the unemployed who want their turn, and welfare recipients who are unenthusiastic about taking their turn. In all, the ship is carrying an untapped group of nearly 70 million working age passengers who are simply not in the workforce.
Perhaps Sen. Kyl would explain his willingness to legalize stowaways because of so-called "trigger" provisions in the bill. Those measures don't actually do anything. The very first lines of the bill provide an exception to the triggers for most every stowaway. Effectively, most of them could be legal with a "Z" visa the day after this bill was signed by the President.
Two decades have passed since the 1986 amnesty "to end all amnesties". More than 20 years later, we know that the Immigration Reform and Control Act legalized three million stowaways, not one million as we were promised. That 300% increase was the result of fraud driven by a counterfeit document industry which sprung up to meet the new demand. Perhaps the trigger for considering a new amnesty ought to be full implementation of the security provisions contained in the last.
No matter the arguments of Captain Bush and his open borders officers, you and I know that more than 20 million stowaways will be given amnesty to stay on board. According to a study by the Heritage Foundation, the real number will rise well above 100 million.
All this, despite the fact that 90% of the illegal drugs on board were smuggled onto our ship by these stowaways. Captain Bush and his officers will not order them off even though 28% of court-martial convictions are stowaways. They will not order them off "America" even though the stowaways represent only 7% of those on board and produce only 2.2% of the work. Instead of amnesty for stowaways, what America needs is for some of the passengers to become crew. The Rule of Law officers need only to recruit ten working age passengers not currently at the oars to replace all of the 7 million working stowaways.
Taking on too many passengers or unskilled crew will slow and eventually sink "America". But none of these facts have been enough to sway President Bush and the open borders officers.
If we simply enforce our current laws, millions of stowaways, both those working and those along for the ride, will voluntarily disembark at the next port of entry. Their departure would immediately reduce the burden on the ship's supplies and crew.
"America" has granted its stowaways amnesty six times since the "amnesty to end all amnesties". This time, the captain and the open borders officers mean to forever sail off course of the Rule of Law, taking aboard every willing traveler. Unfortunately, some fellow officers from the Rule of Law corps have joined the effort to steer a new course.
This time it will truly be an "Amnesty to End All Amnesties". Because this time, if "America" legalizes all its stowaways, she will certainly sink.
Rep. King was elected to Iowa's 5th District in 2002. He sits on the House Judiciary Committee and its Constitution and Immigration subcommittees.
For the original article, see: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20870
* http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0520kyl20.html
The cartoon appended to this article was received from a reader via the internet, and was not originally published by the artist (Ramirez) containing the possible identity of the elephant in the bottom of the bottle.
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
Once Upon A Time there was a Senator named Jon Kyl
Part 1. Judas Kyl & his "Thirty Pieces of Silver
By Sandra J. Miller
Once upon a time in Arizona, there was a US Senator named Jon Kyl. He began his career as a lawyer, became president of the AZ Chamber of Commerce and eventually became AZ Republican Party Chair, ran for Congress and ultimately for the US Senate. He loved the power of being a US Senator, but there was something missing. Rather than having to run for re-election periodically trying to convince voters not to hold him accountable for his voting record, he really wanted to be a judge. Not just a county or state judge, but a federal judge with a lifetime appointment regardless of the outrageous decisions he might deliver or how blatantly he pandered to special interests or powerful politicians.
Accumulated "intelligence" over the past 2 years on Jon Kyl offers a credible motive for his sponsoring this travesty we call S-1348, the Kyl-Kennedy-Bush Amnesty for Illegal Aliens. Better yet, it passes what I call "The Judge Judy Test:" it makes sense.
At the April 2005 Minuteman kickoff, I first heard of Kyl's hopes for a federal bench appointment from a former AZ House member. Since then, I've encountered the belief dozens of times, not just from GOP insiders but also from politically-active citizens. So while Kyl's judicial hopes haven't yet made the pages of the Arizona Repugnant (Arizona Republic) or the East Valley Spitoon (East Valley Tribune), it's certainly no secret.
When I heard later in 2005 of Kyl's being chosen "Distinguished Citizen of the Year" by the University of AZ Law School Alumni, I thought "it really is falling into place." It's described on the blog: http://www.democracycellproject.net/blog/archives/2005/03/we_dont_go_quie.html
Later that year in Scottsdale and in May 2006 in Sun Lakes, Kyl appeared at GOP-sponsored Town Halls where he was introduced as a front-runner candidate for appointment to the US Supreme Court! That he would bypass the customary federal "entry level" of district court judge might be a reflection of Kyl's "fast-track" expectations or perhaps just misunderstanding by the introducer. The important element is that Kyl didn't demur at all upon hearing the "introductory" predictions, which told me they were probably true.
It won't take long to see proof--less than 2 years remain in George Bush's authority to appoint federal judges. If Kyl is to get his seat on the federal bench, the deadline is January 19, 2009.
What's in "compromise immigration reform" for Kyl?
Kyl as Bush's Senate bag man on the Kyl-Kennedy-Bush Amnesty in return for the federal bench appointment explains why he's supporting something that offers Americans absolutely nothing except more empty promises of enforcement, virtually identical to what we heard in 1986.
George Bush is busily seeking a "legacy" to pretend for the history books that he accomplished something during the 8 years he spent in the White House. At this point, "illegal alien amnesty" is the best thing he can hope for. So it's clear to Kyl that delivering Illegal Alien Amnesty is the price he must pay for a federal bench appointment from George Bush.
During a "dot-connecting" conference call, several activists and I realized, "By Jove, I think we've got it."
The fix is in.
But George Bush isn't the only one saying "gimme" to Kyl for his federal bench appointment. All presidential appointments require Senate approval.
Knowing first-hand how difficult it's been for Bush's "conservative" judicial appointments to overcome filibuster by Senate Democrats, Kyl doesn't dare risk his appointment being stalled and eventually derailed like that of Robert Bork. Kyl knew he needed a little more insurance so chose the method employed so often by George Bush: pre-emptive action. "Ah," thought Judas Kyl, "what better way to insure they'll ratify my appointment than to give in to every demand they make on 'comprehensive immigration reform?' After I concede every ridiculous demand made by the illegal aliens, surely the Senate Democrats will ratify my federal bench appointment."
Whether Kennedy led the "immigration reform" poker game demanding a blank check from Kyl or whether Kyl just cut to the chase by emptying his pockets on the table with the first round isn't important. That Kennedy openly bragged to the Washington Post that "stakeholders" like National Council of La Raza, MALDEF (Mexican-American Legal Defense & Education Fund) and LULAC (League of United Latin American Citizens) had "veto power" over the draft legislation reveals that the fix was in from the beginning. (2) I doubt that Kyl so much as cleared his throat during the closed-door sessions for fear it might be mistaken for opposition.
The irony of the whole thing is that the illegal alien advocacy groups are now claiming the legislation is too harsh! The fines are too expensive, the conditions are too harsh, the requirement that a head of household leave the country to apply for legal residence for the family is punitive because "it will separate families."
These people must think we don't know about the "waiver process" that they will tutor their illegal alien applicants to demand at every possible opportunity. Can't speak English? Get a waiver. Haven't held a job? Get a waiver. Don't want to pay the $5,000 "fine?" Get a waiver. In the unlikely event that DHS employees refuse any demand by illegal aliens, you can bet the illegal’s will have a list of pro-illegal alien congress members with phone numbers to intercede enabling them to gain legal status and/or citizenship.
Stay tuned for updates...
That Kyl and his Republican cronies in the "Gang of 12" will vote for passage of "compromise immigration reform" is almost inevitable. (And who knows, perhaps others in the "Gang of 12" (3) have arranged to collect their own individual "30 Pieces of Silver?")
The "Gang of 12" include "Chappaquiddick Ted" Kennedy (D-MA), Jon "Judas" Kyl (R-AZ), Lindsey "I Love La Raza" Graham (R, SC), Mel Martinez (R, FL), Arlen Specter (R, PA), and Ken Salazar (D, CO). That Kennedy has already authored and supported TWO disastrous immigration bills in 1965 and 1886 should be enough to make anyone run, not walk from this "compromise."
As a junior senator, Salazar rounds up Democrats' support while Kyl works on the GOP side. Kyl is actually a stand-in for fellow AZ Senator John McCain's role in 2006; McCain is running for President and has learned that advocating illegal alien amnesty while a White House hopeful makes his candidacy hopeless.
Will President George Bush actually deliver to Senator Judas Kyl the federal bench appointment as promised, or will George Bush renege on his promise to Kyl as he has to the American people? And will Senate Democrats stick by their "dark of the night" deal to rubber-stamp Kyl's appointment, or will Kennedy renege leaving Kyl to face angry voters? I doubt if Kyl got anything from "Chappaquiddick Ted" in writing, so it's not like he can sue for breach of contract.
Why not present the question to Senator Judas Kyl the next time you phone his office to express your outrage of his despicable betrayal, especially Republican voters who believed his promises and voted for him last November?
If you call your Republican senator, ask if he's supporting the Bush-Kyl agenda while getting nothing for themselves: Kyl's bench appointment, placating Senate Democrats at any costs, and providing a legacy for George Bush? Doesn't seem likely for a politician.
Mention the issue on your local radio talk shows.
Kyl needs to be exposed for his self-serving motives and told that we won't forget his treachery when his appointment needs Senate ratification. If he thinks he's hearing new words from his constituents now, wait until we pressure our Senators to vote NO on his appointment. Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell may find that American voters don't have the short memories he thinks we do.
I have no doubt that Kyl thinks he's entitled to his lifetime spot on the federal bench. After he paid his dues as AZ GOP Chair and "served" the people of the United States in Congress, but that's not his decision to make. (He didn't serve in Congress for 20 years as an unpaid volunteer; he collected a handsome salary plus benefits paid by the US taxpayer.) "We the People" decide who deserves the trust of being a federal judge, not some hack politician. Let Kyl come clean with Americans on why he betrayed us, and WE'LL decide what Kyl deserves.
If we've connected the dots wrongly, it won't be long until we know. If January 19 2009 arrives without Kyl's promotion to the federal bench, I and my fellow "dot-connecting" activists will be the first to admit it. But we're not holding our breath.
What I'm really eager to hear when Kyl's promotion is announced is all the current Kyl apologists who tell of his "service to the nation," his devotion to conservative principles, his honor and integrity--their list goes on ad nauseum. Will they continue to defend Kyl when it's clear he's suckered them and left them holding the bag while he collects his 30 Pieces of Silver and dons his judicial robes?
(c) S. J. Miller, 2007. All Rights Reserved
Published originally (without graphics) at www.FederalObserver.com. Reproduction sanctioned by the author.
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
On Monday morning, a florist went to a neighborhood barber for a haircut. After the cut he asked about his bill and the barber replied: "I'm sorry, I can’t accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week." The florist was pleasantly surprised and left the shop. Tuesday morning when the barber opened for business, there was a thank you card from the florist and an attractive flower arrangement waiting for him at the door.
Later on Tuesday, a police officer came in for a haircut during a lunch break. When he attempted to pay, the barber again replied: "I'm sorry, I can’t accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week." The officer was appreciative and left the shop. On Wednesday morning when the barber opened up, he found another thank you card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.
Later on Wednesday, a prominent and very successful businessman came in for a haircut. When he attempted to pay, the barber again replied: "I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week." The businessman was pleased and left the shop. On Thursday morning when the barber opened, there was a thank you card and four new books with titles such as, "How to Improve Your Business" and "Becoming More Successful."
Late in the morning on Thursday, a well-known Democratic Party politician came in for a haircut. When he tried to pay his bill the barber again replied: "I'm sorry, I can’t accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week." The Democrat smiled, shook his hand, asked the barber for his support in the upcoming election, and left the shop.
On Friday morning when the barber opened up, there was nothing waiting at the door except six more Democrats, two liberal Republicans, and nine illegal aliens – all lined up for a free haircut - which illustrates the fundamental difference between left and right, liberal and conservative, illegal alien migrant and citizen.
A conservative always pays his own way, never asking for something unearned.
The moral of this story: If you do something for just one liberal out of kindness or charity, the rest will invariably want something (everything) for nothing. How many people in American society, citizens and illegal aliens, are looking for (expecting) a free haircut every day of their life (on your dime)? Do they expect the free ride to continue? Democrats have offered them a free ride forever in return for their votes. What was known as "black box socialism" has been expanded to embrace "brown box socialism." (Search the archives for an explanation.)
Do you remember the Kevin Costner movie, "Field of Dreams" in which the central premise was, "Build it and they will come." Congress and state legislatures have successfully built the illegal alien "Field of Dreams," a system of unearned social benefits for illegal aliens that is so incredible illegal aliens are willing to endure remarkable hardship and even risk death to obtain it.
Is there any doubt why we have the numbers of illegal aliens we have today, with millions more on the way? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that illegal aliens are coming here for the free haircuts. If you want the illegal alien migration to stop, the free haircuts have to stop.
The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states that U.S. citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Federal law uses almost identical language. The words, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", is an essential part of the definition of a United States citizen. History emphatically confirms the necessity for those five words. The distinction is important because if you are not subject to the sole jurisdiction of the United States, by definition you cannot be a United States citizen, because if your allegiance is split your loyalty is never quite certain. Since an illegal alien migrant is not subject to the political jurisdiction of the United States, not even remotely, he or she is not (should not be) eligible for benefits normally accruing only to American citizens.
American Indians have allegiance to their tribes, and despite the obvious location of their birth, native American Indians did not receive U.S. citizenship until it was conferred by congressional acts in 1887, 1901 and 1924.
Why would Congress even contemplate conferring citizenship on millions of illegal aliens? The answer is sadly that individual greed and blind pursuit of power in Congress has suppressed any and all considerations of patriotism, sworn duty, and the rule of law. To call congressional corruption a cancer would be to understate the problem.
Babies born to female diplomats, or the wives of diplomats, who happen to be in the United States at the moment of childbirth are NOT United States citizens because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
There is no logical or legislative reason that babies of illegal alien migrants, ostensibly seeking employment or simply United States citizen-funded social benefits, should automatically become American citizens. This loophole could have been rectified by any Representative or Senator in the last 50 years with a two-page piece of legislation – little more than 60 minutes of staff effort.
The purpose of the “citizenship clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment (that you sometimes hear about) was intended to assure that Americans of African heritage were citizens, thus overturning the U.S. Supreme Court's earlier Dred Scott ruling that persons with an African heritage could not be citizens, regardless of their birthplace. Congress, in a rare moment of wisdom and humanity, wisely rejected stare decisis (judicial precedent) in overruling what most people consider the Supreme Court’s highly improper earlier "white-supremacist" decision. Today, an ugly chapter in United States history is shamefully repeating itself. Congress, for the darkest of reasons (unbridled self-interest), is desperately attempting to craft legislation with the help of Mexican activist groups such as La Raza, and orchestrate the passage of an "immigration reform bill" without public knowledge of its content, without congressional knowledge of its content, and without congressional or public debate. Collectively, the constitutional arsonists in Congress are making every effort to send to the President what can only be described as "brown-supremacist" legislation, so named because if and when it is signed into law, United States citizens of all ethnic backgrounds, will now serve their new masters, the Mexican (and OTM) illegal aliens.
The U.S. Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, and again in the Fourteenth Amendment, gives authority over citizenship and naturalization matters to Congress, not to the courts and not to the Executive Branch. Repeat, no jurisdiction over immigration issues is vested in or accrues to the courts! The Executive Branch has as their singular responsibility the enforcement of federal immigration law (which successive administrations have refused to do for more than 30 years). In a shameful conspiracy of self-interest, federal, state, county and city administrations across America have similarly obstructed immigration enforcement measures, just as Governor Janet Napolitano has done so vehemently in Arizona whenever possible.
At least the Arizona state legislature, in stark contrast with Arizona's elected congressmen, has tried repeatedly to do something to stem the political, cultural, criminal and financial carnage from illegal aliens by passing numerous pieces of legislation championed by Representative Russell Pearce (and a few others), only to have every one of them vetoed by Governor Janet Napolitano.
Congress should have ended its silence on immigration issues long ago and passed a law stating that a child born to an illegal alien is NOT a United States citizen, if for no other reason than the child's mother is not "subject to [U.S.] jurisdiction."
In simple terms, a child born to an illegal alien should not be a United States citizen under any circumstances, regardless of the place of birth. Nor should children born in the United States to legal aliens become citizens until at least the child's birth mother or legal custodial parent becomes a United States citizen. And if the mother does not become a United States citizen before the child becomes 18, then the child at the age of majority can expect to stand in line and apply for citizenship just like everyone else. Under no circumstances should the marriage of a United States citizen to an illegal alien confer any change in immigration status or automatic citizenship on an illegal alien. Nor should any judicial precedent regarding immigration and naturalization have any force or effect in law in that any judicial precedent on its face is lacking constitutional authority in immigration matters.
