My Wish List for 2011

For Obama to stop pursuing his agenda through regulation because he and the Democratic leadership can't have what they want through legislation. This is neither compromise nor democratic.

For Dee to stop supporting illegal aliens and begin supporting her fellow citizens.

For English to be enacted as the Official Language of the U.S. to be used for all government proceedings and publications.

For a true fluency in English requirement for citizenship -- eliminating the need for multi-lingual ballots.

For continued improvement in the economy.

For the incoming crop of TEA Party-backed GOP freshmen in Congress to act on the principles that elected them.

For Obama to recognize the significance of the last election and work with the new members of Congress to actualize the wishes of the voting public.

For a regular policy review to determine if our presence in Afghanistan is achieving its objectives.

For Congress to do an extensive re-write of Obamacare to eliminate extraneous provisions, improve cost controls, require extensive documentation to prove eligibility, and weed out illegal aliens.

For an end to sanctuary cities.

For austerity measures and a balanced budget amendment for all 50 states and the federal government.

For President Obama to: (1)declare that the Guantanamo detention center will remain open and, (2) put accused terrorists on trial before military tribunals.

For a gross simplification of the tax code so that every taxpayer is able to prepare his or her own tax return without assistance.

For construction of new mosques in the United States to be suspended until the Muslims renounce Sharia Law as it conflicts with human rights, the U.S. Constitution and related laws.

For performance-based school funding and teachers salaries.

For Congress to buck progressive and liberal orthodoxy to do the right thing.

For a GOP-sponsored complete rewrite of the deeply flawed DREAM Act to: (1) require a 4 year enlistment in the armed forces as the minimum eligibility requirement; (2) notwithstanding other provisions of law to permanently bar applicants from sponsoring others for residency or citizenship; (3) provide severe penalties for fraud; (4) insist on 4 forms of notarized documentation to support an applicant’s eligibility; (5) provide for regular audits to identify fraudulent applications; (6) provide funds for enforcement; (7) narrowly define eligibility to those who were less than 16 years old when they were brought here illegally with a cutoff date of the date of introduction of the first previous DREAM Act; and (8) limit the application period to no more than six months on a one time basis.

For true immigration reform to: (1) reduce legal immigration to no more than 200,000 annually focused on those who are most likely to help the U.S. remain competitive in the global economy; (2) eliminate chain immigrations except for the minor children and spouses of citizens; (3) deny birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens, tourists, temporary migrant farm workers, and other visitors; (4) adopt Arizona’s SB 1070 as the norm for state enforcement in all 50 states; (5) identify, apprehend, detain and deport illegal aliens using mandatory E-Verify as the primary tool; (6) compensate detention center operators on the basis of throughput rather than detainee days; (7) enforce high standards for detention centers; (8) classify all deportations, including self-deportations, as “involuntary” with stiff jail sentences for repeat offenders; and (8) buttress improvements in staffing, infrastructure, and the rules of engagement at the border with vigorous and continuous internal enforcement

For a “Wanted Dead or Alive” approach to drug lords and members of drug cartels.

For a new Official Secrets Act patterned after Great Britain’s.

For a reduction in the national debt to no more than 30% of GDP and a balanced budget by freezing all government spending at the 2008 level.

For high tax rates on the super rich but not on their legitimate businesses except for investment bankers and hedge fund managers.

For a removal of the ceiling on social security taxable earnings while maintaining the current benefit maximum as adjusted annually for inflation.

For an end to all foreign aid until the national debt is no more than 30% of GDP.

For a restoration of the value of the dollar and its status as the world currency.

For a return of manufacturing jobs to the U.S. by providing business incentives.

For an end to tax-exempt status for foundations that spend any of their funds outside of the U.S.

For an elimination of all foreign aid and contributions to the UN.

For a repeal of NAFTA.

For an end to the talk about a North American Union.

For tractor trailers unhitched at the border and re-hitched to American tractors.

For a gross reduction in cross-border pedestrian and vehicular traffic. If you work in the U.S. and you are a citizen of the U.S. you must live here and pay taxes here. No cross-border work commutes.

For an end to busing foreign children to American schools. Schools and hospitals must verify the citizenship of thosethey admit.

For a series of triage and obstetric hospitals south and north of the borders with construction jointly funded by the U.S. and its neighbors but with staffing operating funding to be provided by the countries in which the hospitals are located.

For illegal aliens who are in need of medicare to be transported to one of the above hospitals as soon as their conditions have been stabilized.

For bi-lateral negotiations to enable cross-border hot pursuit of gun and drug runners and dealers and the use of lethal force if they open fire or fail to stop as ordered.

For a new alien and sedition act that makes all forms of support of illegal aliens acts of gross disloyalty subject to such penalties as the law provides.

Dee Perez-Scott does it again!

In response to the musings of a reporter about likely GOP proposals in the new Congress, Dee has gone off the deep end.

Her lack of loyalty to the U.S is clearly illustrated by her vociferous objection to the following list of potential 2011 Congressional initiatives which are designed to solve the illegal alien problem:

1. Changing the 14th Amendment, ending Birthright Citizenship
2. Mandatory e-Verify
3. Official English
4. End to Sanctuary Cities

She clearly has no interest in being a part of solution and prefers to remain a part of the problem. She has never overcome her Mexican heritage to become a true American in every sense of the word. The above measures are essential to the preservation of the America we know and love. Her loyalty lies elsewhere and obviously prefers a Mexico Norte to today's America. It is indeed sad that an American citizen can take such a perverted view of the obligations of citizenship. If there was a way to deport citizens with this lack of loyalty, Dee would be the first to go.

Dee asks how an illegal alien birth would be defined if a change in the interpretation of the 14th Amendment occurs. Most would agree that if one of the parents is a citizen that should permit the child to enjoy the citizenship of either parent. Some insist, not unreasonably, that the citizenship of the child should be that of the mother. This is simply a way of recognizing the close connection between mother and child not a way of discriminating against women. These issues are easily resolved once the basic premise of Jus Soli is denied. Whatever the legislative result, it would be applied equally to all borders and all nationalities.
Obviously, the babies of tourists, visa overstays, temporary farm migrant workers, and any others who are here only temporarily or as visitors should not be awarded birthright citizenship. That loophole is the fundamental flaw in the 14th Amendment.
Dee advanced the absurd notion that denying birthright citizenship to the babies of tourists would ruin tourism!
She also wonders about retroactive application. While the retroactive denial of citizenship to the children of illegal aliens, tourists and others is attractive and would be entirely justified, its inclusion in any bill is highly unlikely.
Pro-America remains committed to the Rule of Law but, nevertheless, favors immigration reform, just not the reform supported by La Raza and Dee and their ilk. The difference between the Pro-Americans and the Pro-illegals is that the former honors the rule of law as it is while the latter supports those who have violated or are violating the existing laws. Dee erroneously equates Pro-America’s desire for real reform to the actual violation of the law. But that is the stock-in-trade of the Pro-Illegals not the Pro-Americans. Let’s make it simple for Dee to understand the difference. Here is a simple analogy. If I didn’t like stop signs and was trying to get the law changed, I would continue to honor the stop signs until the change is becomes law. Dee would not. She would ignore the stop signs while she agitates for change. I honor the rule of law; she does not as illustrated by this analogy. This is an exact analogy with regard to illegal aliens.
Real reform would reduce legal immigration to not more than 200,000 each year focused on those most likely to help America remain competitive in the world economy and recover from the largest fiscal catastrophe in its history.
Chain immigrations and the sponsorship of foreign nationals should be ended in any reform bill. The objective should be tax and immigration policies that will stabilize our population rather than allowing it to increase without bounds.

