Working for logical immigation reform based on a stable population, a recognition of the finite nature of our natural resources and the adverse impact of continued growth on our quality of life, standard of living, national interest, character, language, sovereignty and the rule of law. Pushing back and countering the disloyal elements in American society and the anti-American rhetoric of the leftwing illegal alien lobbies. In a debate, when your opponents turn to name calling, it's a good sign you've already won.

Thursday, December 26, 2013

The American Tribe

Leading Evangelicals Show that Bible Has Been Misinterpreted

By James Robb, Tuesday, December 24, 2013, 9:08 AM EST - posted on NumbersUSA
  This is the time of year when many pro-amnesty advocates in the pulpit and the press misuse the Bible to try to try to advance their cause. This year, churchgoers are fortunate to have access to a much different explanation of scripture, thanks to the emergence of a group called Evangelicals for Biblical Immigration and to a fascinating panel recently sponsored by the Heritage Foundation to inform congressional staffers and the media.
Kelly Monroe Kullberg, who has organized Evangelicals for Biblical Immigration, is a highly respected evangelical leader. She founded the Veritas Forum at Harvard University in the 1990s, which has since grown into a world-wide movement. Her critique of the sloppy handling of Scripture used by some clergy is irenic yet wide-ranging. At the Heritage panel, she said:
God loves us all. God invites us all to be citizens in his kingdom. He places us in families, tribes and nations, and gives us biblical wisdom about shaping a thriving culture. Like gardening, growing a culture requires discernment and vision. But nowhere in Scripture do we see blanket asylum, blanket amnesty, blanket immigration. We see wise welcome to a well-meaning Ruth or Rahab (the sojourner or 'ger' in Hebrew is something like a convert and comes lawfully, as blessing), and we also at times find a Nehemiah leading his nation in the building of walls to cultivate the good and to be set apart from the ways of the 'foreigner' (the 'nekhar' or 'zar') who does not respect the laws, customs and values of the country visited -- who does not intend to advance cultural flourishing.
Mark Tooley, the president of Washington's Institute on Religion and Democracy (on whose board I serve), has been warning his fellow evangelical leaders against a one-sided approach on immigration. His remarks at the Heritage panel included this:
Christians also should be cautioned against sweeping 'comprehensive' legislative solutions to deep, pervasive political problems. Solutions to most political challenges are more typically incremental. And in our fallen world, reputed solutions, even when implemented relatively effectively, usually create new problems demanding attention. And in this particular debate we should avoid rhetoric that romanticizes immigrants no less than avoiding demonization.
Immigrants, legal and illegal, are frail humans like us all, a combination of virtues and vices. Their presence among us brings both gifts and troubles. Our prisons are full of tens of thousands of immigrants, legal and illegal, who have committed heinous crimes. There are also, of course, millions who work hard, are faithful to their families, and love their new country. Likewise, many immigrants, even while working hard, ultimately draw government benefits and services that outstrip their financial contributions, making their presence in America an additional fiscal stress upon our already fraying and probably unsustainable entitlement state. The mass legalization of 11 million illegal immigrants, as presently construed, would likely add to that stress.
Dr. James K. Hoffmeier, a professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, is an expert in ancient Hebrew and ancient near-east society. He takes a dim view of current Evangelical leaders who misuse Scripture for political ends. At the Heritage panel, Hoffmeier made the following points (as reported by The Christian Post):
Three different Hebrew words are translated as "foreigner" or "sojourner," Hoffmeier explained, but the most common one, by far, is ger, which appears 160 times. Under biblical law, a ger was legally recognized and entitled to certain rights, responsibilities and social benefits. They could participate in community worship. They were expected to observe kosher dietary laws. And, they could not be charged interest.
"People who are using scripture for the undocumented immigrant are trying to credit the non-legal resident with the same rights the biblical law calls for a legal foreign resident," he said.
Hoffmeier strongly rebuked open borders evangelicals for misusing the "sanctuary cities" passages found in Scripture. He stated that in ancient Israel, sanctuary cities were places where accused criminals could flee to get a fair trial. In effect, they were a change of venue. "Sanctuary" never meant escaping the law, Hoffmeier said. He said that using the sanctuary cities concept to help illegal aliens cancel out immigration penalties is completely against the "spirit and letter" of the texts.
Another evangelical speaking up against misuse of Bible passages on immigration is Dr. Carol Swain, professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt Law School. At the Heritage Foundation event, Swain claimed that Evangelicals had been "manipulated" by pro-amnesty proponents who seek to overturn the law for political and economic advantage. Swain, who is black, spoke forcefully about the effect mass immigration has on minorities and white workers:
The losers tend to be low-skill, low-wage Americans. Our greatest obligation is to the people already here [legally].
Kullberg makes a strong case for a more reasoned, balanced approach on immigration than many Evangelical leaders have ever voiced:
We're for wise immigration. We're for kindness to citizens as well as kindness to guests. Immigration is a beautiful idea. As a younger missionary in several Central American nations, I never understood the need for rules and fences. The problem is that we're considering an influx of perhaps 30- or 40,000,000 new citizens in just ten years, into a near-bankrupt welfare state living on borrowed money -- America. There aren't enough jobs.
At the Heritage panel, Tooley of IRD made this remark that struck me as summing up the situation:
There are sincere people of faith on many sides of this debate. Quoting scripture and citing religious principles in support of a political argument can be fine if done with some humility and recognition that on most political issues none of us can claim to know God's will with absolute certainty.
JIM ROBB is Vice President, Operations for NumbersUSA 