The peculiar notion that foreigners residing illegally (criminally) in the United States should somehow enjoy the same rights as American citizens is found nowhere in the U.S. Constitution or federal law. This anomaly was created, as you might have suspected, by activist judges (United States Supreme Court case "Goldberg v. Kelly) who both encouraged and protected the large-scale entry of illegal aliens into the United States, as do most courts, as well as state and federal politicians today. Now it has become the U.S. Congress that is protecting at any cost large-scale entry of illegal aliens into the United States (anticipating their votes after they are legally transformed into legal immigrants.
What should we do with politicians who have willingly sold their American birthright to illegal aliens for a vote to remain in power? They include Arizona Senators such as John McCain and Jon Kyl, Representatives such as Jeff Flake and Governor Janet Napolitano. If you could get a candid comment from Governor Napolitano on her facilitation of illegal migration, she would probably smile, and with a hint of condescension say to you something like, "I laugh because there is nothing you can do about it."
These politicians deserve nothing less than your outspoken contempt, and certainly not your vote in any future election. In fact, Arizona would be better off if several of them sought political asylum in another state's jurisdiction after leaving political office. If the national security of the United States, and American citizenship itself, has become worthless to these politicians; if you and your family have no intrinsic value that makes you worthy of being defended from crime, identify victimization and lost jobs; if these politicians have more allegiance to Mexico and illegal alien migrants from Mexico than to United States citizens, surely you can envision your own future.
What are the odds that 700 pages of "comprehensive immigration reform" legislation pending in Congress will arrive on the President's desk for signature and contain the specific stipulation that only "citizens" of the United States will be permitted to vote in any United States political jurisdiction. It would require only a sentence or two in 700 pages of text. Only citizenship - and nothing less - should confer the right to vote. If an illegal alien wants to vote in the United States, their decision is clear - become a United States citizen and formally renounce allegiance to any other country.
Given that Congress is hell bent on granting legalized status to illegal aliens, making 20+ million illegal aliens eligible for taxpayer funded services, with millions more illegal aliens on the way, we should at least make some effort to protect our ability to vote out the scoundrels by safeguarding the 'privilege to vote' and reserving it to United States citizens - no exceptions. It is a safe bet that without the potential for the votes of today's illegal aliens, politicians would drop their support of amnesty and most guest worker provisions overnight.
How bad is it? One provision in the immigration bill would make taxpayers foot the bill for the legal costs of illegal aliens seeking citizenship by providing illegal aliens with federally funded lawyers. Other terms of the legislation would force the government to grant a Z-visa to gang members. Buried in the comprehensive immigration reform compromise is a provision that would 'accelerate' the implementation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (the implementation of the North American Union).
It is the singular intent of the Democratic Party that millions of illegal aliens, once legally in the United States with the signature of President Bush, will suddenly become legal voters. At the same time, they will instantly become eligible for every welfare program in the known universe even though they pay no taxes. Liberal politicians know that these newly minted voters will continue to vote into office only those politicians who support endless welfare programs at the expense of taxpaying American citizens (the top 50% of wage earners). The same politicians also know that millions of new Hispanic voters will overwhelm with shear numbers any voter opposition from United States citizens (and all other ethnic groupings).
There is a simple litmus test that should be applied to any "comprehensive immigration reform" legislation. Does it preserve the right to vote only to American citizens? If Congress collectively refuses to safeguard the right to vote, then the entire amnesty charade is all about their power, their re-election, and their intentional disenfranchisement of American citizens of every ethnic heritage. If Congress refuses to safeguard your right to vote, then 700 pages of immigration reform legislation authored by La Raza activists will be seen by all for what it is - 700 pages of law intended to advance the cause of the "brown brothers," and to anticipate every possibile means to prevent United States citizens from doing anything about it. Seven hundred pages of legislation is not needed to control illegal aliens; it is needed to devise ways to control the rest of us.
We simply must force individual congressmen show their true colors (even though most citizens already know that Senator John McCain's colors are not red, white and blue). The Democratic Party (mother of all income redistribution), and liberal Republicans must be made to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the amnesty they advocate for illegal aliens is not all about "voting." The challenge to Congress is this: with specific wording in the proposed 700 pages of immigration reform legislation, remove any and all "voting" privileges permanently from non-citizens, and do so as a central feature of any "comprehensive immigration reform" legislation. Congress must be made to stipulate in the legislation that any and all 'voting rights,' in any United States political jurisdiction, are reserved only for American citizens. If you want to vote, become a citizen by following the same process and procedures as any other lawful immigrant - simple as that. Upon achieving United States citizenship, while we're on the subject, let social security eligibility begin - not before.
Why not take the challenge one step further? Let Democrats and liberal Republicans demonstrate their patriotic intentions. While they say they respect their American constituency and the U.S. Constitution, they are only too ready to intentionally dilute and render virtually worthless the value of the votes of United States citizens - not unlike the inane refrain about how they support the troops. If you happen to be among those unfortunate taxpayers who don't think welfare programs should be so pervasive, particularly for illegal aliens, you're vote to curtail the scope of those programs will mean very little in the face of 20 million new voters who think taking your family income to subsidize their lifestyle, fund their medical care, and pay for the education of their children is a grand idea. What is the probable influence of 20 million newly minted illegal alien voters seeking social services and societal preference? What will happen to the value of your vote? What will happen to the opportunities for a quality education in English and employment of your children? What will happen to your access to Social Security and Medicare that is teetering on the edge of insolvency with the first illegal alien dipping their hands into the pot?
Let Congress unequivocally state in their proposed immigration reform legislation that they require complete compliance by illegal aliens with everything that is normally required of any other legal immigrant in order to achieve United States citizenship - including speaking English - no fast track, no shortcuts and no cutting to the front of the line - and no eligibility for taxpayer-funded social services before citizenship. That will never happen, you say. Assuming you are correct, you have your answer. You and your family, as far into the future as you can see, representing mutiple generations of United States citizens descended from United States citizens and legal immigrants, are suddenly not as important as the votes of the soon-to-be newly-minted illegal alien voters.
What is a United States citizen - first and foremost, a voter. Don’t be fooled by what will soon appear to be duplicity by Democrats and disarray on the guest worker legislation. Many amendments to the legislation will be offered for consideration. Democratic Party Senators and Representatives are simply posturing with their amendments which they know have no chance of passing. There is no intention that many of these amendments are adopted. Democrats are cynically putting forward these amendments disingenuously to give themselves deniability with their home constituency. They will claim, “I tried, but …..” Democrats and liberal Republicans (most of them) are putting a first class stage show just for the American public. This is entertainment theater of the first order. If you learn nothing else from this article, please understand that the amnesty bill has nothing to do with immigration. It's about growing the size of government and redistribution programs which liberals control and farming new voters to keep them in power.
Watch carefully to see who is more important to Democrats - United States citizens or the illegal aliens? When all is said and done, we will find that illegal alien amnesty is all about the future votes of illegal aliens and all about seeking perpetual power. It always has been about "them," without regard for you and your family, generations of American citizens. Perpetual power, once achieved, becomes absolute power - total dominion. Don't say nobody ever warned you.
With "comprehensive immigration reform" irrevocably goes the rule of law - but inversely. We can have one - or the other - but not both. Without the rule of law, all that remains is government "control" and our government has already demonstrated a remarkable penchant for dismantling the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has already been given the statutory authority by Congress to use United States military forces and the National Guard to repress a civilian insurrection and restore public order. Yes it has. Posse Comitatus is but a footnote in history.
Ayn Rand was remarkably insightful when she observed that the difference between a welfare state and a totalitarian state is only a matter of time. It would seem that the current path toward a totalitarian state has been chosen for us by the Democratic Party. The only question remaining is our willingness to go peacefully.
Red State Patriot
May 19, 2007
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
RESPONSE by Russell K. Pearce, AZ House of Representatives:
Thank you.
NO AMNESTY AS PROMISED! WE WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY FORM OF AMNESTY. WE WILL NOT TOLERATE A TED KENNEDY COMPROMISE, THE SELL OUT OF AMERICA!
Freedom and Liberty does not exist when elected officials conspire in secret to destroy this great Republic and the Constitutional Rights of its citizens.
NO government or elected official has the right to undermine the Rule of Law - EVER!
Because we now know that Congress endorses the INVASION OF AMERICA, we Americans will not and cannot abandon our duty to PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND our great nation - for its citizens, and the American Dream for our children and our grandchildren. We cannot be found to be "derelict" in our duty to God and Country, like those whom we have trusted enough to honor with the highest of elected offices.
Easily identifiable archeological remains of a liberal politician
Trespassing can be reasonably well defined for layman purposes as one or more people entering a place unlawfully and refusing to leave. Trespassing can occur on public property (owned by a governmental entity), on private property (property which a United States citizen thinks he owns but in reality is temporarily being rented from the local taxing authority), and on sovereign property (such as across national borders).
If after an unlawful entry, an additional felony crime is intended or committed such as theft, assault, fraud, rape, drug crimes and homicide, a trespass quickly becomes a burglary with its attendant felony crimes. At some point, what might have begun as trespassing or a burglary, if conducted in large enough numbers without regard for an adjacent nation’s sovereignty, it becomes an invasion. When the invaders refuse to leave, it becomes an occupation. In Iraq, liberal politicians and the main stream media portray the United States as “occupiers.” At home, liberals in both political parties and the media portray the Iraqi, Saudi Arabian, Syrian and Iranian insurgents that are killing American soldiers as freedom fighters. While United States citizens make every effort to save human life, only wanting their sovereign laws and language to be respected, illegal aliens portray Americans as racist violators of their human rights. The President of the United States, Jorge W. Bush, labels the Minutemen as "vigilantes." What is wrong with this picture?
Did you ever sit back and think, "Wow, with two liberal Senators, things are going just as I always wanted them to?" I didn't think so - me either. “Invasion” is the most accurate characterization of what politicians now endorse, and AZ politicians defiantly intend to lavish rewards on the Mexican and OTM invaders if given the opportunity.
Politicians have no intention of stopping illegal alien migration, or enforcing United States’ laws except where it serves their own political purposes. Respecting the rule of law is not in their financial self interest. So, taking Congress’ lead, why should illegal aliens respect any United States law? In a liberal's twisted egalitarian mind, why shouldn’t Congress just pass a series of laws that makes this whole invasion thing an on-going legal right of the Mexicans? If you accept the Ronald Reagan's premise that a nation without borders is not a nation, then what are the real goals of Arizona’s congressional delegation and President Bush? Is it national dissolution and anarchy? Keep in mind that what politicians dwell on is who we become as a nation.
It would be hard to claim that both President Bush and the main stream media have not put out a welcome mat that greets invaders in Spanish, “Invasor Acepto.” To make sure that Mexicans feel welcome, politicians have done everything in their power to see to it that migrant Mexicans on American streets have the greatest Right of all, the right to vote – not to mention identification reserved for American citizens, bank accounts, property ownership and access to social services. Illegal alien migrants are rewarded in many ways, e.g., paying no taxes. Nor do they have to pay for medical care, or for the birth and education of their children. American taxpayers pay for that. In the meantime, Mexicans consume tens of millions of gallons of gasoline daily, supplies intended for Americans. The result is the price at the pump is driven up. Mexicans endure no national or local civic responsibility, have no compunction against stealing identities (or any other crime for that matter), and are not being held accountable under United States or Arizona laws.
What laws you ask? Good question; what laws - given that local police departments such as Scottsdale spend most of their patrol officer's time as revenue collection agents for their municipality. The department's leadership has refused for fifteen years to let officers protect citizens from property crimes (as if such crimes were only an insurance matter)? Mexicans fleeing south to the border after committing violent crimes and driving a stolen car are simply waved right through. What are you complaining about? It was only your car.
Arizona’s most notable elites intend to grant amnesty to all of them, whether the number is 12 or 40 million, and amnest will include the potentially dangerous migrants of other nationalities that have for decades already brutally victimized millions of American citizens. These political personages include the outspoken Arizona politician Senator John McCain (who aspires to become king), Senator Jon “Coy” Kyl, Governor Janet “Nogales” Napolitano, and Rep. Harry Mitchell (the latter being the national embarrassment in my own congressional district who to this day probably hasn’t read the U.S. Constitution judging from his votes on the House floor).
American citizens in every state, often our personal friends and neighbors, and their children, have been the victims of heinous crimes committed by illegal aliens. Today, as you sit and read this, there will be thousands of violent and property crimes occurring nationwide. Do our elected politicians care, or are they blindly consumed with becoming fabulously wealthy from campaign contributions, some of which originate in the Mexican government? A large portion of political campaign contributions, larger than you can imagine, is collected first from taxpayers by the IRS and then redistributed by Congress as ‘pork’ to organizations that use that money in activist causes for illegal aliens, and to make political campaign contributions back to the politicians. How cynical and reprehensible is that? Did you get the picture? Congress funds organizations from whom they know large sums will be coming back to each of them personally as legal campaign contributions. It is not just a matter of Congressmen selling access and influence in return for campaign contributions; it is far more serious than that. Congressmen are funding those campaign contributions to themselves with our tax dollars.
Let’s be sure everybody understands. The top 50% of United States wage earners pay all personal income taxes. The bottom 50% does not pay a dime, and most of them are subsidized by taxpayers in one form or another. If that were not enough, there is no such thing conceptually as taxes on businesses as the taxes imposed by government are passed through to the customer in the price of goods and services. When government taxes on business go up, as Democrats want, the prices of what you buy will go up. Business taxes, whether paid by small business or large corporations, are really paid by the individual wage earner who purchases the goods and services, using money that has already been taxed. And then we pay taxes again, using the same money that has already been taxed multiple times, for the very privilege to buy anything, called a sales tax. Right now, the IRS and every state’s Department of Revenue are collecting your taxes. Congress is gleefully redistributing (giving away) your income to special interest groups which turn around and give the money back to them as campaign contributions (which eventually becomes a congressman’s personal wealth). Everyone is a winner except the taxpayer who is taxed on his income, taxed again by the business that makes the product, and taxed again of the privilage of making the purchase.
The corruption in government has gotten so bad that United States citizens now have to compete with Mexican citizens for their representation in the United States Congress. Americans have found that their only choice is to attempt to buy (in the form of campaign contributions) their own protection from their elected representatives. There seems to be no other way that elected representatives will act as responsible United States citizens and protect us from an invasion. It is enough to make you wonder, why do United States citizens have to bribe their own congressmen for any hope for a national defense of the United States?
Unfortunately, the invaders are paying more, much more in campaign contributions, and those who support the invaders are paying millions. The same thing happened during campaign finance reform when Senator John McCain sold Arizona to those who are colloquially referred to as Native Americans – not Americans but Native Americans who John McCain believes because their ancestors were a conquered people centuries ago, their descendants who have refused to assimilate should have some imaginary preemptive rights to United States land and resources.
Some of the money that becomes campaign contributions originates in foreign countries and some of the money comes from U.S, taxpayers. For example, Congress has been annually funding Mexican activist groups such as La Raza, an anti-American racist organization. La Raza has received millions of pork dollars in Congressional funding. La Raza is also funded by the Mexican government. Here’s the gimmick! Once the money has been legally laundered from Congress through La Raza, it is quickly donated back to individual congressmen as legitimate campaign contributions. You get the picture. Congressmen know much of this money will come back to them when they insert it into an appropriations bill.
These people are not our elected representatives, but our elected parasites – parasites in the purest sense of the word. American citizens are in serious trouble. It saddens me to say, there is not a day that an Arizona Congressman or Arizona Governor is not for sale. And it continues and it continues because politicians count on a combination of the minimal educational achievement of the electorate and their certifiable naiveté perpetuated by the main stream media. They count on getting the votes of American lumpen who have voluntarily relinquished their place in the gene pool to a tree stump?
There should be a name for those who sympathize, encourage, and facilitate unlawful alien migration, whether directly or indirectly, for those who obstruct law enforcement, extend legal privilege to illegal aliens, turn over national wealth to the trespassers, ignore the plight of citizens being criminally victimized, and personally profit from the illegal votes and labor of migrant aliens. Such politicians, and their supporters, are less United States citizens than collaborateurs, “…. cooperating with enemy forces occupying one's country. As such it implies criminal deeds in the service of the occupying power, including complicity with the occupying power in murder, persecutions, pillage, and economic exploitation as well as participation in a puppet government.” (wikipedia) Given the number of illegal votes that Democrats so cherish, have we in Arizona reached the point of a puppet government installed by illegal votes? How else can you explain the Governor’s anti-American behavior?