New Congress will take a Different Line on Immigration

The end of the year means a turnover of House control from the Democrats to the Republicans and, with it, Congress' approach to immigration.

In a matter of weeks, the failed efforts in Congress to grant amnesty to young,and not so young, illegal immigrants will come to an end and the debate will begin on whether children born to parents who are in the country illegally should continue to enjoy automatic U.S. citizenship. This debate is also likely to encompass children born to tourists and others who are only in the U.S. temporarily as guests or visitors.

This effort should resonate with the GOP faithful who helped swing the House in Republicans' favor as well as others who see Jus Soli as an anachronism while the U.S. is under duress from millions of illegal aliens. In its endeavor to grab a large enough share of the growing Latino vote to win the White House and the Senate majority in 2012, the GOP will need to vastly improve and increase its outreach to Latinos. It needs to sharpen its message to show that these immigration reforms are in the long term interests of all citizens and legal residents and consistent with the practices in many other developed countries.

Legislation to test interpretations of the 14th Amendment as granting citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, tourists and other transients will emerge early next session. That is likely to be followed by attempts to require all employers, public and private, to use E-Verify, a web-based system, to check the work status of both current employees and potential new hires to determine if they are in the U.S. legally.

There could be proposed curbs on federal spending in santuary cities that don't do enough to identify people who are in the country illegally and facilitate their removal. Another measure would reduce the number of legal immigrants to more like 200,000 per year focused on those mostly likely to help the U.S. remain competitive in the world economy. IntransigentDemocrats ended the year still failing to grasp the essentials of the wishes of the American people with regard to immigration reform. Under their leadership the deeply-flawed DREAM Act and other amnesty measures have contined to fall short of the number of votes necessary for passage in either the House or the Senate or both. The Dream Act, which would have given hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants a chance at legal status, failed to include penalties for the submittal of fraudulent applications and adequate protections against wholesale abuse.

House Republicans will try to fill the immigration reform vacuum left by Democrats with legislation designed to send illegal immigrants packing and deter others from trying to come to the U.S. This is what the Congress should have been doing for a long time instead of attempting to reward illegal aliens for violating U.S. borders and sovereignty.

Democrats, who will still control the Senate, will be playing defense against the long overdue immigration enforcement measures, mindful of their need to keep on good footing with Hispanic voters. But a slimmer majority and an eye on 2012 may prevent Senate Democrats from bringing to the floor any sweeping immigration bill, or even a limited one that hints at providing legal status to people in the country illegally.

President Barack Obama could be a wild card.

He'll have at his disposal his veto power should a bill denying citizenship to children of illegal immigrants make it to his desk. But Obama also has made cracking down on employers a key part of his administration's immigration enforcement tactics. He has, nevertheless, demonstrated a certain obtuseness about the role of E-Verify in facilitating that crackdown.

Hispanic voters and their allies will look for Obama to broker a deal on immigration as he did on tax cuts and health care. After the Dream Act failed in the Senate this month, Obama said his administration would not give up on the measure. "At a minimum we should be able to get Dream done. So I'm going to go back at it," he said. The GOP is in a position to negotiate more stringent requirements for potential DREAM applicants so that the bill will no longer be seen as a backdoor approach to another major amnesty. The GOP should insist on a minimum of four years of military service for all applicants. All of the loopholes must be closed, the time frame for applications limited to six months from the date of passage, and severe penalties imposed for fraudulent applications detected through regular audits.

The president has taken heavy hits in Spanish-language and ethnic media for failing to keep his promise to address immigration promptly and taking it off the agenda last summer. His administration's continued deportations of immigrants — a record 393,000 in the 2010 fiscal year — have also made tenuous his relationship with Hispanic voters.

John Morton, who oversees Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said in a recent conference call that there are no plans to change the agency's enforcement tactics, which are focused on immigrants who commit crimes but also have led to detaining and deporting many immigrants who have not committed crimes. A change in that policy to broaden its scope could be part of any deal brokered by Obama with the GOP. The borders will never be secure in the absence of vigorous and continuous internal enforcement designed to identify, apprehend, detain and quickly deport involuntarily all illegals.

The agency also will continue to expand Secure Communities, the program that allows immigration officials to check fingerprints of all people booked into jail to see if they are in the country illegally. Both illegal immigrants and residents can end up being deported under the program, which the Homeland Security Department hopes to expand nationwide by 2013. Of course, some other measures are needed beyond mere deportation. Repeat border violators must do hard time for at least two years for the first repeat violation and five years for the next.

Many of those attending a recent gathering of conservative Hispanics in Washington warned that another round of tough laws surrounded by ugly anti-immigrant discussions could doom the GOP's 2012 chances. But there is no need for these discussions to be perceived as anti-immigrant. They must be characterized as pro-America measures designed to maintain the quality of life and standard of living of citizens and permanent residents. The emphasis needs to be on our finite natural resources like water, arable land, and minerals so that all can see the need for population stabilization through reduced legal immgration and secure borders. The alternative must be shown as a declining standard of living and quality of life as more people compete for those finite natural resources as well as jobs. The more there are of us, the less there will be for each of us of those finite natural resources. Surely, that can be an argument that will resonate with Hispanic citizens.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a possible 2012 presidential candidate, cited Meg Whitman's failed gubernatorial bid in California despite her high spending. When 22 percent of the electorate is Latino, candidates can't win without a vigorous presence in the Hispanic community and a "message that is understandable and involves respect," Gingrich said. Even so, Gingrich was unwilling to call on his fellow Republican senators to drop their opposition to the DREAM Act, saying the legislation should not have been considered without giving lawmakers a chance to amend it. And he is certainly right about that. The deeply-flawed DREAM Act needs major changes before it is brought to a vote. A modified bill can be written that will be, at least minimally, acceptable to the both the GOP and Democrats.