Sunday, October 27, 2013

Democrats Doom Democracy

The less this interests you, and the younger you are,
the more important it is that you read it!

In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at
the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about
the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years
prior: "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it
simply cannot exist as a permanent form of
government. A democracy will continue to exist up
until the time that voters discover that they can
vote themselves generous gifts from the public
treasury. From that moment on, the majority always
votes for the [liberal, progressive, democrat] candidates  
who promise the most benefits from the public treasury,
with the result that every democracy will finally
 collapse over loose fiscal policy[like Obama's],
(which is) always followed bya dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of
history, has been about 200 years. During those
200 years, these nations always progressed through
the following sequence: From bondage to
spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great
courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty
to abundance; From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy; From apathy to
dependence; From dependence back into bondage.

Illegal aliens know this better than anyone so they
come in droves, register and vote illegally, and the welfare
office their first stop after they have a  child born in the\
U.S. making the whole family eligible for public
housing and all manner of welfare benefits.


Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Traitors - Do you recognize any of these names?

The Republican Senators listed on the left below  have reneged on their promises  to vote against amnesty.  Some if not all have been bought off by Senate majority leadership with provisions in the amnesty bill that provide extra funds to the states of those GOP senators who agree to vote for the amnesty bill, S.744.

The Democrat Senators who have done likewise even though they are from "Red" States.
If you recognize the names of any of your senators, please call them to voice your extreme displeasure with their votes.  Ask them to reconsider and honor their promises.

This is another of those thousand page bills that obscure a variety of provisions that serve special interests rather than the American people.  It was largely written by representatives of La Raza, unions and the chamber of commerce.  Ordinary Americans and those with opposing view were not allowed to participate.  And don't be fooled by Senators McCain, Rubio, Flake and Graham's participation on the Gang of Eight.  They were the senators who least represented  their party's position.  No  other choice could have been worse.

It's difficult to see how this process in any way resembles the democratic process we expect from our government. 

Rubio                    Stabenow

Corker                  McCaskill

Wicker                 Donelly

Ayotte                  Hagan

Flake                     Landrieou

Hatch                   Tester

Heller                   Pryorf








Here's $4.2 Billion to Apply to the National Debt

To make a long story short, the Internal Revenue Service is responsible for assigning Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs). ITINs are issued to those who are unauthorized to work in the U.S. However, a 2011 report from the Treasury Inspector General (TIG) showed that in 2010, $4.2 billion in tax credits nationwide were paid to those same people through the Child Tax Credit; those who eligible for this credit can receive up to $1,000 in tax credits per child. So, a person who is not authorized to work in the U.S. is nevertheless able to obtain a refund check from the American taxpayer, via the IRS.

Fast forward to 2013.

The TIG completed a report in 2012 that outlines problems with the IRS’s review of ITIN applications. Among the many problems, TIG found that IRS personnel are inadequately trained to identify false or questionable documentation and identify patterns involving fraudulent tax refund claims. Additionally, a Questionable Identification Detection Team formed that would have properly handled fraudulent tax returns has been disbanded. Since the elimination of the team, the IRS’s management does not use application information to identify potential fraudulent schemes.

The TIG audited the IRS’s data system to understand how to solve this problem. When the TIG analyzed the number of times the same mailing address was used on an ITIN application, it found that 154 mailing addresses were used 1,000 or more times on ITIN applications.