If you want to find a real American, a great American, a patriotic American, a hero who will be rewarded in history, look in some other direction than Congress. Make an effort in Arizona to meet people like Russell Pearce and thank them. Find a man or woman in military uniform and express your gratitude for their willingness to be our defenders. Without them, those of us who live in Arizona would have no future.
One reason they call them "Relaxed Fit" jeans is that "Ass the Size of Texas" jeans would not sell very well. Same is true of “Immigration Reform.” It is not going to sell.
Only a Racist Would Care
“Failed” Government Wars, Part 3
From Mexico’s point of view:
Supply of laborers: huge
Demand for laborers: zero
From the United States’ point of view:
Supply of cheap labor jobs: huge
Demand for cheap labor jobs by Americans: close to zero
In the end, regardless of government attempts at manipulation, market forces will prevail. Mexican labor will continue to migrate across the border to satisfy the United States’ abundant supply of menial jobs. In fact, so many Mexicans will migrate to the United States that an over-supply situation in the U.S. job market will develop, as it already has, and Mexicans will be forced to compete among themselves for the available jobs. In the process, most Americans will be displaced from menial labor trades, e.g., construction, hotel and restaurant industries, and landscape maintenance.
Over time, the over-supply of willing workers will cause the costs (hourly price) for cheap labor to decrease, not only for Mexicans but for Americans as well. Eventually equilibrium will develop, but not as long as employment opportunities exist in the Entitlement Industry, and not as long as the over-supply of cheap legal and illegal labor can find refuge in the welfare lines. It is a certainty that the over-supply of Mexican menial labor will cause more and more low-wage Americans to be driven into the waiting arms of the Democratic Party. Soon, the few remaining Americans willing to work at menial labor jobs will be made irrevocably dependent on government (i.e., taxpayers). The next liberalism agenda will be the dependency of the Mexicans.
The border wall does nothing to reduce the supply of cheap labor jobs in the United States and nothing to alleviate the scarcity of Americans willing to fill cheap labor jobs. The border wall is another understandable and desperate effort to manipulate the free market rather than deal with the dislocations that government alone, in both countries, has caused.
If Congress were to “declare war” on illegal migration, as most citizens want them to do, the outcome will be no different than every other failed government attempt at market intervention. But listen carefully! Build the wall. By all means, build the border wall and do it now! Just understand while we are building the wall, nothing will change except the volume of the flow of illegal alien migrants and drugs. If they can’t come in across the southern border, they will find their way through Canada. Supply and demand forces will not have changed. Illegal alien migrants can and will eventually find another route into the United States.
The need for menial laborers in the United States creates the supply of jobs waiting for willing workers. People from Mexico and other nations who are willing to risk it all provide the demand. In other words, what are our choices? If we don’t want Mexican migrants to enter the United States seeking jobs, we must increase the number of Americans willing to fill the “cheap labor” market demand. The alternative is to watch as companies and entire industries leave the United States in a desperate effort to avail themselves of cheap labor that is willing to work.
Without the labor of the illegal alien, we would be without whatever this person is producing. That’s not much you say … but understand that “not much” is enough to keep 20+ million illegal aliens employed daily full- or part-time, and enough to encourage still more citizens of other countries to migrate to the United States. That’s a lot more than “not much.”
The United States has more than an adequate labor pool. The problem is that our labor pool is not “willing labor,” because most of the would-be candidates are employed in the “Entitlement Industry,” and have been for their entire life. Multiple generations have found comfort there. Why should they leave the sofa and god-forbid, work to earn their place on this planet and become deserving of their citizenship? In fact, research into the psychological impact of entitlement programs shows that the most difficult aspect of unemployment for any recipient over an extended period of time is adjusting to the hours.
While it is definitely possible for government to make it painful to Americans who employ illegal migrants, those efforts at market manipulation will come at some cost to national prosperity. What if you were to reduce the number of jobs available to illegal aliens (restrict the supply – punish the employers)? Economically, that doesn’t make sense and harms the United States economy. We shouldn’t want to do that, except that it appeals to our patriotic impulses, improves national security and protects United States sovereignty. So what are we to do?
What we need to do is twofold, (1) increase the supply of “cheap labor” from citizen sources inside the United States (and in the process give some relief to taxpayers whose income is being redistributed to services dedicated to welfare recipients), and (2) drastically reduce or eliminate taxpayer-funded social services available to illegal aliens. Only then will human trafficking across the border begin to diminish. Over 50% of illegal aliens come to the United States just to avail themselves of free social services and health care.
Some have suggested the problem of illegal alien migration could be fixed easily . . . with the stroke of a pen. They’re convinced that all we have to do is put an armed guardsman every four feet along the southern border and this will stop the flow. Unfortunately, it will do no such thing. It will slow the flow, proportional to the density of the deterrent, but as we have already discussed, the market will simply devise ways to get around any obstacle that government can create. Worse, the guardsman alternative is the most expensive of all alternatives by many orders of magnitude. The costs to taxpayers will be incredible.
Just as you put a lock on your residence door to deter a burglar, the United States should build a wall on the border to deter migrants. The lock on the residence door will not prevent a burglary. It will only cause predators to seek an easier target, an open door. If the burglar is truly determined, they will seek an alternate path of entry, finding a way to circumvent the lock on the door. Illegal alien migrants are, after all, nothing more than burglars, unlawfully entering your house (your nation) and then committing additional felony crimes once inside. But hey, it’s only a crime whose victim is a United States citizen. Only a racist would care.
By all means, build the border wall and do it now!
“Failed” Government Wars, Part 2
What do you remember from history about the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? It brought us “Prohibition,” the drug de jour of the era. In the early 1900’s, the United States government tried to stop the manufacture, distribution, sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. Citizens of that time still had enough knowledge of the Constitution to realize that no such government authority existed. So, to facilitate the culture “War of Prohibition,” the states passed the 18th Amendment to the Constitution giving federal and local law enforcement the responsibility to shut down alcohol consumption.
This exercise in prohibition was an abysmal failure. The damage to our system of jurisprudence was so great and the cost was so high that citizens en masse repealed the 18th Amendment just 14 years later. What happened? Simply speaking, government tried to place obstacles in the path of the free market using the 18th Amendment and failed. “Free market” is the key. Not liberalism and government intervention.
In the current war on drunk driving, what have we done as a nation? Since we failed in our attempts to deny Americans access to alcoholic beverages (control the behavior of others, to interfere with a free market), now we take away a persons privilege to drive a vehicle if they are found to have been impaired while in actual physical control of a vehicle. The BAC limit is ratcheting lower each year or two in an effort to eliminate the consumption of alcohol. Local law enforcement jurisdictions have become absolutely predatory in their efforts to catch and convict offenders spurred on by jurisdictions dependent on traffic ticket revenue. (I can say that as a retired police officer who personally was pressured for years to make more DUI arrests.) In the process of this culture war, each of us has had to surrender a measure of our liberties.
Congress initiated the so-called "War on Poverty" in the 1960’s during President Johnson’s Administration. By some estimates, the War on Poverty has not ended and the financial tally of scarce and incredibly valuable resources spent is between 7 and10 trillion dollars. Just using the low end of this estimate, the federal government could write a check to every man, woman, and child in the country for $23,333.34 (over $200,000 in constant dollars by some estimates). Yet, activists still claim that we have poor people (defined as people who have less than you) in our midst. Why? Our intentions were honorable? Didn't we mean well? Regardless of our intentions, the war on poverty was a failure in every respect. If everybody in the United States was born “equal,” why are so many still on welfare? LBJ is currently enjoying his just reward and we are still paying the bill for his and Congress’ socialist folly. Without belaboring the point, what do you think happened in the government’s war on illiteracy?
Today we find ourselves engaged in another long and unfruitful war, the "War on Drugs." Like prohibition, the war on drugs has been incredibly costly in blood, treasure, and personal liberties. Even those of us who don’t use illicit drugs have been forced to surrender some of our liberties in an effort to fight this so-called war. Unfortunately, the war on drugs is also un-winnable because of the free market. There is a huge market demand in the United States for narcotic and hallucinogenic drugs. For example, U.S. growers alone produce nearly $35 billion worth of marijuana annually, making the illegal drug the largest cash crop, bigger than corn and wheat combined. No one is arguing that it is wise to use drugs, and certainly not here. But many (those who are not ideologues) are arguing that the government’s culture war with its basis in liberalism is far too expensive in too many ways, and it doesn’t remotely begin to deal with the market causes. The government’s War on Drugs was destined from the outset to be what it is, another costly failure.
What do these examples have to do with illegal immigration? They are but a few examples of what we might expect if Americans forcefully demand of Congress that “government” do something about this problem of illegal migration, or that problem whatever it may be, or any other perceived problem. Ask yourself, how well have we fared in education since the government took over (seized) the state’s responsibility to educate its citizens? “Pathetic” would be a kind choice of words, but that was never the government’s point. Controlling the knowledge and behavior of others has always been the only point of liberalism. Why does anybody think that a war on illegal immigration will be any more successful than any previous government culture war? The free market will overcome any obstacle government can place in its path. As long as there is a market demand - for anything - the demand will be met. The stronger the demand, the more difficult it will be to artificially manipulate or suppress that particular market.
The most secure facility that any government can construct is a jail, and jails still leak like a sieve. Contraband products make their way inside of the walls of every jail every day. Why, because there is a market demand for these forbidden products. If government cannot stop the flow of contraband into a jail, how on earth do you think it will ever stop a porous, arguably non-existent border with Mexico?
Sure, we could and we SHOULD spend four billion dollars in an effort to try to stem at least part of the flow of non-citizens who are trying to become part of the labor supply in the United States, and particularly those entering the United States illegally solely to avail themselves of our overly-generous social services or to inflict harm on United States citizens. The return on that investment in a 2,000-mile wall would be 1000 to 1. But realize that building the border wall will not by itself achieve nearly as much success as we all hope for. A wall will substantially interfere with crossing the border, possibly reducing what is now an open fire hydrant of illegal migration to the volume of a garden hose – reducing the volume by 90%. That size of a reduction should be justification enough to expedite construction of a border wall.
Would you be surprised to learn that more than 500,000 babies will be born in the United States this year to illegal aliens? In the big picture, that is approximately 15 percent of all births in the United States. What would you estimate the cost will be to the American taxpayer? Using 'opportunity cost' as a measurement concept, what could all of that taxpayer money have otherwise purchased, billions and billions of dollars, if it were not lavishly spent on illegal aliens (not United States citizens and in most cases people who are clearly un-American) and their social benefits? Then there is the question, "Why was the money spent that way?"
Media accounts are rife with stories of human traffickers operating a thriving business bringing pregnant women from all over the world into the United States just in time to give birth and claim American citizenship and social benefits. All those babies, called “anchor babies,” can immediately claim American birthright citizenship, the result of which is that their mothers and other relatives immediately sign up for a vast stream of taxpayer benefits and send for even more relatives in other countries (chain migration).
An estimated 20-30 million persons now live in the United States illegally, most receiving multiple forms of social benefits funded by taxpayers. Some estimates reach a staggering 40 million. Our federal and state governments don't know for sure how many illegal aliens are receiving economic subsidies, or what numbers of illegal aliens are receiving multiple subsidies using multiple forms of fraudulent identification.
It is worse than a racket and the whole mess is the direct responsibility of our Congressmen. And it continues! Why Americans allow this to continue is beyond comprehension. If Senator John McCain were confronted, he would quickly try to tell you that a number of bills are before Congress to solve some of the problems. He would blame partisan politics for the fact that nothing is being done. Senator McCain's answer should beg the question, “What has Congress, and John McCain in particular, been doing for the last 20 years?” Yes, he has been in Congress that long and is one of the primary architects of the crisis our nation now faces.
Clearly, our Congress led by John McCain and Ted Kennedy has failed intentionally to do its duty to protect American citizenship, national sovereignty, and taxpayers, and worse, failed miserably in upholding their own citizenship, regardless of their hollow protestations.
Just how bad is it (to the extent that we are willing to believe government figures)? In 2001, the United States reportedly admitted 1,064,318 immigrants - enough people to create a major city the size of Chicago. One can only guess at the numbers for last year, including both immigrants and illegal alien migrants.
Why are immigration numbers so high? One of the principal reasons is "chain migration," created by Congress in 1965, where once a migrant becomes a legal immigrant, he can then sponsor several other immigrants for admission, each of whom themselves sponsor several others, and so on. Naturally, chain migration drives immigration numbers up - way up. Chain migration has been allowed to happen because current U.S. immigration policy is based on the principle of a broadly defined concept of “family reunification,” i.e., immigrants are able to sponsor their relatives back home to be admitted as legal immigrants here in the United States. In other words, most illegal alien migrants are admitted and reclassified as legal immigrants simply because they have a relative here who sponsors them, not because of what they might be able to contribute in skills, education, culture or work ethic to our society.
Under the chain policy described above, immigration numbers will never stop rising - never. That fact is a mathematical certainty. Under the "immediate relatives" category, the parents, spouse, and children of a U.S. citizen are admitted without limit. In 2001, 36 years after chain migration began, the number of immediate relatives admitted (not immigrants) was approximately 676,000. Last year it was over one million.
Since most immigration categories have a statutory limit in the law to the number of people who can be admitted each year, immigrants' relatives back home in theory must wait for years to be admitted. Over three million aliens have been told they are "eligible to immigrate" but have to wait. Many of them do not, figuring that, since they are eligible anyway, they should not have to wait for the U.S. government to get around to doing the paperwork. In this way, chain migration and the expectations it produces, increases illegal migration.
Unfortunately, the problem will continue to get worse. Conveniently ignored by the media, and intentionally ignored by the authors and sponsors of immigration reform bills in Congress (Senator John McCain for example), is that the illegal aliens given amnesty by Congress in 1986, 21 years ago, are now fueling naturalization in record numbers. As these former illegal aliens become naturalized citizens, ALL of their immediate relatives in the known universe, and relatives they never knew they had, suddenly qualify to come immediately to the United States, and each starts a new migration chain of their own.
One wonders - are Congressmen, Governors and State Legislators really willling to sell American citizenship, and their own birthright, and give away the wealth of American citizens? Are they willing to abandon United States sovereignty to illegal aliens in exchange for campaign contributions and fraudulent votes? The bitter truth is that any politician who advocates illegal alien amnesty is willing to do just that. What about an entire pollitical party that advocates open borders and minimal national security?
It comes down to this - any political party, and any member of a political party, Republican and Democrat alike, who endorses illegal alien amnesty and open borders is defiantly telling all American citizens, right in our face, that they are willing to sell American citizens into the service of illegal aliens via income redistribution. Such seritude amounts to nothing less than modern slavery, slavery to illegal aliens and other minorities who seek to be served by taxpayers rather than assimilate and participate as fellow Americans. Not only are income taxes taken to provide an enviable lifestyle and medical care by world standards to those who have not earned it, huge staffs have been employed in administrative agencies to wait solely on the needs of these people. In other words, the world has been turned upside down. The top 50% of wage earners pay the income taxes, and in doing so, serve their masters. Who are the masters? First and foremost, members of Congress. Secondly, their designated minority communities and special interest groups that form the coalition to keep them in positions of power so that they can continue to access taxpayer funding. The producers - the taxpayers - have become the slaves. And that is what amnesty for illegal aliens is all about - extending the slavery of the producers to ever greater depths and the power of Congress to ever greater heights.
Red State Patriot
Commentary by David R.: One ill conceived government program begets another. Remove the United States Supreme Court case "Goldberg v. Kelly", which made social welfare programs "entitlements" rather than "charity", and you collapse the illegal immigrant problem. With that gone, state governments can completely deny any benefits to the undocumented, and if they aren't subsidized with schooling, health care, housing, or other programs, the earned income will not be sufficient to draw them here. If there is no draw, they won't come, and nobody will have to surrender any liberties, Mexican or American.
Commentary by Tom D.: The site contains some good information. I too am thoroughly disgusted about illegal immigration in this country. Note that I said "illegal immigration". My wife, who is English, is a card carrying "green card" holder and we went through the process to bring her legally into the country. This included a thorough background investigation, mental exam, physical exam, and personal interview at the US Embassy Councilate's Office. Additionally, I had to guarantee fiscally responsibility by showing I had the income and assets available so she would not become a "burden" on the country. It infuraties me to no end that anyone that can walk, swim, or jump can enter the US illegally, take root here, and then receive the free benefits such as health care, education, social services programs, food stamps/programs, etc., that we end up supporting them with. It has gotten so bad here in Chandler that we are seriously thinking of leaving AZ for a non-border state.