The next Congress will be populated with many newcomers elected on a platform of tougher immigration enforcement. They'll have ready ears in Republican Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, who will chair the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Steve King of Iowa, who is expected to chair the committee's immigration subcommittee.

That's a recipe for more measures aimed at immigration enforcement, including requiring businesses to use E-Verify rather than just eyeballing paper documents to check workers' citizenship and legal residency status. E-Verify is a quick and efficient way of determining the work status of employees. Any objections to this system have nothing to do with its effectiveness; instead it has to do with the desire of employers to continue to hire illegal aliens at substandard wages.

"I've already told the business community it's going to happen," said Beto Cardenas, executive counsel to Americans for Immigration Reform, a coalition of business leaders who support overhauling immigration laws. Changes to immigration law contained in appropriations and authorization bills, where immigration enforcement hawks are likely to tuck some measures, would also be tough to reject.

But more controversial measures such as attempts to deny citizenship to children of people who are in the U.S. illegally could be tempered by GOP leaders aware of the need to curry more favor with Hispanic voters. Nevertheless, the applicability of the 14th Amendment to the children of illegal aliens, tourists, temporary migrant farm workers, and others who are in the U.S. temporarily is due to be tested and everyone should support that effort to once and for all settle this issue.

Substantially adapted and paraphrased from an article by SUZANNE GAMBOA, Associated Press – Mon Dec 27, 3:23 am ET
WASHINGTON –

Dee Perez-Scott

Recently Dee asked if I read my own posts. And, of course I do and I just re-read my last one on her site again but not with the same jaundiced view that she reads them. Perhaps it is she who should re-read them and then just take them at face value without her usual negative spin. Is it any wonder we have so much difficulty in agreeing on anything when Dee insists on twisting every word that I and others post on her site solely on the basis that she disagrees with them. The following is an attempt to help Dee overcome her cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is the uncomfortable feeling Dee gets when she encounters and holds conflicting ideas or knowledge simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance. So when Dee encounters such conflicting ideas she must either change her attitudes, beliefs, and actions or twist the ideas that are in conflict with hers to fit her attitudes and beliefs she also likes to reduce her dissonance by justifying, blaming, spinning and denying. It is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology and is clearly apparent in the great lengths Dee goes to deny, spin, twist, and distort the posts of others to fit her own predilections without giving them any positive consideration. This leads to gross misinterpretations and misunderstandings.
Dee desperately needs to take a course in empathetic listening and reading. It would be a big help to her in relieving her cognitive dissonance.
Dee wrote, "The Republican agenda! They want to END Social Security, END Medicare, END Freedom of Religion, End Freedom of Choice, End Freedom of Sexual Preference, End Unemployment Compensation, and End Public Education."

If this was the true Republican agenda, there would not be enough Republicans to make a difference or worry about.
(Moreover, if this is the true Republican agenda, how do you explain the fact that there are so many of us? How many politicians does Dee think could run for office successfully on the platform she identifies? How many adherents could be attracted to a party with that agenda?)
I wrote, “Many Conservative Republicans are hung up on their opposition to abortion and same sex marriage. I believe there is significant merit in their position but my Republicanism does not revolve around those two litmus tests.”
(What I am saying is that my support for candidates does not hinge on whether the candidate can pass those two tests.
Population stabilization, border security in depth, and fiscal responsibility are the critical issues to me.
(I won’t support any candidate who is not strong on all three.)

Public Education will always exist but Republicans favor a second alternative because the public schools are failing despite the tons of money we put into them.
(Dee’s business experience should have taught her that a little competition can result in improved performance. Public education system needs more competition to give it an incentive to improve.)

The other so-called freedoms Dee’s list are not in the Bill of Rights or anywhere else in the Constitution. That doesn't necessarily make them bad ideas, just a little less sacrosanct then Dee makes them. The only threat to the Freedom of Religion comes from the Left, the ACLU and from those who don't comprehend what a Muslim America would be like under Sharia Law -- women in particular.

(Freedom of religion in my mind does not include practices that are contrary to human rights and civil law. In spite of some very damning evidence to the contrary, some people still want to believe that Islam is a benign religion that should be welcomed in the U.S. I suspect those who support Islam and Sharia law have never had to live under its strictures, have never had to witness a stoning or the cutting off of the hand of a thief. We can be complacent about Islam because we consider any possibility of the imposition of Sharia to be extremely remote. Yet, those conversant with Islam have made clear its long range goals. Soon we will be hearing more about efforts to impose Sharia law in the Muslim communities in America. It seems unreasonable to have one set of laws for Muslims and another for everyone else. Religious law should never supersede civil law in a democracy even in the narrowest of contexts).()

Re: Social Security. The GOP seems to be the only party that recognizes the long term unfunded liabilities of the trust fund. The use of private accounts for younger workers is one approach the GOP has suggested. Personally, I believe that the ceiling on taxable wages should be removed with the maximum benefit left at the present level as adjusted annually for inflation. This would be a huge tax increase for those earning over the current ceiling so probably would have to be phased in over 5 years. The taxable base for those who are still working, as opposed to those who are already retired, should include their compensation from stock options, interest, dividends, bonuses, etc. to the extent that they have not been previously taxed because those income streams may be substitutes for wages subject to the social security tax.

(Does that sound like ending social security and Medicare? Hell, no! I, as a Republican, am interested foremost in preserving them by assuring their solvency for our children. How any rational person could read my comment to be a suggestion that we should do away with either program is unfathomable. If there are Republicans or Democrats who want to do so, they will never get elected and can be discounted entirely as irrelevant.)

Freedom of choice or pro-abortion ideas should be anathema to religious Latinos. Many Catholics make common cause with the GOP on this issue.
(This is not of paramount importance to me but should be to Catholics and others who object to the disposal of viable fetuses. I do believe that abortion should not be considered a primary method of family planning or birth control.)
Sexual preference: I say let the combat arms of the military decide regarding “don't ask, don't tell” what is acceptable in combat situations not politicians who sit comfortably in their townhouses in Washington.
(Nevertheless, the die is cast, and eventually gays will be able to serve openly in the armed forces as soon as the DOD can figure out the logistics and the rules.)

Unemployment compensation is a good thing but there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. When our policies encourage indolence instead of the willingness to accept any kind of work those policies will be counterproductive in the long run.
(i)(Maybe a few more people should read or view the Grapes of Wrath again so they can come down off their high horses and take whatever work is available until they can do better instead of insisting on another increase in the national debt and budget deficit. The question we should all be asking ourselves is, “What conditions would we impose if the money was coming directly out of our personal wallets -- because it is?)