For example, 123456 Peachtree Street, Atlanta GA 30312 was listed as the contact address on 1,000 or more ITIN applications submitted to the IRS. Since we are using Atlanta as an example, from 2006-2011, 12,345 ITINs were granted to individuals using a single addresses. In 2011, at only four addresses in Atlanta, 41,272 tax refunds were issued that totaled over $54 million. Each refund averaged $1,308.

While over 20 million Americans and legal immigrants struggle with unemployment or underemployment, the IRS sends refund checks to those ineligible to work in the U.S.

Sunday, June 23, 2013

Illegal Aliens Already Cost Us a Bundle

The economist Milton Friedman warned that America cannot have open borders and an extensive welfare state. He was right, and his reasoning extends to amnesty for the more than 11 million unlawful immigrants in this country.
In addition to being unfair to those who follow the law and encouraging more unlawful immigration, amnesty has a substantial price tag.
An exhaustive study by the Heritage Foundation has found that after amnesty, current unlawful immigrants would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and pay more than $3 trillion in taxes over their lifetimes.
That leaves a net fiscal deficit (benefits minus taxes) of $6.3 trillion. That deficit would have to be financed by increasing the government debt or raising taxes on U.S. citizens.
For centuries, immigration has been vital to our nation's health, and it will be essential to our future success. Yet immigrants should come to our nation lawfully and should not impose additional fiscal costs on our overburdened taxpayers. An efficient and merit-based system would help our economy and lessen the burden on taxpayers, strengthening our nation.
A properly structured lawful immigration system holds the potential to drive positive economic growth and job creation. But amnesty for those here unlawfully is not necessary to capture those benefits.
We estimate that when those who broke our laws to come here start having access to the same benefits as citizens do — as is called for by the Senate Gang of Eight immigration bill — the average unlawful immigrant household will receive nearly $3 in benefits for every dollar in taxes paid. The net annual cost is $28,000 per unlawful immigrant household.
Given the federal debt of $17 trillion, the fiscal effects detailed in our study should be at the forefront of legislators' minds as they consider immigration legislation.
Already, illegal immigrants impose costs on police, hospitals, schools and other services. Putting them on a path to citizenship means that within a few years, they will qualify for the full panoply of government programs: over 80 means-tested welfare programs, as well as Social Security, Medicare and ObamaCare.
The lifetime fiscal cost (benefits received minus taxes paid) for the average unlawful immigrant after amnesty would be around $590,000. Who is going to pay that tab?
Our government is now in the business of redistribution. As Nicholas Eberstadt, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, has pointed out, federal transfer payments, or taking from one American to give to another, grew from 3% of spending in 1935 to two-thirds of all spending in 2010. Adding millions of unlawful immigrants to U.S. programs will have a massive negative fiscal effect.
Our findings are based on empirical research and reflect common sense. Unlawful immigrants have relatively low earning potential because, on average, they have 10th-grade educations and low skills. Heads of households like that, whether from the Midwest or Central America, will receive, on average, four times as much in government services and benefits as they pay in taxes.
Adding millions more to bloated welfare and overburdened entitlement programs would deepen the fiscal hole our country is in.
In addition to costing taxpayers, amnesty is unfair to those who came to this country lawfully. More than 4 million people are waiting to come to America lawfully, but our dysfunctional bureaucracy makes it easier to break the law than to follow it.
Our cost estimates are in some ways conservative. The $6.3 trillion figure does not factor in the waves of unlawful immigrants who could pour into this country hoping for another future amnesty.
As scholars at the Heritage Foundation and elsewhere have explained, the immigration bill being considered in the Senate differs little from previous empty promises to secure our borders and enforce immigration laws on the books. When amnesty was granted under a similar plan in 1986, there were about 3 million unlawful immigrants; now we have more than 11 million.
Instead of forcing through a complicated, lengthy bill, Congress ought to advance piece-by-piece immigration solutions that enjoy broad support and build trust with the American people. We should move to streamline our legal immigration system, encourage patriotic assimilation to unite new immigrants with America's vibrant civil society, fulfill promises to secure our borders and strengthen workplace enforcement.
We are proudly a nation of immigrants. People the world over are attracted to America because we are a nation of laws.
Granting amnesty to those who broke the law and putting them on a path to citizenship would be unfair, would encourage more bad behavior and would impose significant costs on American families.  -- Robert Rector et al

Read More At Investor's Business Daily:
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