(On illegal migration, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, illiteracy, obesity, crime, poverty, terror, corruption, pornography, trade, equal opportunity, gender equality, sexual mores, domestic violence, guns, environmental stewardship, ignorance, healthcare, child abuse, bigotry and most recently nation building).
The victim was first the Rule of Law and subsequently the United States of America.
Let's single out just one war and look at the problems of illegal alien migration for a moment. Let’s also try to do our examination objectively and somewhat differently from most widely held perspectives.
Unemployment (to the extent one can believe government statistics) is at or near its lowest level in decades, even after taking into consideration the 12, 20 or 40 million illegal aliens who are gainfully employed in the United States, part- or full-time. If the United States can employ everyone who ‘wants’ to work (citizens plus legal and illegal aliens), there is obviously a huge market demand for labor, both skilled and unskilled, and to some extent educated.
Like it or not, disturbing or not, there is also an incredible demand for labor with less educational achievement and fewer expectations. We’re talking about “cheap labor.” For analytical purposes, ethnic origin, education and citizenship are irrelevant in the discussion of cheap labor because when you need a job done, one that requires menial labor, it is the job that is your focus, not the person or their education, or even their ability to speak English. If the only workers available to you are both willing and motivated to work, and in most cases grateful for the work, and all you can do is communicate with hand-signals, that’s good enough.
Part of this insatiable demand for highly motivated (but minimally skilled) workers was solved by outsourcing manufacturing jobs and entire industries overseas. The seeds of this transition began cynically as politicians in the United States offered minimally skilled American workers a pernament economic subsidy in return for their votes. As a result, year after year minimally skilled workers in the United States became increasingly scarce as a result of large numbers leaving the labor market (no longer looking for jobs). Politicians had offered them a life on permanent income redistribution (employment in the welfare industry) and free medical care which provided them higher standard of living than their prior life as a minimally skilled worker without benefits. In most cases, it was a logical economic decision.
At the same time, workers in India and China were becomming plentiful and willing to work at a fraction of the cost of labor in the United States. There are still large numbers of minimally skilled indigenous workers in the United States, and arguably that number has gown exponentially with the disintegration of education in the government public school system. Two highly correlated factors are at work at the same time. While the American society and economy was devolving as a result of government interference with the labor market, major segments of our population were becoming less skilled (poor education) and less motivated (income redistribution).
Regardless of skill or education considerations, the labor pool in the United States is three-tiered, those who are highly motivated, those who are minimally motivated, and those who are unmotivated. Minimally motivated and unmotivated workers have come to expect (demand) so much in the form of total compensation that they cannot compete in a world labor market. It is difficult to entice them to work at all, particularly after Congress chose to provide the social alternative of relying on income redistribution as a respectable livelihood. Imagine, choosing not to work and still being subsidized by taxpayers in every imaginable way (health care, housing, no taxes, cash subsidy, transportation, education, food stamps, utility bills, etc.). What is the incentive for any minimally motivated and unmotivated worker to seek employment? Constructive employment (real jobs) for these individuals, in most cases, is a net financial and healthcare loss. Clearly pride is not a factor, nor ethnicity or self-respect, as large numbers of various demographic groups consciously seek, through sociopathic behavior and wilfull ignorance, to make themselves unemployable.
It should go without saying that manufacturing is the foundation of any economy, and particularly a global economy. Workers in India or China or Mexico can produce, for a labor cost of $1.00, the same product of the same quality as a worker in the United States for a labor cost of $30.00. In order to compete, the United States’ worker had better be able to produce 30 times as much, or substantially higher quality, in the same amount of time.
Meanwhile, the manufacturer has the objective, as does any business enterprise, to produce their product with the least consumption of scarce natural resources, including labor, in order to maximize profit. Even though the basic concepts are economic in origin, for a moment think of labor in environmental terms. In the course of all human activity, we should try to consume the least quantity of all natural resources whenever possible, including labor. Most people of liberal orientation understand that it is far more efficient and humanitarian to hire 30 Indians than one American (for the same labor cost) – unless there are overriding economic, nationalistic or ideological considerations.
At the same time that labor costs were becoming prohibitively uncompetitive during the 1990's, with lesser-skilled labor demanding too much to get of their sofa, government was simultaneously imposing too much regulatory overhead for any business in the United States to profitably function as a domestic corporation. The situation has grown worse each year without any sign of comprehension by lawmakers. The economic fires are raging, consuming the United States economy, and Congress is throwing combustible fuel on the fire as a solution. The absence of inexpensive labor in the United States, combined with oppressive government administrative agency interference and congressional malfeasance, continue to be important factors that weigh very heavily in corporate outsourcing decisions.
A wise man once remarked a long time ago, that it was a little late to close the barn door after the horses were gone. It isn’t always that easy to get them back. Yet in the case of many important United States’ industries, we must try.
We should pause for a well-deserved moment of silence in tribute to past and current Congressmen who have collectively engineered this debacle. The consequence of their ineptitude is that every manufacturing industry still remaining in the United States is facing increasingly stiff competition from overseas, forcing them to cut costs deeply, including wages and benefits, in order to compete with foreign rivals. So severe is the problem that since 1993, U.S. production has only met half of the increase in American demand for durable goods; the other half has come from overseas. So when you hear the President say that Americans are “addicted” to foreign goods, that claim is patently false. Americans want quality manufactured goods, and are more than capable of producing quality manufactured goods themselves, but they are just not made in the United States anymore.
Why not? In the fewest possible words, American manufacturing and its associated jobs are gone, courtesy of failed domestic socialism, regulatory programs and foreign trade policies enacted by Congress and successive American administrations. The United States Congress, state legislatures and courts have literally and unwittingly undermined the profitability of American industry until most fled overseas for survival. Halliburton is only the most recent to flee. Those that remain are circling the drain in ever-decreasing concentric circles. Keep an close eye on Ford Motor Company and U.S. Air, the two corporations voted the most likely to succumb and submerge in the near future.
The root causes of the scarcity of inexpensive labor include such factors as federal and state legislation and local ordinances, administrative agency regulations to implement ill-advised legislation, litigation, equal opportunity, environmental restrictions, poor education and work ethic, union interference, worker’s compensation, mindless taxation, double taxation, political corruption, earmarks, occupational safety extremes, demographics, product liability, crime, etc. Far from last or least on the list of causes of labor scarcity are schemes intended to benefit special interest groups in return for their votes, i.e., income redistribution. The clearly visible but ignored effect of our national welfare state is to dramatically shrink the willing labor pool year after year. In fact, real incomes for middle-class taxpaying households were lower in 2005 than in the recession year of 2001. Democrat Jim Webb, who just won election in normally Republican Virginia, warned, “In the age of globalization and outsourcing, and with a vast underground labor pool from illegal immigration, the average American worker is seeing a different life and a troubling future.”
Why has the United States’ Congress, in their collective incompetence and Nero Syndrome, allowed America to become short the 20-40 million employees, educated or not, skilled or not, motivated or not, needed to sustain industrial manufacturing in the United States? That is a matter best left to ideologues. A lifetime could be spent analyzing past Congressional legislation and Supreme Court decisions that resulted in subsidizing whole groups of people, effectively removing them from the need to work, institutionalizing discrimination and disenfranchising American industry. It would be easier to understand if social engineering was being used by the courts and legislatures to advance the cause of socialism. What logical explanation could there be for Congress to have created a permanent and expanding underclass whose literal survival today depends on income redistribution through entitlement programs (in exchange for votes)? Did we answer the question inadvertently? Sorry.
If that were not enough, and regardless of ideology, there is still another factor that exacerbates the huge unfilled demand for workers, i.e., American citizens who would have entered the workforce by the millions, between twenty and forty million, but were not born. The relevant point now is that demand for labor in the United States is far greater than the ‘willing’ supply. The shortfall in the willing labor supply, even after outsourcing, is being met by vast numbers of illegal alien migrants. The behavior of the unwilling indigenous labor supply, i.e., sloth, ignorance and degeneracy, is being subsidized by taxes extracted from the top 50% of wage earners at the forceful behest of the United States government.
In the fewest words possible, it has been the unrelenting, broad and pervasive government interference with free markets, and abandoning long established cultural norms, that has caused a loss of manufacturing jobs and a severe labor shortage in the United States.
An abundance of skilled tradesmen and service jobs requiring lesser skills have replaced the manufacturing jobs. We have a knowledge and skill economy at the top, a tradesman and service economy at the bottom. The “Middle Class” who used to make widgets have become an endangered species. While it is true that both the population of the United States and the number of people employed has increased dramatically, constant-dollar real wages of the average American citizen has been decreasing for decades. With the Fed’s engineered devaluation of the U.S. dollar, with the worst yet to come, the standard of living of all but the wealthiest Americans is declining. That is not the fault of American citizens – talk to Congress. As for what remains of the Middle Class, they struggle to maintain their standard of living. Consumption expenditures of the Middle Class, which once came from discretionary income and savings, have all but been replaced by consumption spending using debt as a funding mechanism, i.e., refinancing their home and buying what they cannot afford.
Instead of Upper, Middle and Lower classes in society, two new classes have emerged – those few who are debt-free and the debtors. As the ranks of the debtors grow, and consumables continue to increase in price due to a combination of foreign manufacture and the devaluation of the Unites States' currency, consumption of durable goods will ultimately diminish.
Regardless of conservative philosophy or liberal ideology, illegal alien migration is factually and simply the “market” supplying a “demand.” Any market demand will be met by human beings seeking to profit by providing a supply – in this case, labor. The demand is so strong that millions of human beings, many of whom believe they have few or no viable economic alternatives in other parts of the world, are willing to risk their lives to meet the labor demand in the United States. Make no mistake. They’re not coming to the United States to become loyal citizens – that ended with the Era of Conservatism. They have no knowledge or respect for the borders of the United States or any of its laws. They’re coming solely to work and to avail themselves of an economic paradise on earth, a well-spring in social services and taxpayer funded benefits with absolutely nothing expected from them in return. Think of it as the illegal alien’s modern day California Gold Rush, but for social services and taxpayer funded benefits.
When viewed as a labor demand being met and satisfied, from an economic perspective, illegal migration is not a problem. This is a triumph of market forces. There are two really big problems, however. The first one is that the triumph belongs to the “black market.” The triumph of the “black market” in labor is in stark contravention of United States law – just as is the black market in drugs. The second problem is the apparent illicit and prescription drug-induced psychosis to simply give away boundless American wealth and jobs to illegal aliens – to forcibly take hard-earned wealth from Americans and give it away, without any commensurate obligation from non-citizens. Those who support amnesty for illegal aliens, or their continued access to social services, are advocating nothing less than the wholesale transfer of American wealth to illegal aliens - and still more to subsequent generations of illegal aliens.
Either the black market or the rule of law will ultimately prevail, but not both. In the “war on drugs,” which economic force has prevailed? Was it the black market in drugs or United States’ laws? Where incredible demand exists, human beings will supply the commodity in their own self interest. There are no exceptions. You may say, “I wouldn’t,” but the fact is that someone will and that person may not speak English or be a United States citizen. Embedded among them may be some (or many) of our nation’s most deadly enemies.
Extending the analysis further, why does a black market in labor exist? Very simply, the black market exists because of government intervention. The United States’ government has been trying to circumvent natural market forces by regulating (imposing) wage scales and labor eligibility by every artifice imaginable. They have gone to the extremes of favoring one ethnic group over others, all of whom are in competition to be part of the labor supply.
The black market in labor has become a big problem for two primary reasons – (1) illegal alien migrants have been led by our elected politicians to expect goods, benefits and services from the different levels of government that only those citizens in the top 50% of wage earners must pay for, and (2), the actual overhead costs of the illegal alien labor pool far exceeds the perceived national benefits, particularly in crime and cultural degradation.
The most significant goods and services that illegal aliens have come to expect include: medical care, citizenship for children born in the USA, chain migration, and welfare in numerous forms, public school education of their children, in-state tuition, voting rights, affirmative action privileges, and preferential language consideration.
Overhead costs include a range of political demands by illegal aliens that impinge on people's expectations concerning the English language (such as ballots printed in multiple languages), security, property ownership, conferring civil rights without citizenship, repeated criminal victimization of American citizens, criminal injustice toward Americans, disproportionate numbers of illegal aliens who must be incarcerated at taxpayer expense, the economic failure and closing of hundreds of hospitals, and fading political and cultural cohesion. (As an aside, if you think illegal alien migration is a social and fiscal crisis, it is only the opening gambit. Next will come the Muslim demands and the associated civil unrest widely seen in Europe. By that time it will be too late.)
Statistically, 25 Americans die every day at the hands of illegal aliens. In one year, 9125 people die at the hands of illegal aliens; more than the combined total of our military losses and civilian casualties since the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut in 1983. In one year, more Americans die at home from the criminal actions of illegal aliens than the nation has experienced from a total of 23 years of foreign military adventures. You might want to re-read those last two sentences to realize the enormity of the overhead costs to society. Think of their families whose lives have been devistated. Where does it end?
There is also the “small nagging detail” that illegal alien’s pay no taxes (except after engaging in document fraud in conjunction with identity theft) and contribute little to America except their labor, yet derive/demand a vast majority of the benefits.
There is also the 'not-so-small problem' of the justice (courts) and security (police) systems in this country, which don't work particularly well for citizens, much less for illegal alien migrants. And because politicians and judges have worked to the advantage of illegal aliens and disadvantage of citizens, more often than not, a citizen revolt such as the 2006 Mid-term elections was all but predictable. Add to the demographic equation the size and density of the illegal alien population, their distribution, vital statistics and capacity for expansion. Then factor in the dynamic balance with, or disruption of, the existing culture that is being displaced. Houston, we have a problem.
Rather than fostering free and open markets, the most serious problems (resource dislocations) have been caused by our own government’s attempting market manipulation and outright intervention, trying to artificially regulate the laws of economic exchange between rational human beings. Without our government’s intervention, everything could otherwise be a peaceful trading environment – in theory. The liberal mindset has prevailed for so long that it has become a pathological obsession to regulate everything, even human nature itself. By making the same mistakes over and over and over, Congress responds to crime by banning guns, Congress responds to bigotry by banning speech, Congress responds to terrorism by banning profiling and opening the borders, Congress responds to illegal aliens running wild within United States’ borders by discouraging enforcement of existing law, Courts respond to homosexuality by banning the Boy Scouts, Courts respond to secularism and immorality by banning Christianity, and Congress responds to child abuse by banning pornography. You can easily think of a dozen more examples. In every case, the programmed liberal mindset refuses to hold the individual responsible for the crime, including the illegal alien, and instead casts the crime perpetrator or illegal alien invader as the victim of an evil racist society or child abuse. Is it possible that there is more sanity and fewer drugs in the story of Alice in Wonderland?
There are still more issues, and one that is huge – multiculturalism. Federal, state and local governments are now presiding over a multi-cultural and multi-lingual land, that they created, that is incrementally becoming unstable. All levels of government are vainly attempting to “rule” using government-institutionalized discrimination augmented with force, suppressing the majority will of Americans in order to make room for illegal aliens and facilitate what appears to be the inevitable advent of the North American Union.
The United States, with its rapidly decreasing cultural homogeneity, is becoming less and less politically and socially stable with each passing year. To better appreciate the future of America, think of the Jews and Arab Palestinians who occupy and claim the same “holy ground” in Israel. Now add to their mix a vast welfare and regulatory state, layered with multiple religions, disparate cultures and languages, and you can see why Israel has such an explosive situation on their hands. Israel’s national stability is inversely correlated with multiple cultures and beset with institutionalized government and religious discrimination. And we are not? Unless politicians change course soon, Israel’s present situation is a glimpse into America’s future, but ours will be on a much larger scale.
Before the November 2006 election, United States’ citizens were already taking to the streets and the internet in protest because the sources of their angst were not being addressed by politicians. Most people have come to realize that there is less than 15 cents in difference between Democrats and liberal Republicans. Most relevant is a single fact: Democrats are now in control of Congress. The problems, from the viewpoint of border control advocates, and conservatives in general will grow worse – much worse. More citizens will probably join the anti-illegal migration protest incrementally. Most will not realize the issues are wrapped around an axle called market forces, i.e., supply and demand – and nobody is addressing market forces. To do so would require Congress to increase the supply of cheap labor (workers) inside the United States from among American citizens by providing fewer unearned subsistence alternatives to working. There is no workable solution that does not include significantly increasing the supply of American “cheap labor.” Reducing income redistribution will not be a political Happy Meal among Congressmen. Odds-makers would probably give a 60-year old disabled veteran better odds of winning the Boston Marathon.