Lame Duck Demos and RINOS Fail

December18,2010, in a procedural vote requiring 60 votes to advance the legislation, the U.S. Senate voted for the DREAM Act by a 55-41 margin, effectively defeating a deeply flawed bill fraught with loopholes and opportunities for fraud. Once again, against all odds, the American people have prevailed to repeat in a loud voice, “We don’t reward illegal behavior. We will continue to do everything we can to discourage other illegal alien parents from dragging their children across the border in violation of U.S immigration laws.”
In a last gasp attempt to ram the DREAM Act through the Congress, the lame duck Democrats and a handful of RINOs failed once again. The American people need to take note of those who voted for the DREAM Act and make sure they never again grace the halls of Congress. Americans should remember those who voted against debate cloture for their courage and make sure they are re-elected again and again. We must support every one of the senators who voted against cloture.
Many in the House will be gone when the new Congress takes its seat in the New Year. Any vote on amnesty bills like this will not even be close in the next session. Although the majority of the Congress favored the DREAM Act this time, the “yes” votes were cast mostly by those who were repudiated in record numbers during the last election.
There is nothing to substantiate the claim that the best and the brightest of the Latino community are being denied an education or the opportunity to serve their own countries in Latin America. By all indications, those countries could use a great deal of help from their displaced and talented youth who may have learned something about what it takes to make a great country during their illegal stay in America. Why aren’t those countries offering full scholarships to the best and the brightest among the illegals so they can return to earn a degree in Mexico City or elsewhere in Latin America? Their DREAMS can come true in their homelands. When their homelands will not accept that obligation, why is America expected to do so?

The Hispanic community in this country, on that issue is behaving unconscionably. It's behaving traitorously. It is behaving counter to its own enlightened best interests. They are encouraging a devolution of America into Mexico Norte. If that would be a good thing, why are so many streaming across the border from the South
illegally?
If Hispanics are really serious about helping these illegal aliens, they should be advocating for closing the loopholes and including significant protections against fraud in the bill. Here are a few of the many improvements that are needed in a new narrowly drawn bill to enable more favorable consideration:
1. Permanently prohibit DREAM students from sponsoring any other relatives for permanent residency, especially the parents who brought them here illegally in the first place.

2. Require a minimum four year enlistment in the armed forces as a pre-condition for all applicants. College can come later as it did for many WWII and Korean War Vets.

3. Provide for regular audits to ascertain whether fraudulent applications and/or other documentation are being presented and accepted.

4. Require at least four notarized documents, under penalty of perjury, proving that the applicant meets all the requirements of the Act to include a transcript of grades and the results of an IQ test. All applicants must be fingerprinted, photographed and DNAed to weed out criminals.

5. Provide for severe penalties including immediate deportation without recourse for anyone who submits a fraudulent application.

6. Permanent residency automatically revoked for anyone who commits a felony or who has committed a felony before the application was submitted.

7. Require the parents of applicants to register as illegal aliens before an application can be accepted.

8. Make applicants ineligible for taxpayer-supported financial aid. Let La Raza provide a fund for “best and brightest” scholarships.

9. Provide for full enforcement of the above provisions. To the extent they are not, the program becomes null and void and automatically sunsets.
10. Reduce the legal immigration quotas from Latin America by the number of DREAM students whose applications are accepted.

Where do we go from here? We will consolidate our gains. We will continue to educate the American people of the grave threat of Mexico Norte to their national character, sovereignty,culture, language, ideals, government, economy, taxes, degree of poverty, medical care costs, Medicaid and Medicare and the rule of law. We will continue to build an ever more powerful anti-illegal, rule of law movement. We will continue to speak up and speak out for secure borders, e-verification, and expeditious repatriation of illegal aliens. We will not permit America to become Mexico Norte with all of the ills of the original – joblessness, poverty, disease, oligarchy, lawlessness, drug lords, smugglers and other criminals. We will get stronger every day. We have won this battle against all odds and now it is up to us to win the war by consolidating our gains and making sure the word amnesty is never again mentioned for the illegal aliens. The greatest injustice is the violation of our borders without sure and immediate justice in the form of expulsion. The parents demonstrated their cowardice by invading another sovereign nation, sneaking across the border to have their anchor babies, and so-called DREAM students. We cannot and will not reward them for that behavior. We will not negotiate with illegal aliens.

Deeply Flawed DREAM Act Fails

The Senate failed to get the necessary 60 votes for debate cloture on the so-called DREAM Amnesty Act. This deeply flawed Act is dead for the current Congress. Some of the changes that would make it more palatable in the future are as follows:

1. Permanently prohibit DREAM students from sponsoring any other relatives for permanent residency, especially the parents who brought them here illegally in the first place.

2. Require a minimum four enlistment in the armed forces as a pre-condition for all applicants.

3. Provide for regular audits of applications to verify that they are not fraudulent.

4. Require at least three notarized documents proving that the applicant meets all the requirements of the Act.

5. Provide for severe penalties including immediate deportation without recourse for anyone who submits a fraudulent application.

6. Permanent residency automatically revoked for anyone who commits a felony or who has committed a felony before the application was submitted.

7. Require the parents of applicants to register as illegal aliens before an application can be accepted.

8. Make applicants ineligible for taxpayer-supported financial aid. Let La Raza fund their scholarsips.

9. Provide for full enforcement of the above provisions. To the extent they are not, the program becomes null and void.

Take this Test

Click this link

The Fix

The Fix
There recently was an article in the St. Petersburg, Fl. Times. The Business Section asked readers for ideas on: "How Would You Fix the Economy?" I think this guy nailed it!

Dear Mr. President,

Please find below my suggestion for fixingAmerica's economy. Instead of giving billions of dollars to companies that will squander the money on lavish parties and unearned bonuses, use the following plan.
You can call it the "Patriotic Retirement Plan":

There are about 40 million people over 50 in the work force. Pay them $1 million apiece severance for early retirement with the following stipulations:

1) They MUST retire. Forty million job openings - Unemployment fixed.

2) They MUST buy a new AMERICAN Car. Forty million cars ordered - Auto Industry fixed.

3) They MUST either buy a house or pay off their mortgage - Housing Crisis fixed.

It can't get any easier than that!!

P.S. If more money is needed, have all members in Congress pay their taxes...
Send illegal aliens home.

Mr. President, while you're at it, make Congress retire on Social Security and Medicare. I'll bet both programs would be fixed pronto!

If you think this would work, please forward to everyone you know.

If not, please disregard.

Red Skelton's Pledge of Allegiance

The Liberal Flaw

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state lives at the expense of everyone." ~ Frederic Bastiat

ICE Scams Deportation Figures

ICE Breaks Deportation Record -- Sort Of
Monday, 06 Dec 2010 09:07 AM
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) directed immigration officers to bypass immigration courts and deportation hearings in an all-out effort to surpass the agency's tally of deportations last year. Reportedly, immigration officers prompted eligible foreign nationals to accept a quick pass to their countries without a negative mark on their immigration record, according to a Washington Post report.