Let the Border Patrol Certify when the Borders are Srcure

By now it is clear that you can't trust those damn Democrats.  In 1986 they promised secure border in return for amnesty for more than a million illegal aliens.  Border security never hap pended. They lied.  Eleven million illegals later make that crystal clear.  And yet now the Democrats prompted by La Raza are back at the table again trying to sell us another bill of goods. 
It's hard to see why anyone doesn't realize by now that there is only one way to secure the borders  and that is to stop rewarding illegal aliens with the opportunity to stay and work while they ultimately force the Congress into yet another amnesty.  
Likewise there is only one way to ascertain whether the border is secure.  We must have a secret poll of all border patrol and related front line officials administered and reported by an outside agency such as one of the large accounting firm or as Charles Krauthammer suggests below when he  s".... some independent body certifies that the border is essentially closed."
Is a bipartisan immigration deal at hand? It’s close. Last week, the AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce worked out a guest-worker compromise that allows in foreign workers on a sliding scale of 20,000 to 200,000, depending on the strength of the economy.
Nice deal. As are the other elements of the Senate’s bipartisan Gang of Eight plan — the expansion of H-1B visas for skilled immigrants, serious tracking of visa overstayers and, most important, a universal E-Verify system that would make it very risky for any employer to hire an illegal immigrant.
But there’s a rub. It’s the perennial rub. Are Democrats serious about border enforcement? It’s supposed to be the trigger that would allow illegal immigrants to start on the path to citizenship.
Why is a trigger necessary? To prevent a repeat of the 1986 fiasco where amnesty was granted and border enforcement never came — giving us today’s 11 million living in the shadows. Yet just a week ago Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, referring to border enforcement, averred that “relying on one thing as a so-called trigger is not the way to go.” Regarding legalization, “there needs to be certainty.” But not for border security?
And she’s the person in charge of securing that border. Now listen to President Obama: “Given the size of the border, it’s never going to be 110 percent perfect. What we can do is to continue to improve it.”

The usual Obama straw man. Who’s asking for 110 percent enforcement? And the need is for something a lot more than just improvement. The objective is to reduce a river to a trickle. It’s doable. The two border sections with triple fencing outside San Diego reduced infiltration by 92 percent. (If the president tells you that fences don’t work, ask him why he has one around the White House.)

To be sure, the Gang of Eight enforcement trigger is not ideal. The 11 million get near-instant legalization — on the day, perhaps six to nine months after the bill is signed, when Homeland Security submits a plan (with the required funding) to achieve within a decade 90 percent apprehension and 100 percent real-time surveillance.
This plan triggers “probationary” legalization, which in reality is permanent, because once the 11 million register, it is inconceivable their status would be revoked.
Let’s be clear. A mere DHS enforcement plan is a very weak trigger. I would prefer legalization to occur later, once the plan is actually carried out and some independent body certifies that the border is essentially closed.
But that simply will not happen. Democrats control the Senate and the White House, and they will only agree to a weaker trigger. Which is? Legalization first — i.e., living here openly without fear of deportation but nothing more until the border is controlled. Until then, no one even starts on the path to citizenship — no green card, no naturalization.

So why is Obama undermining even that compromise, asserting that “this earned pathway to citizenship” must not be “put off further and further,” that it must be “certain” — not contingent on verifiable benchmarks of border closure?

Are he and Napolitano signaling to their hard-core open-border constituency that they will try to sabotage passage of any law that has a serious enforcement trigger, or that they will try to sabotage enforcement if a strict law is nonetheless enacted?

Why? Isn’t border control an elementary principle of sovereignty? What country deliberately forfeits the right to decide who gets to join its communal life?

Remember: We’re not talking about the 11 million already here who will be legalized as a matter of both practicality and compassion. We’re talking about the next 11 million. Without border enforcement, they will be here. If you don’t build it — the fence, the visa-tracker, E-Verify — they will come.

Why deliberately create the next immigration crisis? Is it because you coldly calculate that this wave and the next are destined to be partisans of your political party? Talk about placing party over country.

Or perhaps Obama intends this to be a poison pill: (1) Demonstrate unmistakable bad faith on enforcement. (2) Undermine the Gang of Eight’s already weak border-control “trigger.” (3) And thus force Republicans to defeat this “immigration reform” — as newly defined and newly defanged of enforcement.

Obama seems to want an issue, not a solution — a potent political issue for Democrats to demagogue in 2014 and 2016 and forever. If so, given the Democrats’ incessant and lachrymose expressions of compassion for those living in the shadows, this would be the ultimate in cynicism. per Robert .Krauthammer