As long as the over-supply of jobs goes unfilled by American workers, it will be filled by foreign workers, and they will continue to flood into the United States just as a tide floods the lowlands. The only changes possible are to alter the natural geography (increase the cheap labor pool from American sources) or build a dam (wall) to keep the water out. As long as industry can be more profitable using less expensive foreign labor, vital industries that were once the cornerstone of the United States’ economy will not return to the United States. Congress has indeed squandered our industrial base and national heritage.
One more example will suffice. Democrats coming into office have voiced concern about the plight of industry and loudly criticized the Bush Administration’s policies; but they don’t have anything that remotely resembles an alternative model that will meet the challenge. Democrats and liberal Republicans refuse to recognize that their role is twofold, (1) to increase the supply of manufactured goods “made in America,” which is the only solution to reducing the demand for goods from India, China, Mexico, Peru and Columbia, and to increase the supply of willing cheap labor from internal sources comprised of United States citizens and “legal” aliens.
While legalizing the “illegals” is the easiest political solution, it is by far the most damaging to national sovereignty and dangerous to the American culture. Just as France is rapidly becoming a Muslim nation, the United States is arguably becoming a Hispanic nation. If the plight of Mexico and its citizens is what we want for ourselves, Mexico being our national role model, then we should make every effort to adopt their culture (or permit it to be forced on us with amnesty for illegal aliens).
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that no child labor laws, organized unions or environmental standards will do anything to reduce the demand from the United States for manufactured goods. Instead, the measures championed by the Democratic Party as economic reform will only increase the cost of everything manufactured in any country which will then be passed on to the consumer in the United States - once again reducing the Middle Class' standard of living.
What about a citizen protest? Will it do any good? Are the Minutemen effective? Yes, they have been effective in raising awareness and politicizing the issue. It is also relatively easy to predict that any attempt by individual American citizens to stem the tide of illegal aliens into the United States will be met with severe government retalliation. At some point, American citizens have only two alternatives, i.e., turn into civil unrest or abdicate and flee. There is the distinct possibility that illegal alien migration will someday become an explosive social issue.
Ask yourself, if the Democrats who now control Congress fail to stem the tide of illegal aliens, will they have succeeded or failed? The more astute members of the Democratic Party know it has fallen to them to deal with illegal alien migration or be swept aside in the 2008 election. Regardless of political and media rhetoric, illegal alien migration will still be an issue in 2008 because it will still be an unresolved matter of supply and demand. All of the politician’s made-for-TV hand-wringing changes nothing, but then it was never intended to change anything.
The Democratic Party leadership (and liberal Republicans) has a preferred solution. They wish to legalize every living creature within the United States’ borders, plus any other life-form in our solar system, and make them all the responsibility of U.S. taxpayers in exchange for their votes. The tax responsibility to subsidize this mass of humanity and alternate life forms will fall squarely on corporations (small businesses) who will then pass on the costs to the consumer. The tax burden will fall especially heavily on the top 50% of citizens who are the only wage earners currently paying taxes. None of the bottom 50% of wage earners (who vote), and all non-citizens who reside within the borders of the United States, will have to pay a dime to subsidize the social services of the growing numbers of illegal aliens.
There is a finite limit and there is a long-term price to be paid. Total government dependency can finally be yours with a vote for any Congressional candidate that is neither a conservative nor a libertarian. Why are conservatives and libertarians more desirable – and only them, and not liberals, neo-conservatives or paleo-conservatives? True Conservatives and Libertarians, not some hyphenated alphabet soup, are the only Americans who are espousing a very limited government, the rule of law, personal responsibility, low taxes, self-reliance and a military whose sole responsibility is to defend the United States.
What the end result will be? If we continue to elect advocates of liberalism, we will receive in return a vastly larger government driven by ever more income redistribution. As socialism becomes more and more pervasive, existing problems of civil liberties and private property that rile American sensibilities today will become much, much worse. Civil liberties and private property DO NOT EXIST under socialism (liberalism) - nor does class mobility, personal wealth, small business or private enterprise. How could anyone but the most ignorant among us wish that on themselves?
The political competition in 2008 is not be to become the President of the United States. Nor is it between elected representatives who desperately want to improve the lot of all Americans. No, in most cases, theirs is a quest to rule, to become Caesar.
Hopefully you consider yourself to be one of the proud indomitable Americans who were born free and intend to remain free, defiantly refusing to live under the yoke of any religion, particularly Socialism or Islam.
When individuals simply move from one country to another, this is a phenomenon far different than immigration. Immigration may be controlled politically, i.e., restricted, encouraged, planned, and allotted on an annual or ethnic basis, preferably with policies that welcome the more gifted and talented of the world’s population. What the U.S. is currently experiencing is not immigration, but unrestrained migration of the most dependent, least qualified, uneducated, incapable and socially undisciplined.
While migration is a natural phenomenon, in extreme numbers it becomes a national catastrophe. Instead of assimilating into the culture into which a people moves, as happens with immigration, when an entire ethnic population flees one area and moves into another area, it profoundly changes the political, cultural, and economic make up of the receiving country or area. This phenomenon has happened numerous times throughout human history and never to the advantage of the indigenous population. Ask the American Indians.
Migration is at work all over Europe and the Western hemisphere today, motivated by the self-interest of both the migrants and the “ruling elite” in government and corporate board rooms. What was once only a distant rumble, the migration train is now clearly visible to American citizens who are gathered around, standing on the tracks, trying to figure out how to stop the train before they are run over. Getting off the tracks only surrenders the tracks to politicians, foreign governments and illegal aliens, i.e., those who are profiting at the expense of American citizens. On the current path and pace of unrestrained migration, the entire world will soon refer to Southwestern United States as the “New Mexico,” and France will become the “New Fallujah.”
The immediate economic result of any massive migration is an erosion of the native citizen’s quality of life, educational standards, culture, life expectancy, natural resources, literacy rate and infant mortality among others. Some of the illegal alien poor may profoundly benefit from being poor in a new environment where poverty is richness as compared to the areas where they originated. However, in the long run, a political and economic openness to unrestrained migration (open borders) results in an extreme disincentive to the needed structural change in the countries were the migrants come from. The area being newly occupied reduces to the lowest common denominator in all aspects of human existence, and eventually to the culture from which the migrants originally fled. The original native citizens must either surrender to a new political and economic reality, or abdicate and flee. Hence what is left is the “New Mexico.” If you don’t like the societal conditions you see when you travel south of the Mexican border, stand by. The Southwestern United States is deteriorating toward that standard with the trajectory of a gliding anvil. If any doubts remain, make a short pilgrimage and spend a couple of hours in the vicinity of 35th Avenue and Van Buren Street in the heart of Phoenix, Arizona.
Independently of what "it" is called, migration or immigration, there is a profound reality that must be faced by the media, citizens and politicians alike. A country such as the United States of America, in which 25 to 30% of the population identifies with another country, votes and participates in another country’s election, and remits most of their savings to another economy, cannot be called a sovereign nation. Add to that a “Senate of Fools” who refuse to enforce the laws of the land except in those instances when it becomes a matter of self-interest. The week ending May 19, 2006 saw the U.S. Senate even abandon English as our national language.
What we are watching in real time is the dissolution of the United States of America into a historical footnote. Short of a political insurrection to severely restrain migration, a physical barrier at the border, reinstating immigration law and beginning intense enforcement, soon what was once so great in the history of the world will no longer be recognizable. It will be gone for all time. There is no other possible outcome, particularly when our elected political representatives abandon the "rule of law" in both cultural and criminal matters.
The United States is not facing an immigration issue. Even the phrase “illegal immigration” is an oxymoron. Immigration is legal when it is done lawfully. Migration outside the law and any form of human trafficking is not. Massive unrestrained (illegal) migration and human trafficking are the problems.
Where controlled legal immigration benefits America, uncontrolled migration today is destroying America.
Americans should have expected enforcement of our nation’s laws by our government, but instead Congressmen, Governors, and Judges have sold their citizenship for campaign contributions and votes. The corruption extends from the President of the United States to Arizona Senator John McCain and Governor Janet Napolitano to the Mayor of Phoenix. If Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi were to comment, she would say to us, “I laugh because there is nothing you can do about it.” Americans can only hope she is wrong.
We Americans, as a nation, are at the precipice holding on only by our fingertips. Once over the edge, there is no turning back. There will be nothing that will stop our fall before impacting the bottom, however far down that may turn out to be. The only choices are clear - those choices that preserve the United States as a sovereign entity. In the meantime, the Senate of Fools, the Governor of Arizona and the Mayor of Phoenix, all serving self-interest, are stomping on our fingers with jackboots.
Trespassing Illegal Alien Stabs Army Ranger
The Arizona Republic Refuses to Print the Story
"Soldier Stabbed After Return from Iraq,"
KPHO-TV, February 13 2007
Blow the whistle on the Arizona Republic's management for "spiking" the story.
randy.lovely@arizonarepublic.com Executive Editor (602) 444-8790
john.leach@arizonarepublic.com Managing Editor (602) 444-8746
jeff.dozbaba@arizonarepublic.com Deputy Managing Editor (602) 444-4379
ward.bushee@arizonarepublic.com Editor in Chief (602) 444-8087
laurie.roberts@arizonarepublic.com Op-Ed in charge of sob stories (602) 444-8635
THE "HUSHED-UP" STORY THE REPUBLIC DOESN'T WANT TO PRINT
by Sandra Miller
Former Army Ranger Jason Okon was assaulted and stabbed by an illegal alien on February 2. As with so many illegal aliens, he had a prior arrest. Because of the Phoenix PDs illegal alien sanctuary policy (Operations Order 1.4.3), the illegal alien wasn't turned over to immigration offices for deportation, but was released back into the community. When the illegal alien didn't appear in court (did anyone really expect him to?), an arrest warrant was issued on his prior trespassing charge.
There's no doubt that the Republic knows the story, because the police were called to the scene immediately. The illegal alien even assaulted three police officers while being arrested!
The Republic heard the story within a few days when Elizabeth Okon called Laurie Roberts. Certainly the Republic specialist in tear-jerking stories should have been glad to tell the difficulties faced by a family when on-the-loose illegal aliens cause serious injuries to their family. (At least Laurie was glad to step up to the plate in December when a 16-year old girl suffered a hit-and-run by an illegal alien back in December 2006 "Hit-run suspect out of jail for free."
Knowing the Republic's pro-illegal alien agenda, the Okon family knew the need for being "up-front" when Laurie returned their call. After telling her how Jason Okon had been stabbed by an illegal alien with prior arrests who remained in the US courtesy of the Phoenix PD "illegal alien sanctuary" policy, they insisted that she report the story in a truthful and fortright manner without the Republic's usual apologist policy to illegal aliens.
Laurie must have know that "truthful and forthright" on the illegal alien issue wouldn't fly with her editorial management, because Roberts cancelled the appointment to interview Elizabeth Okon for the story.
While the Phoenix TV stations broke the story on February 13, the Republic continued looking the other way and continues to do that today.
But the Republic's pretenses of evading the story ended on Tuesday February 20. When Republic employee Mary Jo Pitzl covered the House Government Committee hearing, she heard Elizabeth Okon and myself testify to her husband's stabbing by an illegal alien and the refusal of the Republic to report the story even 18 days later. Ms. Pitzl's February 21 article on the Government Committee hearing's proceedings "House panel OKs hiring sanctions" makes her presence undeniable.
While Mrs. Okon's departure after testifying may have prevented the Republic's reporter from speaking with her, I remained through the end of the hearing. Ms. Pitzl (or any other reporter that may have chosen to cover the story) could easily have obtained the details for follow up.
Yet no one from the Republic has ever contacted the Okons for the story. This is the opportunity for the paper to offer WHY their refusal to print the story isn't linked to the clear pro-illegal alien agenda of the Republic. They needn't be concerned with keeping their policy hidden, because it's no secret to anyone in the Valley.
A Thursday night Town Hall member who called the Repubic last week to object was given several lame excuses:
(1) "police decided it wasn't a hate crime." That's not what Phoenix PD Detective Brian Korus _ told Elizabeth Okon.
(2) "maybe he (meaning the illegal alien) was disturbed." Does that mean if a "disturbed" illegal alien trespasses and assaults an American, the story should be "hushed up?"
(3) "police reports are really conflicting--we weren't sure what the story really was." But isn't that what newspaper journalists' job is--to sort through the conflicting tales and find out what really happened (unless of course their newspaper wants to conceal the story from the public)?
(4) "Lots of people get stabbed--the Republic can't print the story for each one." We know that's true--27 Americans daily are killed by illegal aliens (murder, rape, assault, DUI). That's directly from US-DOJ figures compiled by Congressmen Steve King of Iowa and Mike McCall of Texas.
The question is why it hasn't been printed. That the Republic's publishers might be hiding the Phoenix PD's "illegal alien sanctuary" policy (Operations Order 1.4.3) occurs to any citizen who knows of its existence despite the reluctance of the paper in disclosing it to the public.
Let the Republic management hear from Arizonans statewide (and all Americans) that we know they're suppressing the story just because it conflicts with their agenda and pre-established pro-illegal alien and pro-Mexican government bias. Without word from us, they'll like to think they're hoodwinking readers (or non-readers if that's the group you belong to).
We can wield a sharp knife to cut someone severely, and if it is our intention to do harm, we will become a murderer. We can perform an almost identical knife action as a surgeon and it can be a life-saving act. Because the motivation of a surgeon is to heal and save a life, the intention is different. The act of cutting a human being is the same, yet because of its purpose and the skill of the surgeon, it is a compassionate act instead of a terrible, unforgivable act rendering a slow and painful death to the victim.
Make no mistake, it can be the same for a nation. It begs the question: Is our nation suffering from some kind of life-threatening cancer lurking in our existing immigration laws? Has a case been made that unless this cancer is cut out cleanly the first time, the immigration laws will kill us all? Will America die without modification or elimination of our immigration laws, laws which arguably constitute our first line of defense and function as our nation's immune system?
As you know, Congress is doggedly determined to perform a surgical operation on our nation’s body. What kind of surgery does Congress intend and will it be performed to cut out the cancer or as a mad scientist to further impair the immune system? For that matter, which is the cancer – the growing number of invading illegal aliens, or the courts, or the Congress itself? Is the cancer our existing immigration laws or some unspoken combination? Or, as liberal politicians and the main stream media contend, are racist Americans the problem? The latter view is widely held by those who directly benefit from illegal migration and the intentional non-enforcement of the immigration laws.
What is the reality American citizens deal with on a daily basis? A huge (overwhelming) majority of American citizens believe we are being confronted on our own streets by a gang of foreign thugs wielding knives that have as their criminal intent to injure us and our families, steal our jobs, material possessions, children's education, medical care, culture and earned social benefits?
The reality is that immigration laws are clearly intended to stop undesirable and sometimes malignant foreign cells from entering the national body. Congress is not the immune system, nor are the courts. Americans are not permitted by law to be the immune system. American citizens are not permitted by law to fend off a lethal infection. What then is the national immune system? The U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and our system of laws is our immune system to the extent that Americans do not permit Congress, the courts and the Administration to circumvent it.
If we have a cancer and fail to take appropriate action in a medical sense, we will die.
Are the millions of illegal aliens a reasonable metaphor for maliginant cells? Clearly they're reproducing rapidly and putting a strain on the nation's immune system. Is the nation's body struggling to defend its internal organs and its citizen’s quality of life? The evidence is irrefutable. Millions of socially-malignant and parasitic cells are reproducing rapidly within America's borders with the assistance of Congress, cells that cannot and refuse to be assimilated. That is a cancer.
Why is Congress seemingly hell-bent on making choices that could become lethal to our nation? Simply stated, there is only one explanation, i.e., idividual congressmen must be personally benefitting from the migration of illegal aliens. As a logical result of campaign contributions, which eventually find their way to become personal wealth, Mexicans and their employers have become their only constituency, the only voice heard by Congress. After all, Americans are not voting in large numbers. The percentages of registered voters going to the polls is low. From a politician's perspective, why not facilitate the voting by illegal aliens (in return for providing them unearned social benefits) to insure continual re-election? Why not facilitate the entry of illegal aliens into the United States in return for corporate campaign contributions? Why refuse to accept huge sums of money from political action committees surreptiously sponsored by foreign governments? The fact that such actions are illegal and unethical is irrelevant. So too is refusing to enforce existing immigration laws. In the words of Nancy Pelosi: I laugh because there is nothing you can do about it.