Known in the agency jargon as "voluntary return," the option may have allowed hundreds of immigrants to exit the country — without a stopoff in front of an immigration judge.

Significantly, such a voluntary return doesn't bar a foreigner from again applying for legal residence or travel to the United States.All-in-all in reaching the record 392,862 deportations, ICE included more than 19,000 immigrants who had exited the previous fiscal year and also gained stats from operating a Mexican repatriation program five weeks longer.

This latter repatriation initiative alone allowed ICE to tally at least 6,500 exits that, without the program, would normally have been credited to the U.S. Border Patrol.

End 'Anchor Baby' Citizenship for Illegals!

We need to "plug up" one of the biggest holes in American national security -- a hole that has led to millions of illegal immigrants being granted the "right" to stay in this country, even though they broke the law to get here.That "hole" is called "birthright citizenship" for so-called "anchor babies" (children born in U.S. hospitals to illegal immigrant parents). A bill has been re-introduced to STOP it. Let Congress know you want them to support this bill.

Support Arizona's Law Against Illegal Immigration!

Tell Congress & Governors to SUPPORT Arizona's Law Against Illegal Immigration!
The federal government has FAILED in its duty to put a STOP to the illegal immigration INVASION at our southern border; so, the people of Arizona have "stepped up to the plate" and done it themselves! Take action right away to DEMAND that Congress and Governors SUPPORT the new law against illegal immigration recently passed by Arizona, and to ENCOURAGE every single State to pass the same law!

Tell Congress to REJECT Amnesty for Illegal Aliens!

Nancy Pelosi has called the CURRENT Congress back for a "lame duck" session this week -- and high on her agenda of bills to pass before the Republicans take over is the bill implementing mass legalization of potentially MILLIONS of illegal aliens through the appropriately-named DREAM Act. Don't let the supporters of AMNESTY get away with this last-ditch attempt to violate the will of the PEOPLE

An Excellent Post for Dee Perez-Scott

The owner of the Phoenix Suns basketball team, Robert Sarver, opposes AZ's
new immigration laws. Arizona 's Governor, Jan Brewer, released the following
statement in response to Sarver's criticism of the new law:
"What if the owners of the Suns discovered that hordes of people were
sneaking into games without paying? What if they had a good idea who the
gate-crashers are, but the ushers and security personnel were not allowed to
ask these folks to produce their ticket stubs, thus non-paying attendees
couldn't be ejected. Furthermore, what if Suns' ownership was expected to
provide those who sneaked in with complimentary eats and drink? And what if,
on those days when a gate-crasher became ill or injured, the Suns had to
provide free medical care and shelter?"
- Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer

DREAM -- The Nightmare Act

The critics say: The DREAM Act uses taxpayer dollars for scholarships and grants to undocumented students.

The DREAM Act states that illegal aliens adjusting to lawful permanent resident status are only eligible for federal student loans (which must be paid back), and federal work-study programs, where they must work for any benefit they receive. They are not eligible for federal grants, such as Pell Grants. But as we have seen in the mortgage scandal, federal loans and guaranteed loans are not always paid back. This has been true of student loans for a long time. We can also assume that if an illegal alien is granted resident tuition that the difference between that and nonresident tuition will have to be made up from state appropriations. It is therefore a lie to suggest that no taxpayer dollars will be involved if the “Nightmare Act” passes.

The critics say: The DREAM Act allows illegal aliens students to pay cheaper tuition than citizens. This is true. The DREAM Act gives states the option to offer in-state tuition to students registered under DREAM. This misguided Act allows illegal alien students to access the same benefits as citizen students. The DREAM Act allows undocumented students to access in-state tuition if they would otherwise qualify for such tuition if state law permits undocumented students to receive in-state tuition.
Thus, if a citizen comes from Kansas to go to a state college in a Colorado, he will have to pay nonresident tuition but, under the Act, a non-citizen illeal alien from Mexico may have to pay only resident tuition. Therefore, it is a lie to write that the Act will not permit illegal aliens from to pay less tuition than a citizen.

The critics say: The DREAM Act gives undocumented students and their families access to public benefits. DREAM Act grants illegal alien students the same public benefits eligibility as other legal immigrants. This means that, in emergency situations, these illegal alien students and their families are eligible for Supplemental Security Income, food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid (other than emergency care), and numerous other federal benefit programs. In general, a person must be here as a lawful permanent resident for five years before they receive non-emergency federal assistance.

This proves the very point critics of the Act are trying to make. While the illegals may not become entitled to any special benefits they are immediately eligible for emergency federal assistance and who knows how liberally that will be interpreted. The point is the illegal aliens will ultimately be eligible for all of the benefits listed for themselves and immediately for any child they have on American soil. So it is a lie to write that the Act will not add to the welfare rolls for numerous federal benefit programs placing a new and larger burden on taxpayers and the funds available for these purposes.

The critics say: The DREAM Act will result in a mass amnesty.
This is true. The DREAM Act is an amnesty in every sense of the word. An estimated 2.1 million illegal aliens will be given work permits. They will be able to compete head-to-head with the 22 million Americans who cannot find a job. To legalize, individuals have to meet some minor eligibility criteria: they must have entered the United States before age 16; must have been here for five years or more; must not have committed any major crimes; must graduate from high school or the equivalent; and must complete at least two years of college or military service. Eligible students must first obtain conditional residency and complete the above requirements before they can obtain a green card. Many will qualify immediately having already served in the armed forces or attended college. High school dropouts of course will have a special problem and will need to get their diplomas or pass the GED test.

This is at best a half truth. There is no mechanism for checking that the illegal alien has met the specified criteria. This is tantamount to having no criteria at all. If the applicant says he or she has met the criteria, they are immediately eligible. The criteria are not nearly stringent enough. Each applicant should be required to show proof that they have served honorably in the armed forces for not less than 4 years with at least one tour in a combat zone. Two years of college should not be a substitute for military service. College should be in addition to military service. Without a mechanism for validating the claims of applicants there will be no way to exclude those who have not met the criteria and the proponents of this Act are counting on that loophole.