What will happen to Americans if Congress defiantly continues to legislate in their own self-interest? If are Armed Forces are engaged in a "War on Terror," Congress is engaged in a "War of Terror" against American citizens. Like a thief in the night, unless told to stop and held accountable, Congress will steal liberty itself - and we will not get it back.
So it comes down to intent. What is the intent of the men and women with the knife in their hand (Congress, the President and politically appointed members of his Administration)? Are they trying to kill our nation or to save it? Is it relevant that the daily number of American citizens who become victims of violent and property crimes is huge? How does anyone justify five homicides per day of American citizens at the hands of illegal aliens? Discounting future acts of terrorism and the ongoing devistation to our culture, what about the gutting of our national system of social services and healthcare. The intent of our politicians appears to be both homicidal and serial. Will somebody please call John Walsh?
We citizens signed a “pre-operative consent form” by electing these social surgeons to Congress. We authorized them to be our doctor and attend to the nation’s ills. Now we have clear cause to ask: s it the surgeon’s intent to save our nation’s life, or to perform an unnecessary medical procedure solely for personal gain? The answer is in for most Americans. Can a case can be made that the President is trying to save the United States from oblivion by his documented unwillingness to enforce immigration laws? If a case cannot be made, please explain why any American citizen on the jury should not conclude that the President has a conscious intent to seriously harm this nation? Is there any lingering doubt that his refusal to act in defense of United States sovereignty is both premeditated and in conspiracy with foreign heads of state, many Governors and most members of Congress?
It appears more likely by the day that Congress has every intention to leave the cancer intact and instead make needed adjustments near the heart of our culture to accommodate the growing cancer? Is there any doubt at all that Muslim and Mexican threats will continue to grow if our sovereignty is ignored? What is the predictable outcome if illegal alien migration is facilitated with amnesty and open borders?
The national cancer of illegal alien migrants has already metasticized across 50 states. Americans should be angry that our political surgeons have ignored the cancer's spread, and in many cases facilitated it, and some cases farmed it, for over 30 years! Didn't the last back-alley dark-of-the-night immigration surgery on the nation’s body 20 years ago do enough serious damage? How were these surgeons chosen – from a subway billboard? Or by the lowest common denominator?
Why does the President of the United States refuse to immigration laws? Does President George W. Bush hold the United States in even more disdain than George Soros, Senator John Kerry and actress Jane Fonda? How great must the enticement be to sell out your own country? Why does he want American's to die a slow and painful legal and cultural death? What benefit to all American citizens does the President believe will accrue from 20 million illegal aliens and more on the way? What about Senator John McCain, the man who would become King if given an opportunity? Why is he unrelenting in his efforts to suppress our nation’s immune system by voiding its immigration laws with his proposed legislation?
Who will be the beneficiary of 20-30 or even 60 million new social benefits-oriented voters who pay no taxes, who are not American citizens, who bring no skills or education with them, and who did not enter the country legally – and who jumped to the head of the immigration line? Who in the United States will benefit from our government's making Social Security payments to non-citizens residing in Mexico? Does Congress not realize or remotely care that illegal aliens are employed off the books, contribute nothing themselves, avoid assimilation and receive social services at the expense of the top 50% of American wage earners (the only income taxpayers). Even after several misguided attempts at immigration reform – code words for immigration facilitation - by both Congress and several Administrations, the situation in our communities is worse than ever, and growing worse. A comparison between the United States of America and the Titanic is becoming more apt by the day as Congress keeps busy rearranging the deck chairs and the band plays.
Any rational person would agree that there is no reason to wield a knife so close to the heart, whether a person’s heart or the nation’s heart, other than to save or kill. The heart of our nation is our system of laws and our culture; the heart of our nation is our Constitution; and the heart of our nation is our sovereignty.
Can Congress be trusted anywhere near the heart of America wielding a knife pretending somehow that reform of immigration laws (open borders and amnesty) is critical to America’s survival? If the intent of cutting with the knife by Congress is to benefit one group over all others, one race over all others, non-citizens over citizens, at the expense of the economic lives of taxpaying citizens, outside existing law, against the will of the people, then their intent can only be to do incredibly vicious and irreparable harm to the heart of this nation - and for personal gain.
Why would any conscientious American allow social psychopaths, stalking the corridors of Congress, seeking only self interest, to wield a sharp knife anywhere near America’s heart? Why is this anything less than a national hostage situation with a liberal Congress defiantly holding a knife to America’s throat?
What should be done in this real-life hostage situation to protect innocent American citizens from those who would usurp power (seize or exercise authority not granted to them by the U.S. Constitution)? What would Jack Bauer do?
What's Worse Than Open Borders?
Look around you...
When the U.S. is trespassed upon at will by 15 million to 30 million illegal aliens, our border troops are under orders to flee from their posts if attacked, and the only thing upon which President Bush and Speaker Nancy Pelosi agree is the need for amnesty for brazen masses of immigration criminals, it would be easy to say that America has a de facto policy of open borders.
But upon reflection, it must be admitted that our current corruption is worse than open borders. For with a truly open border, oxymoron and nation-killer that that term may be, it could be expected that both the illiterate and the educated would pass easily across it. Likewise, the middle-class and the poor, the peaceful and the violent, the honest and the criminal, and the skilled and the unskilled would be expected to enter into our nation with equal facility.
Yet that is hardly the system we have had imposed upon us by our federal government—for many skilled computer programmers from India are kept out while they await their visas. Educated Chinese scientists cannot find cash-only jobs in our aerospace industry. And the honest of all nations are kept outside our country by their very honesty, except for the small portion of aspiring legal immigrants that, after much paperwork and time and expense, are admitted properly.
And while those who know they will pass background checks wait for them to be performed, while those who would bring the most value to our economy are held up in legal bureaucracy, and while the honest are shocked by the idea of paying criminal gangs to smuggle them across desperate deserts, our current system selects perfectly for their demographic opposites.
For those who are criminals, the border is open.
For those without degrees, the border is open.
For the violent, the dishonest, the unskilled, the destitute, the illiterate … the border is open.
And so they flow in by the millions each year—unfettered by the compunctions that keep out their moral betters, and undaunted by the need for unforged documents that keeps out their intellectual betters (for high tech businesses have too much at stake to play the “wink, wink, nudge, nudge” game with fake IDs and random Social Security numbers).
No, we do not have an open border. We have an anti-border.
Where a real border is designed to keep out the bad of the world and let flow in all its good, our anti-border keeps out the good and drowns us in the bad.
Where a real border is intended to politically define a distinct nation, our anti-border is intended to redefine that nation into something indistinct.
Where a real border is supposed to declare to the outsider and the would-be entrant, “Here begins a new set of laws,” our anti-border declares to them “Here begins whatever lawlessness you need to get by.”
With this selection process in place, we are supposed to believe that our economy is benefited?
It would be as if a world-class company suddenly stopped interviewing applicants for new positions and simply gave the jobs to whomever managed to break into the building the night before. While titans of industry brag that much of their success is attributable to picking good people and letting them work their talents in service of the common good (Jack Welch, I believe, once jokingly claimed to be the Chief Human Resources Officer of GE), our nation is pursuing the opposite approach.
We most heavily add to our national organization those that first break laws, fake their resumes, pay bribes, evade their taxes, communicate poorly, have few legitimate skills and disrespect our culture.
For people such as these, our borders are open, and amnesty is a civil right.
For the people we really need, however, our border is mockingly closed, and amnesty is just a word for their place being taken by some lesser man.
We have, in short, the worst of all possible systems.
We Need Compassion For Our Border Guards
Jan. 3, 2007 by Phyllis Schlafly
President George W. Bush pardoned 16 criminals including five drug dealers at Christmas time, but so far has refused to pardon the two U.S. Border Patrol agents who were trying to defend Americans against drug smugglers. It makes us wonder which side the self-proclaimed "compassionate" President is on.
Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean were guarding the Mexican border near El Paso on February 17, 2005 when they intercepted a van carrying 743 pounds of marijuana. For what happened next, they were convicted and sentenced under a statute that was designed to impose heavy punishment on criminal drug smugglers caught in the commission of a crime.
The two agents are scheduled to start 11- and 12-year prison terms, respectively, on January 17, for the crime of putting one bullet in the buttocks of the admitted drug smuggler, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, and failing to report the discharge of their firearms. The non-fatal bullet didn't stop the smuggler from running to escape in a van waiting for him on the Mexican side of the border.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher called the two agents heroes. "Because of their actions, more than a million dollars in illegal drugs were stopped from being sold to our children. Bringing felony charges against them is a travesty of justice beyond description."
The White House and the U.S. Department of Justice are stonewalling requests for a presidential pardon from 55 Members of Congress and U.S. citizens who have sent at least 160,000 petitions and 15,000 faxes. When the Bush Administration deigns to respond at all, the official line is that the Border Patrol agents got a fair trial.
But that's not true; they didn't get a fair trial. They were convicted because the Justice Department sent investigators into Mexico, tracked down the drug smuggler, and gave him immunity from all prosecution for his drug smuggling crimes if he would please come back and testify against Ramos and Compean.
It was massively unfair to give immunity to an illegal alien narcotics trafficker while destroying the lives and families of two Border Patrol agents who risked their lives to stop him. Ramos and Compean were convicted mainly on the testimony of the immunity-sheltered drug smuggler, whose integrity should have been called into question, but Ramos and Compean were forbidden to do that during the trial.
The prosecutor even tried to get Ramos and Compean convicted of attempted murder! The jury acquitted them of that outlandish charge, but the government still asked for a sentence of 20 years for the other counts on which they were convicted.
How did the prosecution go from an administrative violation for failing to report a firearm discharge, with the penalty of perhaps a 5-day suspension, to prosecution for intent to commit murder?
After the trial, two jurors gave sworn statements that they had been pressured to render a guilty verdict and did not understand that a hung jury was possible.
A major argument used by the prosecution during the trial was that our government has a policy forbidding agents from chasing suspected drug smugglers without first getting permission from supervisors. That sounds like a no-arrest policy; by the time an agent gets permission, a smuggler can be out of sight and safely back over the border.
There were a couple of factual discrepancies between the smuggler's story and the agents' testimony, but the government chose to believe the immunity-motivated repeat drug smuggler rather than Border Patrol agents with clean records. Ramos was nominated for Border Patrol Agent of the year in 2005, and Compean served honorably in the U.S. Navy before joining the Border Patrol.
The Bush Administration tidied up Aldrete's wound at a U.S. hospital at our expense and opened the way for him to sue the U.S. government for $5 million for violating his civil rights, which he is now doing.
This case exposes the misplaced priorities of the Bush Administration. The case also reminds us that our Border Patrol agents are in daily danger from hardened criminals.
The Department of Homeland Security issued this Officer Safety Alert on December 21, 2005: "Unidentified Mexican alien smugglers . . . have agreed that the best way to deal with U.S. Border Patrol agents is to hire a group of contract killers." The alert cautions that, to perform the killings, the smugglers intend to use the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) street gang, known for its unspeakable atrocities and torture.
T.J. Bonner, national Border Patrol Council. said: "There is a palpable sense of outrage and betrayal. Here, you have five convicted drug dealers being pardoned, and two border patrol agents, who were doing their job, fighting the war on drugs on the front lines, and they're going to prison."
This case is a test of George Bush's character, compassion, and concern for drugs coming across our border. He can't duck responsibility: the prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, and the judge, Kathleen Cardone, are both Bush appointees.
Illegal Immigration: Is it part of your Voting Criteria?
Somewhere In Phoenix, Arizona
If you live in Arizona, the following is a list of your elected representatives and an evaluation of their voting record in those matters before Congress that would protect Arizona from the criminal ravages of illegal alien migration:
Senators
Jon Kyl, grade B on illegal immigration and NRA grade A on 2nd Amendment rights John McCain, grade D-
Representatives
Trent Franks (District 2), grade B+
Rick Renzi (District 1), grade B+
John Shadegg (District 3), grade B
J.D. Hayworth (District 5), grade B
Jeff Flake (District 6), grade C Jim Kolbe (District 8), grade D
Raul Grijalva (District 7), grade F
Ed Pastor (District 4), grade F
Any grade less than A+ demonstrates that your elected representative has a repetitive pattern of making the criminal and social welfare interests of illegal aliens more important than those of American citizens, and has recklessly, knowingly and intentionally voted in a pattern that compromises the national security of the United States of America.
To learn the meaning of their grades and the basis for their computation, continue reading this article.
A+ Virtually always supports lower immigration and lower U.S. population growth
C Half the time has acted for lower immigration and half the time has acted for higher numbers
F- Virtually always acts to force higher immigration and U.S. population growth
Congressional actions are weighted based on the best available assessment of their impact or potential impact on the size of the U.S. population. In most cases, points are assigned based on the numeric impact on each category. Actions are assigned to as many of the following categories as applicable. But the points assessed to an action relate to only the numeric part that affects that particular category.
The grading process includes not only floor votes but also committee votes, co-sponsorships and other leadership actions such as signing a letter in support of or against particular immigration legislation. The grades are based on a systematic, consistent set of principles that have been evaluated and reviewed by experts in immigration policy (including people from the State Department, Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, Census Bureau, congressional immigration committee staff, Members of Congress, several think tanks of differing immigration philosophies and a number of universities).
Unlike many congressional scorecards that you will encounter on the internet, this grading system does not pick and choose among actions in a way to skew the results toward a particular party or members of a political party.
For more detailed background information on the grades given, or to view the report cards of Congressmen from any other state, see: http://grades.betterimmigration.com/
If 2nd Amendment rights (right to keep and bear arms) is important to you, you might also want to consider the following NRA supplied information:
Senator: Jon Kyl and Jim Pederson both received a grade of "A"
Governor: Len Munsil (A) and Janel Napolitano (B-)
Attorney General: Bill Montgomery (A) and Terry Goddard (?)
Secretary of State: Jan Brewer (A) and Israel Torres (B-)
State Treasurer: Dean Martin (A+) and Rano Singh (?)
Clerk of the Superior Court: Patti Noland (A)
U.S. House of Representatives:
District 1: Rick Renzi (A), Ellen Simon (?)
District 2: Trent Franks (A), John Thrasher (A)
District 3: Kpjm Sjadegg (A), Herb Paine (?)
District 4: Don Karg (A), Ed Pastor (F)
District 5: J.D. Hayworth (A), Harry Mitchell (F)
District 6: Jeff Flake (A-)
District 7: Ron Drake (A), Raul Grijalva (F)
District 8: Randy Graf (A), Gabrielle Giffords (F)
You may want to reconsider your support of any candidate with a grade less than an "A."
Republicans Guarantee Themselves CRUSHING November Defeat
Loopholes mean fence may never be built, at least not as advertised ...
In border fence’s path, legislative roadblocks
By Spencer S. Hsu
The Washington Post
No sooner did Congress authorize construction of a 700-mile fence on the U.S.-Mexico border last week than lawmakers rushed to approve separate legislation that ensures it will never be built, at least not as advertised, according to Republican lawmakers and immigration experts.
GOP leaders have singled out the fence as one of the primary accomplishments of the recently completed session. Many lawmakers plan to highlight their $1.2 billion down payment on its construction as they campaign in the weeks before the midterm elections.
But shortly before recessing late Friday, the House and Senate gave the Bush administration leeway to distribute the money to a combination of projects -- not just the physical barrier along the southern border. The funds may also be spent on roads, technology and "tactical infrastructure" to support the Department of Homeland Security's preferred option of a "virtual fence."
What's more, in a late-night concession to win over wavering Republicans, GOP congressional leaders pledged in writing that Native American tribes, members of Congress, governors and local leaders would get a say in "the exact placement" of any structure, and that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff would have the flexibility to use alternatives "when fencing is ineffective or impractical."
The loopholes leave the Bush administration with authority to decide where, when and how long a fence will be built, except for small stretches east of San Diego and in western Arizona. Homeland Security officials have proposed a fence half as long, lawmakers said.
"It's one thing to authorize. It's another thing to actually appropriate the money and do it," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.). The fine-print distinction between what Congress says it will do and what it actually pays for is a time-honored result of the checks and balances between lawmakers who oversee agencies and those who hold their purse strings.
Political calculations In this case, it also reflects political calculations by GOP strategists that voters do not mind the details, and that key players -- including the administration, local leaders and the Mexican government -- oppose a fence-only approach, analysts said.
President Bush signed the $34.8 billion homeland security budget bill Wednesday in Scottsdale, Ariz., without referring to the 700-mile barrier. Instead, he highlighted the $1.2 billion that Congress provided for an unspecified blend of fencing, vehicle barriers, lighting and technology such as ground-based radar, cameras and sensors.
"That's what the people of this country want," the president said. "They want to know that we're modernizing the border so we can better secure the border."
Bush and Chertoff have said repeatedly that enforcement alone will not work and that they want limited dollars spent elsewhere, such as on a temporary-worker program to ease pressure on the border. At an estimated $3 million to $10 million per mile, the double-layered barrier will cost considerably more than $1.2 billion.
Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), who chairs the Senate subcommittee that funds the Department of Homeland Security, said that before the legislation was approved, the department had planned to build 320 miles of fencing, secure 500 miles of hard-to-traverse areas by blocking roads and monitor electronically the rest of the 2,000-mile-long southern
frontier.
"I think there'll be fencing where the department feels that it makes sense," Gregg said, estimating that "at least 300 to 400 miles" will be built.
Congress withheld $950 million of the $1.2 billion, pending a breakdown by Chertoff of how he plans to spend the money. It is due in early December, after the midterm elections.
'Virtual fence'
Asked whether Homeland Security would build 700 miles of fence, department spokesman Russ Knocke would not say. Instead, he noted that department leaders announced last month that they will spend $67 million to test a remote-sensing "virtual fence" concept on a 28-mile, high-traffic stretch of border south of Tucson over eight months, and then adjust their plans.
"We plan to build a little and test a little. . . . Stay tuned," Knocke said. "We're optimistic that Congress is going to provide the department with flexibility."
The split between GOP leaders hungry for a sound-bite-friendly accomplishment targeting immigration and others who support a more comprehensive approach also means that the fence bill will be watered down when lawmakers return for a lame-duck session in November, according to congressional aides and lobbyists.
The office of Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) yesterday released a letter from House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) promising to ensure that Chertoff has discretion over whether to build a fence or choose other options. Homeland Security officials must also consult with U.S., state and local representatives on where structures are placed.
The letter was inserted in the Congressional Record on Friday night because Congress ran out of time to reach a final deal, aides said.
"State and local officials in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas should not be excluded from decisions about how to best protect our borders with their varying topography, population and geography," Hutchison said in a statement added to the record.
Congress also hedged on when a fence would be completed. The law mandating it said Homeland Security officials should gain "operational control" of the border in 18 months. But the law funding it envisions five years. Chertoff has set a goal of two to three years, but only after completion of an immigration overhaul.
For voting purposes in the November 2006 elections, these are the 71 United States Senators who voted on June 13, 2006 AGAINST funding the construction of a double-layered border fence and vehicle barrier along the southwest border, before some of them voted for it when the bill was reintroduced and passed after public outrage:
If anybody you know is asleep in the back seat of the car, you might want to wake them. It’s probable they’ve never seen an accident like this one is going to be.
After a few weeks in their home districts, hastily making campaign infomercials which you are probably already watching, our elected representatives have returned to Washington, D.C. Congress once again is in session. Our Congressmen have no doubts and no misunderstandings. They say they understand the will of the people when it comes to illegal immigration and claim they are ready to do the people’s business. Or so a reasonable person would think. Their first order of business was to announce there will be no business done in this session of Congress, particularly on the critically important issues of border security, invasion of illegal aliens, rampant property and violent crime, document fraud, chain migration, anchor babies, and obscene misuse of public benefits. Can you feel any sense of alarm in Congress over the welfare of American citizens, or is their inaction more likely one of self preservation?
The public has finally discovered the ugly truth - Senate Republicans, President George W. Bush and his talented marionette Karl Rove have not a clue when it comes to the havoc being wrought on citizens of the United States. Their favored "comprehensive immigration reform" plans should be renamed to reflect reality: “Amnistia Comprensivo, Enorme y Deshonroso” -- Comprehensive Amnesty, Huge and Disgraceful.
Senate Republicans, in concert with Karl Rove and President Bush, have formed a solid alliance with open-borders Democrats and a myriad of Mexican-funded special interest groups. Using a phrase coined by President Bush, it might be fair to suggest their alliance constitutes an “Amnesty Axis of Evil.” Message to Republicans: American citizens won't tolerate it. It is not just one election that is at stake; it is the election of professed Republicans in any election anywhere, anytime. A generation of political careers is at stake, first in 2006 and far into the future.
Where do we stand? We have a self-serving Congress that chooses to do nothing. We also have the unfortunate do-nothing-right president. Both have popularity polls that resemble the trajectory of a gliding anvil. The Congressional Republican leadership vacuum has figured out that any legislation containing more than enforcement of existing immigration laws will amount to wholesale incumbent defeat at the polls on November 7. What Republicans fail to realize is that wholesale defeat is guaranteed to them at the polls just by their inaction on illegal immigration – regardless of what they have or haven’t done addressing other important issues.
Even the open borders lobby has figured out that the American people will not tolerate millions of illegal aliens demanding equal or better rights than American citizens. The daily in-your-face confrontation by illegal aliens, on city streets and loitering on every street corner, Home Depot and convenience store parking lot has aroused the public ire. As the understanding of the facts by the public has risen, so has the risk to all incumbent politicians seeking re-election. In response, Republicans have taken a page out of the Democratic Party playbook. They simply decided to delay any action on amnesty legislation until after the election, thinking it will save them from a predictable voter backlash. Regardless of incumbent protestations to the contrary, all Americans should be warned that amnesty for illegal aliens is coming like a freight train in the night immediately after the mid-term elections.
Even illegal aliens have gotten the picture that eludes people like Senator John McCain. A recent pro-illegal alien rally in Los Angeles drew fewer than 1,000 people, in stark contrast to the several hundred-thousand just four months ago. Similarly in Phoenix, only 5,000 showed up for the recent labor solidarity march, which was down from the previous 100,000 illegal aliens waving Mexican flags, flying the American flag upside down, and proclaiming allegiance to Mexico. Only 3,000 showed up in Chicago and less showed their faces in San Francisco. In Dallas, only 500 people were bold enough to display their defiance of United States immigration laws. Has the problem gone away? No, just crawled under the nearest rock until Congress weathers the storm of their mid-term elections. Then, fortified by the knowledge they are immune from accountability for at least two years, they will resume their quest to deconstruct the United States’ borders in favor of a North American Union.
Fortunately, better public knowledge of the past and future costs of subsidizing illegal immigration, long concealed by the main stream media but revealed by the blogosphere, has temporarily overwhelmed corporate propaganda and Mexican special interest groups. A word of caution - the President and his partners in the U.S. Senate, when it comes to amnesty for illegal aliens, simply intend to ignore the U.S. Constitution, impose their will and suppress any citizen civil disobedience or insurrection.
The leaders of labor unions are also trapped in a fraudulent position. They think they can bolster their declining membership rolls (union dues) by backing the Rove-Bush-Reid-McCain-Kennedy amnesty legislation, or if necessary the Cornyn-Kyl amnesty-lite version. In doing so they must try to explain to their existing members why they’re doing nothing to preserve union jobs and the wage levels of American citizens. National labor leaders are not out of touch with the will of the American people any more than Congress. The truth is they don’t care about the rank and file any more than the White House, Congress or the Catholic Church. It’s the money.
Labor union leaders fail to recognize that once the current crop of illegal aliens becomes legal and entitled to union scale wages, businesses will quickly revert to hiring newly arrived illegal aliens for less labor cost. Those newly minted legal aliens will quickly become unemployed and qualify for social benefits. Labor unions will be worse off than they are now. In addition, any company currently willing to hire illegal aliens has already demonstrated they are unafraid of the law. It would be hard to imagine they would be afraid of hiring non-union workers. Labor unions are betting on the wrong horse. Enforcing, not subverting, the rule of law is the labor union’s only chance of survival.
Until wiser heads prevail, labor leaders have made the choice to abandon their current membership and join with President Bush and Karl Rove. Cardinal Roger Mahoney, the head of the Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles has also joined the Amnesty Axis. Together, they somehow believe that their political interests are best served by subsidizing the illegal alien population at the expense of American taxpayers – as if protecting pedophile priests weren’t enough of an outrage. They also seem to think the “rights” of the illegal alien population transcend the law of the land and the interests of the American people. One would think the contrary would be obvious, i.e., the best interests of each and every individual American citizen is by definition in the best interests of the United States. The best interests of the United States are not achieved by serving the best interests of illegal aliens and subordinating the interests of Americans. As an aside, we’re not talking about 12-20 million illegal aliens any more; we’re now talking about 60 million in the next decade and more to follow – and at whose expense.
Why are Cardinal Mahoney and his fellow elitists fostering illegal alien migration into the United States? The answer would be simple if it were not so disturbing. Again, the answer is money. Every advocate of illegal alien amnesty is financially benefiting from the presence of illegal aliens in the United States – churches and politicians both benefit by receiving large sums of money. The advocacy of illegal aliens by Senator John McCain likely stems directly from campaign contributions from industry advocacy groups such as the restaurant and hotel/motel lobby and Mexican special interest groups (some funded by the Mexican government). Senator John McCain is not afflicted with altruism.
The open-borders lobby had hoped to create a new voter bloc to permanently sway the elections, but citizens fought tooth and nail to insure honest elections, often over numerous setbacks from activist judges and Governors. Arizona now requires identification at the polls. Hopefully, John McCain and Governor Janet Napolitano are failing in their advocacy of illegal aliens because there appears to be no tangible increase in new voter registration anywhere in the country.
Others argue that jobs are but a small piece of the puzzle. Voting in United States elections is not high on the list of most illegal aliens. The real prize are social benefits (education, housing, transportation, food stamps, welfare, and medical care) foolishly conferred by Congress and State governments for votes that will never materialize. Social benefits and to a lesser extent jobs, but not voting or citizenship, are the principal source of milk and honey to illegal aliens.
The leadership of this do-nothing Congress, rather than act to protect American citizens and improve national security in this era of Islamic terrorism, has chosen instead to blend cowardly into the crowd gathered at a crime scene to avoid notice or detection. Notable in his efforts was Senator Jon Kyl who voted to construct the southern border fence before voting not to fund it.
There is a line worth remembering near the end of the movie, Independence Day – “Remember me, I’mmmm back.” When elections are safely in the past, both Congress and the President will once again pursue amnesty for illegal aliens with a single-minded vengeance.
I hope you’re ready. You’ve been forewarned. It’s time to wake everyone up. You don’t want anyone to miss the political confrontation that is about to happen in which our government is going to find itself at war with its own citizens. An exaggeration? Let’s wait and see. It has the potential to become the stuff of history textbooks and legends.
I suspect your first reaction is denial that Jon Kyl is an open-borders advocate. If you don’t believe me, read it for yourself – get the facts. You should pride yourself in forming your own conclusions from facts. The proposed Cornyn-Kyl legislation pending in the U.S. Senate has many good features that include badly needed revisions of current law that would reduce immigration abuses. However, buried in the middle of this vast bill is Title V, which creates a new "Nonimmigrant Temporary Worker Category.” That's a form of subterfuge, intentional misdirection, dishonest slight-of-hand, or a euphemism depending on your point of view for giving amnesty to millions of illegal aliens already in the United States, plus creating a "guest worker" status both for them and for millions more aliens who will be invited into our country to take U.S. jobs.
Amnesty means a general pardon for offenses against the government. The Cornyn-Kyl bill includes no punishment whatsoever for the crimes committed by illegal aliens, by makers and users of fraudulent documents, or by employers who hire the cheap labor.
The Cornyn-Kyl bill would establish a new visa category appropriately called "W" for its possible namesake that would allow aliens to enter the United States "when there are no available U.S. workers." The bill would require employers to pay "W" aliens the minimum wage but not require the market wage – two tiered wage system. In other words, Silicon Valley corporations could advertise in "America's Job Bank" for computer specialists at the U.S. minimum wage, no Americans would apply, and thousands of computer specialists from India and Pakistan (or Mexico) would board planes to take the jobs for which, allegedly, "there are no available U.S. workers." The "W" workers would receive special privileges that allow them to extend their time in the United States up to six years, during which period their family members may come and visit for 30 days at a time. The bill doesn't address the predictable situations of what happens when the "W" worker is visited by his wife, and they have a baby who becomes an "anchor baby," i.e., a U.S. citizen, with all the rights and taxpayer benefits for the baby and all his relatives, including those not yet in the United States but now on their way.
Amnesty, even under the label "guest worker," cannot deceptively be made palatable by hiding it in a bill that pretends to be about "enforcement" or "reform" of border security.
I complained in detailed correspondence to Senator Kyl. I received a thoughtful personal correspondence in return (original on file). Jon Kyl (or a staff member who authored the letter) expressed what he said was Jon Kyl’s personal view that what we need most is some form of earned citizenship, guest worker program and/or illegal alien amnesty, i.e., we need, using his code words, serious comprehensive immigration reform.
It is an undeniable fact that Senator Kyl has yet to advocate enforcing existing immigration laws. And yet, the RNC on behalf of Senator Kyl has spent incalculable millions of dollars in Arizona running TV ads about how Jon Kyl opposes amnesty for illegal aliens. Adding insult to insult, Senator John McCain adamantly supports Jon Kyl’s re-election and publicly belittles his opponent as does one of the most liberal ‘fish wrappers’ in the nation, The Arizona Republic. Time Magazine, arguably the most left-wing magazine on national newsstands proclaimed Jon Kyl as one of the nation’s 10 best Senators.
Anybody but an ideologue will admit one simple fact –circumstantially, John McCain’s endorsement of Jon Kyl, coupled with Kyl’s extreme left wing media support, absolutely precludes Jon Kyl from the ranks of anyone willing to enforce existing or future immigration laws. Jon Kyl’s been in Congress twenty years and done nothing – nothing to stop the invasion. Why should anybody think Jon Kyl is suddenly going to do something now if he’s re-elected, except to continue to feed at the public trough for six more years and serve his own, and John McCain’s, left-wing agenda for the presidency?
The United States Senate, including most of the Republican leadership, voted in May to build a border security fence, but now oppose funding it. "I voted for it before I voted against it." We've heard that before. It was as rediculous in 2004 as it is now. Democrats were joined by 28 Republicans (including Senators John McCain and his disciple Jon Kyl) in opposing the Sessions amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations Act which would have funded construction. Senators Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Thomas R. Carper of Delaware were the only two Democrats who voted for funding the fence.
"We do a lot of talking. We do a lot of legislating," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Republican whose amendment to fund the fence was killed on a 71-29 vote. "The things we do often sound very good, but we never quite get there," he told the Washington Times.
Sen. Session’s amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations bill would have authorized $1.8 billion to build the security fence as promised by the lawmakers and the Bush Administration. Two months ago members of the Senate voted 83-16 to build the fence along high-traffic areas of the border with Mexico. In that same vote on May 17, the Senate also directed that 500 miles of vehicle barriers to be built along the border. But the May vote only authorized the fencing and vehicle barriers. With the Senators now on record as voting for border fencing and barriers, without the appropriations, in reality they've voted not to build the fence they authorized. This is the second glaring instance of similar behavior by Senator Jon Kyl in recent months.
"If we never appropriate the money needed to construct these miles of fencing and vehicle barriers, those miles of fencing and vehicle barriers will never actually be constructed," Mr. Sessions said on the floor of the Senate just prior to the vote, which was aired on C-Span, but not by any of the broadcast or cable news shows.
The appropriations bill, which allocates over $30 billion to the Homeland Security Administration, which includes $2.2 billion for border security and control (but no fencing), passed on a 100-0 vote. The cost of the fence ($1.8B) would have been 6% of the Homeland Security budget appropriation. Funding for the fence could have been added to the bill by amendment instead of prorata reducing the Homeland Security budget. It could have been funded over several years. It would have been in the bill in the first place if there was any desire (or intention), either by the Administration or Congress, to build the border security fence. Any number of funding scenarios were available to the Senate and the Administration.
Why not put the cost of a border security fence in perspective? Over $100B in taxpayer funds has already been distributed to Gulf Coast states by Congress after Hurricane Katrina and Rita and more is on the way. And yet American citizens can't find jobs in these Gulf Coast states because they are inundated by literally hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens.
The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 called for at least 2,000 more Border Patrol agents per year along our border with Mexico to stop the unrelenting flow of people and illegal drugs into this country. But the Bush administration provided funding for only around 200 additional agents. President Bush then promised to deploy by August 6,000 National Guard troops to support the U.S. Border Patrol on the border with Mexico. Now, in mid-July, having already missed a June deadline, fewer than 900 have moved into place along the border.