The critics say: The DREAM Act will spur more illegal immigration because it rewards undocumented youth. Obviously, programs like the DREAM Act, which have clear cut-off dates, offer many incentives for more illegal immigration and for falsification of application in order to meet the criteria. Although an illegal alien student must have entered the United States before the age of 16 and have lived in the U.S. for at least five years before the date of enactment. But, again what is lacking is a mechanism for checking the validity of an applicant’s claim that he or she has met all of the criteria. The Act is structured in such a way that all that is required is a statement to that effect by the applicant. No one is going to ask for proof before or after the fact. Someone arriving a day after the enactment or later will have no difficulty in qualifying because no proof is required beyond the simple statement of the applicant and no mechanism is created for checking the bona fides of such statements. It is therefore unlimited in scope and will allow unlimited access to illegal aliens. By any other name, the result is still an amnesty and in the last election, the American people were clear that they wanted no more amnesties.
No woonder supporters of the Act are bending over backward to try to to claim that this is not a backdoor amnesty bill.

The critics say: The DREAM Act isn’t just for students, but will benefit people of all ages. Because the U.S. has failed to enforce the laws against illegal immigration for more than a decade, some of those who would qualify for DREAM amnesty would be in their 30s and already established in jobs and raising families. They would be inclined to take advantage of the Act by endeavoring to meet the eligibility criteria only to achieve amnesty and gain legal staus, an end run around current immigration laws. Again no proof is required and no mechanism is established by the acts to verify the bona fides of the applicants. They can just come in and state they have met each and every criterion and they will be home free. All of these provisions are meaningless without an enforcement mechanism and the drafters of the bill knew that when they wrote it.

The critics say: The DREAM Act legalizes criminals and gang members and lets people who have already been ordered deported avoid the law. Illegal aliens convicted of serious crimes and most of those who are under a removal order are ineligible for DREAM Act status. Specifically, the Act states that an applicant may not have already been ordered deported unless they received the order before they were 16 years old. However, there is nothing in the bill that indicates how the criminal or deportation status of applicants will be checked. The lack of any enforcement mechanism and mandatory check of status means this provision is meaningless. Criminals and those under deportation orders will merely state to the contrary and be admitted immediately to the DREAM program as soon as they meet the other criteria or are willing to so state.

Let’s say an applicant has been convicted of a serious crime and/or is under a removal order. If he says otherwise, who is going to check that statement for its veracity? Answer: no one! If they ever catch up with the individual, it may be too late because they will have achieved citizenship or permanent residency and be no longer subject to removal proceedings. Thus the view of the critics on this aspect is not a lie and those who say otherwise are the liars.


The critics say: The DREAM Act lets students cut in line in front of other lawful immigrants.Although DREAM Act students do not compete for visas with other applicants for legal permanent residence,the DREAM Act creates another new category of visas in a separate program for students who can meet the specified criteria while in a temporary legal status. DREAM will not affect the number of visas available or the time it takes to get a visa for those entering through traditional legal immigration. However, whether this can technically be called cutting in front of other lawful immigrants is irrelevant. The point is they are being given special treatment that enables them to achieve permanent residency and citizenship more quickly than other legal immigrants. If one had a choice between the traditional route to legal immigration and the so-called DREAM approach, which would you choose? Again the critics are right about the insidious DREAM Act.

The critics say: The DREAM Act would diminish opportunities for U.S.-citizen students. This has been true in similar circumstances in the past.
It is easy to forget the experience of some students in California and Michigan, in particular, who were excluded from top state universities on the basis of ethnicity. The Bakke case at UC Davis is one example. The denial of Asian students with higher qualifications at other California universities on the basis that Asians were already over-represented. In Michigan, poorly-qualified Blacks were accepted while highly qualified other citizensawere denied entry to the University of Michigan. Those are three examples where status, race, ethnicity or affirmative action have been used to exclude other well-qualified citizen students. It is therefore not unreasonable to assume the DREAM Act will just add to that problem. Universities are traditionally hotbeds of liberalism that indoctrinate students with socialist idea thatleave them poorly prepared to work in the real world where liberalism does not go hand in hand with successful job creation and entrepreneurship.

the DREAM Act amnesty would legalize about 2.1 million illegal aliens under age 35. The DREAM Act amnesty is being billed by its backers as a sort of good behavior reward for young people who were brought to this country as children but who studied hard and now want to go to college. It sounds harmless, but the truth doesn't look so good. Most illegal aliens under 35 would qualify. They do NOT have to learn English. They do NOT have to have a record clean of all misdemeanors and felonies. Anyone who says they have taken any college classes or PLANS to take them will be eligible. This terrible insult to the rule of law. If the DREAM Act amnesty passes, one of the consequences is t that these people will qualify for U.S. citizenship. Once naturalized, they will be able to sponsor their relatives to immigrate here--even their illegal alien parents who put them in this situation in the first place. This opens the door for a mass legalization of those who violated our borders.

America's bravest Congressman Steve King vows To take On birthright Citizenship

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), fresh off of a massive GOP victory earlier this month that is looking likely to make him a key pilot of the next Congress's immigration policy as likely chairman of a House subcommittee on immigration, recently explained how he plans to take on birthright citizenship which is the immigration issue of paramount importance to the survival of the America we know and lovenoire.

Here's what Congressman King opined to the Des Moines Cityview about his (intended) plans to repeal a clause in the 14th Amendment that overturned the landmark Dred Scott case and promised American citizenship to freed slaves: "The framers did not consider the babies of illegals when they framed the 14th amendment because we didn't have immigration law at the time so they could not have wanted to confer automatic citizenship on the babies of people who were unlawfully in the United States," King said. King wants Congress to pass a ban on "anchor babies," place it in statute, and wait for the other side to challenge the prohibition in the courts.

If that approach fails, King signals a willingness to embark on the incredibly onerous task of amending the Constitution, a process that would require ratification by two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of state legislatures. But King and the majority of Americans believe that the issue warrants such an effort.
King opined that the framers of the amendment intended to include exceptions in the its wording, "including [of] certain Indian tribes and babies born to ambassadors or visitors." That's why they included the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," said King, who recently appeared to argue that undocumented immigrants were simply not subject to U.S. law. King won't be alone in the venture, as some have predicted that the Republican-controlled Congress -- which has representatives on both sides of the debate -- will attempt to tackle the contentious issue as soon as it convenes in January.

Senate GOPers have been also been outspoken about opening the 14th Amendment to review. Senators Kyl (Ariz.), Graham (S.C), Coburn (Okla.), Grassley (Iowa) and McConnell (Ky.), among the most powerful Republicans in the chamber, have all come out against birthright citizenship. Americans should remember to support these courageous Senators and keep them in office until birthright citizenship is a thing of the past as it is in many other countries.

On the state level, legislators in at least 13 states have begun drafting legislation that would seek to remove birthright citizenship guarantees from their specific laws.

This is a wonderful and long overdue development. We need to let all of our representatives and senators know that we expect them to support King's initiative.

A Plan to Help Dee Perez-Scott Balance the Texas Budget

Missouri's approach to the problem of illegal immigration appears to
be more advanced, sophisticated, strict and effective than anything to date in Arizona.

Do the loonies in San Francisco, or the White House, appreciate what
Missouri has done? When are our fearless President and his dynamic Attorney General going to take action to require Missouri start accepting illegal immigrants once again?

So, why doesn't Missouri receive attention?

Answer: There are no Mexican illegals in Missouri to demonstrate.

The "Show Me" state has once again showed us how it should be done.

There needs to be more publicity and exposure regarding what Missouri
has done.

In 2007, Missouri placed on the ballot a proposed constitutional
amendment designating English as the official language of Missouri.

In November, 2008, nearly 90% voting in favor! Thus English became
the official language for ALL governmental activity in Missouri.

No individual has the right to demand government services in a language
OTHER than English.

In 2008 a measure was passed that required the Missouri Highway
Patrol and other law enforcement officials to verify the immigration
status of any person arrested, and inform federal authorities if the
person is found to be in Missouri illegally. Missouri law enforcement
offices receive specific training with respect to enforcement of federal
immigration laws.

In Missouri illegal immigrants do NOT have access to taxpayers
benefits such as food stamps and health care through Missouri HealthNET.

In 2009 a measure was passed that ensures Missouri 's public
institutions of higher education do NOT award financial aid to
individuals who are illegally in he United States..

In Missouri all post-secondary institutions of higher education to
annually certify to the Missouri Dept. of Higher Education that they
have NOT knowingly awarded financial aid to students who are unlawfully
present in the United States.

So while Arizona has made national news for its new law, it is
important to remember Missouri has been far more proactive in
addressing this horrific problem.

Missouri has made it clear that illegal immigrants are NOT welcome
in the state and they will certainly NOT receive public benefits at the
expense of Missouri taxpayers.

All the states need to enact the Missouri plan. At least then the Feds couldn't claim that it would result in a hodge-podge of immigration rules with each state's being different from their neighbors'

Here is the link to confirm: Be sure to read the readers comments too.

http://www.ozarkssentinel.com/missouri-ahead-of-the-game-in-dealing-with-illegal-immigrants-p1034.htm


Taken from: "The Ozarks Sentinel" Editorial - Nita Jane Ayres,
May 13, 2010 .

If the link does not work, just type in "The Ozarks Sentinel - Nita Jane
Ayres" in Google.

Dee Perez-Scott misuses the term "Reconquista"

Dee Perez-Scott, a member of the Reconquista Movement to restore the Southwest to Mexican control, encourages and supports illegal aliens and open borders but is in a consistent state of denial when it comes to the existence of the movement itself. She, in desperation, tries to characterize the groups opposed to the Obama administration as the real reonquistas. But, you see, reconquistas refers to the conquests not those who perpetrate them, the very misuse she took issue with in an earlier post. Maybe a repeat of what I wrote earlier will sink in this time.

•The term Reconquista (in English, "reconquest") was popularized by Mexican writers Carlos Fuentes and Elena Poniatowska to describe the demographic and cultural presence of [illegal alien] Mexicans into the Southwestern United States.
• Reconquista (Mexico), a movement that desires the reconquest of formerly Mexican territory lost to the United States following the Annexation of Texas and the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo
• Richard Alatorre, Los Angeles City Council "They’re afraid we’re going to take over the governmental institutions and other institutions. They’re right. We will take them over. …. We are here to stay."
• Excelsior- The national newspaper of Mexico "The American Southwest seems to be slowly returning to the jurisdiction of Mexico without firing a single shot."
• Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez, University of Texas. ----- "We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. The explosion is in our population. ….. I love it. They are shitting in their pants with fear. I love it."
• Art Torres, Chairman of the California Democratic Party
"Remember 187 (proposition to deny taxpayer funds for services to non citizens) was the last gasp of white America in California."
• Gloria Molina, Los Angeles County Supervisor
"We are politicizing every single one of these new citizens that are becoming citizens of this
country….I gotta tell you that a lot of people are saying, "I’m going to go out there and vote because I want to pay them back."
• Mario Obledo, California Coalition of Hispanic Organizations and California State Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare under Jerry Brown, also awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Bill Clinton "California is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who doesn’t like it should leave."
• Jose Pescador Osuna, Mexican Consul General We are practicing "La Reconquista" in California."
• Professor Fernando Guerra, Loyola Marymount University: "We need to avoid a white backlash by using codes understood by Latinos…."

Dee Perez-Scott: Vota Efforts

FACT: The same pro-amnesty criminals working in states like Washington to turn out pro-amnesty voters have been working to register illegalvoters all over the nation! In one Arizona congressional district, morethan 65% of the 3,000+ new voters registrations submitted by Mi FamiliaVota and One Arizona were found to be invalid – many of them to non-citizens. Nothing is more important in protecting the United States today thanprotecting the sanctity of our votes. Sadly, we are not just fightingcriminals from other nations. We are fighting our own president and very determined disloyal individuals in America who want to disenfranchise U.S.Citizens of their votes while enabling illegal aliens to register.

Dee Perez-Scott: Please Support S3901

A new immigration bill that focuses on enforcement was submitted to the Senate shortly before the Congressional recess. The Strengthening Our Commitment to Legal Immigration and America’s Security Act, S 3901, by Senator Orrin Hatch (UT), would:

prohibit mass deferrals and paroles of illegal immigrants
require participation in key immigration law enforcement programs
increase penalties for identify theft
track the amount of welfare benefits given to illegal immigrant households,
help prevent Mexican cartels from using national parks and other federal lands for illegal drugs activity.
While Congress is in recess until after the election, there are still staff members in the offices. Now is a good time to remind your Senator, during the campaign season, that America wants to see that our immigration laws are enforced.

ACTION NEEDED

Encourage your Senator to support and co-sponsor this measure. Send a fax or an e-mail by entering your ZIP Code and clicking "Go!" below.