As proposed, the Sessions amendment would have required some across-the-board cuts to the rest of the Homeland Security appropriations bill to fund the fence, which in itself is a breath of air in financial responsibility. It would have meant cutting roughly 6% of the very few newly authorized border-patrol agents put into this bill for political posturing and providing fewer detention beds for illegal aliens. Not only have roughly 90% of the border-patrol agents approved in previous legislation never materialized on the border, they are the most expensive and least effective of all available options. The few National Guard units sent to the border are serving no interdiction function. More detention beds will not begin to solve the problem. In the meanwhile, Congress and the Main Stream Media make denigrating remarks about the cost and effectiveness of the fence to sway public opinion.
It seems intuitively logical that the fence is needed now -- right now -- and should have taken priority, except apparently to those Senators who have no intention (refuse) to stem the flow of illegal aliens -- 71 of them.
What should not be lost on any American citizen is that a border security fence would be the least expensive long term solution by a wide margin. It would also be the least manpower intensive. It would be the most effective in detering illegal immigration, thwarting terrorist and drug cartel incursions, and reducing human smuggling. Arguably, detention beds are a laughable slight-of-hand by the Senate to give shelter, food, medical care and comfort to illegal aliens at taxpayer expense before they are returned to Mexico to try again.
It seems hard to imagine a single dollar in the Homeland Security Department budget appropriation that could be more important than border security fencing. "Americans should be outraged," said a Border Patrol agent, who wishes to remain anonymous. "Did anyone really believe these guys [senators] want to secure the border?" he said. Another Border Patrol agent was less diplomatic: "Our leaders are not serious about border security ... It's a con-job on the American people."
It is a safe bet to conclude that if the United States Senate (or the President) had any intention what-so-ever in stemming illegal aliens at the border, funding for the border security fence would have been included in the Homeland Security Administration budget appropriation.
Sessions Amdt. No. 4659, As Modified
Vote: 00200
Date: 13 July 2006
Issue: H.R. 5441
Question: S.Amdt. 4659
Result: Rejected by a vote of 71-29
Description: To appropriate an additional $1,829,400,000 to construct double-layered fencing and vehicle barriers along the southwest border and to offset such increase by reducing all other discretionary amounts on a prorata basis.
During hearings to investigate the level of care patients receive for mental illness, a delegation of U.S. Senators was visiting a mental institution (asylum) in southeast Maryland. During the obligatory “dog and pony show,” commonly staged for visiting dignitaries, Senator John McCain asked the Director what the criteria was that defined whether or not a patient should be institutionalized.
"Well," said the Director, "We conduct a number of tests, each intended to confirm the validity of the diagnosis. For example, one of the most reliable tests involves offering a patient the choice of a teaspoon, a teacup, or a bucket and asking him or her to empty the bathtub."
“Oh, I understand," said Senator McCain. "A normal person would use the bucket because it's bigger than the spoon or the teacup?”
"No." said the Director, "Actually a normal person would pull the plug. I could have asked the same question using illegal immigration as your reference. For example, the choices from minimum impact to maximum effect might have been:
“(1) Open borders and blanket amnesty giving citizenship to all regardless of nationality, education, criminal record, or when they arrived or will arrive. If I’m not mistaken, I believe this to be your unstated preference.
“(2) A possible second choice might be a gradual attrition resulting from a reduction of social benefits, and denial of any forms of identification obtained in the United States. Also some have proposed that we require illegal aliens to obtain their guest worker status from an American Embassy in a foreign country within 6 months which would cause them to have to leave, if only temporarily.
“The most stringent choice would of course be:
“(3) Militarize the border for national defense; erect an impenetrable border wall from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico; eliminate eligibility of any and all illegal aliens for all taxpayer funded social benefits in the United States, including education; void NAFTA and CAFTA legislation; insure that felony crimes committed by illegal aliens would carry 5 times the punishment as any American citizen, without appeal; eliminate anything but emergency (life threatening) medical care; bill the Mexican government for any indigent care rendered. Surely they would be willing to divert some of their oil revenues to provide medical care to Mexican citizens; eliminate eligibility for any bank loan, car loan, revolving credit, vehicle registration, and mortgage loan, ownership of property or employment of any kind. Any illegal alien currently in the United States would be required to obtain United States-sanctioned alien guest worker identification only at a foreign American Embassy and provide DNA, fingerprints and photographs for law enforcement and national security purposes. 200,000 will be readmitted annually from a pool of applicants from those who (a) register before they leave the United States, and (b) have no United States or foreign criminal record when they attempt to return. Citizenship of offspring born in the United States will only be granted to those who obtain United States citizenship before the date of their child’s birth, retroactive to 1950.
“The “pull the plug” response, Senator, would require you to vigourously enforce existing immigration law, to the letter of the law, without pardoning millions of felons, in one fashion or another, who have been victimizing American citizens for more than a generation. Any contemplated immigration reform legislation out of Congress should only have be used to correct obvious flaws in the current immigration law, many of which were enumerated in response (3).
“So, tell me Senator, do you prefer a bed by the wall or near a window? We’ve been expecting you for some time. Do you think Senator Jon Kyl will be along soon?”
McCain & Kyl: There Is No Need To Close American Borders
Whistleblower: Immigration Penetrated, Corrupt
Kenneth R. Timmerman
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. immigration system is so broken that it can't be fixed, a former top security official at the Department of Homeland Security's Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) told NewsMax in an exclusive interview.
"Internal corruption at CIS is so pervasive that hostile foreign governments have penetrated the agency," said Michael J. Maxwell, who was forced to resign as chief of the CIS Office of Security and Investigation earlier this year.
"Terrorists and organized crime are gaming the immigration system with impunity. Taken together, these three elements form the perfect storm," Maxwell said.
"You can't separate immigration from national security, and that's what keeps me up at night," he added.
The Department of Homeland Security has begun to take Maxwell's warnings seriously. A just-released report from the DHS Office of Inspector General revealed that 45,008 aliens from countries on the U.S. list of state-sponsors of terror (SST) or from countries that protected terrorist organizations and their members were released into the general public between 2001 and 2005, even though immigration officers couldn't confirm their identities.
Even worse, the report states: "it is not known exactly how many of these . . . aliens were ultimately issued final orders of removal and actually removed, since such data is not tracked" by the Detention and Removal Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The report estimated that 85 percent of those released aliens "will abscond," even if deportation orders are issued.
The report was released to the public on May 19, but has attracted no attention until now.
"It's rather frightening," Maxwell said. He says he "threw up a red flag" last year about the inability of immigration officers to perform background checks on aliens from terrorist-list countries, but nothing has changed.
"Even if the adjudicators get a terrorist hit, the regulations say they must refer the case to the FBI," Maxwell said. "It doesn't say, deny them an immigration benefit. It just says, refer. That's very dangerous, because once they get the immigration benefit it becomes very hard to investigate them."
If the FBI fails for whatever reason to send over the case file on the individual who has been flagged, "then statutorily, the case officer must grant the benefit, even if there's a warning the person is a terrorist," Maxwell told NewsMax.
That means that individuals from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, whose identities could not be verified and who could be working for terrorist groups, have been granted green cards or even citizenship, Maxwell added.
"The release of these OTMs [other than Mexicans] poses particular risks," the Inspector General report said. The report cited a recent U.S. intelligence assessment indicating that "terrorist organizations . . . believe illegal entry into the U.S. is more advantageous than legal entry for operations reasons."
Since 2001, the number of "OTMs" arrested for illegally entering this country has jumped by 27 percent to more than 145,000 per year.
From 2001 through the first half of 2005, 605,210 "OTM" aliens were arrested for violating U.S. immigration laws. But a lack of beds at detention facilities and other factors compelled the government to release 51 percent of them into the general population, while awaiting an immigration hearing on their final status.
"It is not clear the extent to which decisions to release OTMs are being made on a risk-based versus resource-based manner," the Inspector General report stated. "Even if risk is considered, the high release rate could undermine the public's confidence in the department's ability to secure our northern and southern borders."
The former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) was split in two when Congress created the Department of Homeland Security in 2002. Immigrant services were given to CIS, while enforcement was handed over to ICE.
More than 7 million immigration-related "benefit" claims are adjudicated every year, which Maxwell and other critics say have led immigration officers to "rubber-stamp" green card and citizenship applications. Many CIS service centers have policies that reward immigration officers who adjudicate the highest number of cases per day, giving them additional paid leave and other benefits.
Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas, says that he recently confirmed with FBI Director Robert Mueller that "a number of individuals from countries with al-Qaida connections are changing their identities. They're changing their Islamic surnames for Hispanic surnames, adopting false Hispanic identities . . . and hiding among the flood of illegals coming over our border and disappearing into the country."
Maxwell said it was impossible to know with any certainty how many terrorists had entered the United States illegally. But USCIS has documented an immigration route through the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico that could be exploited by foreign intelligence services and terrorists, with the complicity of U.S. immigration officers.
"The smugglers know that only one flight per day is inspected," Maxwell said, "so they put these folks on other flights," Maxwell said. An internal CIS investigation into the operations of the San Juan immigration district, obtained by NewsMax, describes the Virgin Islands-Puerto Rico immigration pipeline in great detail.
The report noted that smugglers were using the islands of St. Thomas, St. Croix, and St. John for "staging landings" of illegal immigrants, and that "smuggling ventures within the Caribbean meet with little to no resistance."
Maxwell said that corrupt U.S. immigration officials helped smugglers obtain false identity documents, so the illegals could "hit the beach with dry clothes and immigration documents waiting for them on the beach."
"That means there is someone dirty on the inside," he added. While the internal CIS report did not investigate potentially corrupt U.S. officials, it confirmed Maxwell's description of the Virgin Islands clandestine immigration pipeline.
"Once the aliens obtain documents," the Feb. 1, 2006 report stated, "they fly to San Juan and on to the [U.S.] mainland. With only a few flights in San Juan targeted for pre-flight inspection by CBP [Customs and Border Protection], an alien reaching San Juan is virtually assured of safe transport to the mainland United States."
In forwarding this report by e-mail to CIS Director Emilio T. Gonzales on Feb. 2, 2006, the deputy CIS director, Robert Divine, said the report "will be as captivating reading for the weekend as any novel you have brought up from Miami or picked up since then."
In sworn testimony before House International Relations subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation on April 6, 2006, Maxwell said that his office had received complaints of "USCIS employees providing material support to known terrorists or being influenced by foreign intelligence services."
One USCIS employee, "co-opted by a foreign intelligence entity," had "the ability to grant the immigration of their choosing to the person or persons of their choosing," Maxwell said in his sworn testimony.
In an unclassified meeting with senior USCIS leadership in February 2006, which he attended, Maxwell says that agency Director Emilio Gonzales "mentioned two foreign intelligence operatives who work on behalf of USCIS at an interest section abroad and who are assisting aliens into the United States as we speak."
In introducing Maxwell to a congressional hearing in April, Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., said that USCIS was "riddled with fraud and corruption."
A big part of the problem, Royce added, was that "those deciding applications are under enormous pressure to reduce the backlog," and are told to "move the applications as fast as you can."
The subcommittee co-chair, Rep. Brad Sherman, D, Calif., said that Maxwell's information should be taken into account as Congress weighs a major new immigration law.
"We need to make sure that any change that we make in our immigration law does not overwhelm USCIS," Sherman said.
"It's not enough to adopt good policy, and that will be contentious here in Congress. It has to be a policy that the agency is capable of administering."
The information Michael Maxwell had provided the committee shows that "the agency has great difficulty administering even the present law," Sherman said.
Once again, GINO Janet Napolitano (D) failed to act on illegal immigration and vetoed an exceptional border security bill last week, making everyone measurably less safe both economically and physically. She nixed $50 million for a radar system that could spot illegal aliens crossing the desert; she said no to $55 million for local law enforcement to pay for the costs of helping with border enforcement; she said no to employer sanctions that would have forced businesses to follow federal immigration law or face a loss of their business license; and she refused to force people to prove legal residency for numerous taxpayer programs. So for the time being, we must continue without any immediate relief from the economic, environmental and public safety turmoil of illegal immigration. It will be another long hot summer in the Valley of the Sun with more deaths in the desert, more victims of violent and drug crime, and a surging flow of armed illegal border crossers.
"Again, the Governor has thwarted the will of the people. Governor Napolitano is continuing to allow the unabated flow of illegal aliens into Arizona," said House Speaker Jim Weiers expressing the disappointment felt by so many after the veto of the nation’s most comprehensive state legislation on illegal immigration.
It's been a real hit parade for the governor's veto stamp this session. In addition to the aforementioned wipeout of comprehensive illegal immigration reform and border enforcement, earlier in the session she followed the recommendation of the trial lawyers and said no to a bill that would have made it harder to bring frivolous law suits against a vanishing breed: emergency room doctors. She refused a bill that would limit the governor's own ability to take your gun from you during a time of emergency, as was done during Hurricane Katrina.
The Governor wants to increase state spending by 22%, but has threatened vetoes of major property and income tax relief being proposed by Republican lawmakers. If that were not enough, this past week, right after vetoing the immigration package, the Governor put the kibosh on a major private property rights protection bill that would have protected citizens from losing their property to over-reaching and greedy municipalities. HB 2675 was intended as an inoculation in the arm of property owners. Instead, Napolitano's veto of HB 2675 was a green light to mayors and bureaucrats.
Governor Napolitano now has the distinction of breaking the state's veto record by reaching 115 vetoes in less than half the time it took discredited former Governor Bruce Babbitt (D) to amass 114 back in the 1980's.
It is clear that your AZ state legislature is doing their job, but the Governor is bending each and every Arizona citizen over a rain barrel. How does it feel to know that your life, job and property mean absolutely nothing?
While you shouldn’t judge folks by their relatives, it is probably safe in Arizona to judge politicians by their political party affiliation.
Why ask such a question? Because Americans have a profound need to understand fundamental economic issues and the policy alternatives society utilizes in order to reason accurately and objectively and make informed choices with democratic votes. That is arguably the singular premise upon which the experiment in American liberty depends and the most important determinant of success and continued existence of our nation.
Americans, since the earliest days of the nation’s founders, were informed and engaged, arguably until the advent of the Education Department. Ever since, knowledge accumulation in our nation's schools has been minimal, and as a result, informed choices are rare at any level of society, particularly in Congress and the Courts. The trajectory of the trend resembles that of a gliding anvil.
The cause and effect is readily apparent. Everything that is clearly visible in society today, including culture, was once taught, indoctrinated, condoned, repudiated or ignored in the education, media and entertainment systems of America, which in large part explains why several Supreme Court Justices know so little about the Constitution of the United States of America or the Bill of Rights.
We casually joke and occasionally complain about congressmen, but they weren’t born that way. They were educated and trained by our academic institutions, and encouraged by a justice system that rewards social avarice. Similarly trained were our judges, trial lawyers, doctors, corporate executives, pilots, nurses, school teachers, police officers, governors, mayors, etc.
Americans are today exactly what we taught them to be - in our schools. They are precisely what our educational institutions created yesterday. In other words, today’s educators will always create tomorrow’s culture which, without serious change, will be intellectually, culturally, morally and ethically vacant.
Since our youth are specifically being indoctrinated to reject liberty and morality, and embrace licentiousness and collectivism, what would you reasonably expect economically and politically in the years ahead?
Only in unusual cases does a family have a modifying influence. The fortunate student avoids drugs and finds access either to a private school or a school voucher program. If you think about it, liberals have proudly and defiantly strived for years to replace parents with a village, family with a government, parents with law enforcement, reward the less productive and marginal achievers with a free ride, and to deny citizen access at the state and local levels to all forms of private, religious and charter schools, and all forms of voucher programs.
Assuming that all the brightest children in America weren’t victims of abortion, the only other explanation for the low achievement scores and educational AIDS (acquired intelligence deficiency syndrome), is an inexcusable public (government) education system, with mindless administrators, unqualified and under-employed educators, tenure without excellence or accountability, unmotivated miscreants as students, massive state and federal government subsidies, institutionalized prejudice, and government oversight and regulation in lieu of private enterprise and competition.
In the meantime, educators make the achievement tests easier and easier, and when that doesn’t work, they lower the passing score and claim improving results and unions demand pay raises and benefit increases.
Educational AIDS is no less a disease than HIV, and no less deadly to the nation. Nor is there any cure short of eradication. That must begin with a profound national attitude and behavioral change from one of inept delivery of poor quality indoctrination to irresponsible youth, to one of individual responsibility to obtain an education and personal accountability for failing.
No amount of taxation, grants, endowments, programs, subsidies, sports, magnificient campus structures, salaries, tenure and redistribution of opportunity give a single youth the barest elements of an education. Only when a majority of Americans begin to understand that education is possibly the only thing in life that cannot be "given" - and instill that reality in their children and their politicians, will change begin.
Somewhere In Phoenix, Arizona