Dee Perez-Scott: SB1070 Reduces Crime in Phoenix

Dee Perez-Scott Rants Against “Coconuts”

"Coconuts" (brown on the outside and white on the inside) is the pejorative term or racist epithet used by some Hispanics, like Dee Perez-Scott, to describe their more enlightened brethren who actually support the national interest, character, ideals, language, security, quality of life, standard of living, and culture of the U.S. I guess that "Brownies" (brown all the way through) must then be the antonym applicable to those ethnocentrists who give precedence to their particular ethnic group instead of the national interest.
The term “Coconuts” is similar to the pejorative terms “Oreo” or “Uncle Tom” applied to the Blacks who have been successful in leaving the ghetto and the “projects” to become productive members of society. If it leads to success, is “Acting White” really so bad? What’s wrong with emulating those who are successful regardless of their skin color? Think of it as emulating success. Dee claims to have worked for a Fortune 500 company in Dallas, Texas. I wonder, was she thought of by some as being a coconut?
Dee wrote, "Posada is NOT one of US Latinos who are fighting for CIR, but instead a Coconut Republican paid flunkie. This guy is despicable, a racist and hates his own skin!"
Robert wrote: “Exactly how is he a ‘racist’? I was under the impression that a racist is supposed to be someone who has too high a regard for his own skin.
Even though Dee claims to be a grandmotherly type who never indulges in name-calling on her blog, the above sample of her remarks indicates otherwise. Clearly, she has reverted to her typical form of expression in that regard. I wonder if she also uses the terms “Oreo” or “Uncle Tom?”
Dee added, “Posada …receives funds from the Repugs to form this group and attempts to go on Univision with an ad that says "we".. who is he talking to? Other coconuts like himself who have never fought for CIR? He has not fought for CIR. Never. Nope. Never! So how on earth can he say "we" should not vote?!?!
It’s interesting that Dee believes that support of CIR is essential to be a member of her ethnic group. This apparently means, as usual, that if someone, like Posada, disagrees with her point of view, he is wrong and she is right. I guess only Dee is entitled to express an opinion or support a particular political philosophy. Posada obviously was using the pronoun “we” to refer to all those of his persuasion, just as Dee uses it to refer to all those of her persuasion. It is incredible that she does not comprehend these elementary facts about the English language. Or is this just another example of the negative spin she places on everything that she disagrees with? She seems unable to accept that other people have the same rights as she does to favor or disagree with any reform or political movement.
She gives Posada points for his Machiavellian thinking. “It takes both creativity and chutzpah to encourage Latinos to give a boost to candidates who actually oppose the reform they seek.” She obviously has jumped to the conclusion that every Hispanic in Nevada is of a like mind and seeks a reform of immigration rules that will increase their numbers competing for jobs that currently are in short supply in Nevada.
Finally Dee quoted Senator Reid on immigration: "We must not forget that we are a nation founded on and built by immigrants. Our grandparents and great-grandparents came here to pursue the American dream, and we should honor that proud heritage as we work to reform our immigration laws," Reid said. Reid is living in the past. This is the 21st century. America is fully settled, populated, and developed. An immigration policy that was appropriate in the past is not longer relevant.
Many Americans share Candidate Angle’s views on immigration: "Every state should have a sheriff like Joe Arpaio. Go, Arizona, go."

DHS Report on Deportations -- A Mixed Bag

The Department of Homeland Security set a new record for illegal alien deportations in fiscal year 2010, removing nearly 400,000 illegal aliens. About half, 195,000, were convicted criminals, which amounts to a 70 percent increase from 2008, but the Administration continues to ignore the millions of illegal aliens who hold jobs in the United States.

The increase in criminal alien deportations is mostly due to the expanded Secure Communities initiative, which uses fingerprints taken from criminals by local police officers and compares it with data kept by federal immigration officials. In 2008, only 14 communities were part of the program, but it's been expanded to more than 660municipalities.The other 200,000 illegal aliens deported had either just recently crossed the border or were fugitives from immigration courts.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials also audited more than 2,200 hiring documents from various businesses and levied $50 million in fines to the companies that hired illegal aliens. But the agency has done nothing to address the estimated 8 million illegal aliens holding jobs while 22 million Americans are can't find a job. Moreover, the agency has failed to importune Congress to make E-verification mandatory across the board for all employers, public and private, and all employees, current and potential new hires. The implementation of E-verification would permit ICE to identify more miscreant employers through audits of their E-verify records.
The record of the Obama Administration is mixed. While Pres. Obama has not ended immigration enforcement entirely, the numbers do not look so good when looking at the non-felony illegal aliens. The Administration tends to largely ignore them, granting what amounts to a de facto amnesty to this very large segment of the illegal alien population. It is a benefit to society if more felony criminal aliens are being removed from the country. Although the increase is relatively modest, the trend is hopeful. These criminals are the ones most likely to quickly return to the U.S., relying on the Administration’s inattention to the vast majority of the illegals to provide cover for them as they continue their criminal activities with little interruption.

The Obama Administration is treating illegal aliens who are keeping unemployed Americans from having jobs as though that is not a serious issue. Mr. Obama's constant efforts to bar states and localities from moving illegal foreign workers out of their jobs to make room for unemployed Americans belie a truly serious effort to combat illegal immigration.

Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee Lamar Smith (R-Texas) also offered a comment on the DHS report.

“The deportation of criminal aliens is only one piece of the immigration enforcement pie. While criminal arrests may be on the rise, worksite enforcement has been all but forgotten by the Obama administration. Millions of Americans are struggling to find work, while an estimated seven million illegal immigrants are working in the U.S. Worksite enforcement could help make those much-needed jobs available for U.S. citizen and legal immigrant workers.
"But under President Obama, worksite enforcement administrative arrests are down 77%, criminal arrests are down 60%, indictments are down 64% and convictions are down 68%."
“The Obama administration needs to do more than just enforce a few immigration laws. In addition to deporting criminal aliens, they need to secure the border to ensure those deported cannot come right back into the U.S. And they need to conduct worksite enforcement to punish employers who hire illegal immigrants and make millions of jobs available to U.S. citizen and legal immigrant workers.”

What is still missing in the Administration’s approach is the mandatory implementation of E-verification across the board immediately, no more excuses or foot dragging. Border security in depth requires vigorous and continuous internal enforcement. E-verification and workplace audits are the essential tools of enforcement.

Dee Perez-Scott misses the Point --- Again!

The Mexican presence, though significant, is part of an even larger upsurge in the general Hispanic population in Texas and elsewhere. Dallas will become a majority Hispanic city well before 2030, when the entire state will have shifted that way. As Dallas County gained 175,000 Hispanic residents (now 35 percent of the population) from 2000 to 2005, 130,000 Anglos moved out. Hispanic illegal aliens now account for 100 percent of the county’s net population growth; in the North Texas region, it’s 40percent.

Each day at Parkland Hospital, some 32 babies of undocumented, foreign-born parents, mostly Mexican, are born into this world of woe and U.S. citizenship. That’s 75 percent of the 16,489 deliveries in fiscal 2006. Medicaid pays the bill—or at least some of it, some of the time. Parkland has to go through Kafkaesque bureaucratic hoops to get the money, as well it should. Federal guidelines limit what the hospital can bill to the government without obtaining documentation from pregnant mothers. One has to wonder how much could be saved if U.S. policy permitted the immediate repatriation of pregnant illegal aliens before they can deliver their instant citizens.

I ask you, "Does that sound like La Reconquista or not?"

It's hard to understand why anyone thinks a benign policy toward illegal aliens and their progeny is in their enlightened, long-term, best interests and those of Texas and the U.S. If the Latino culture is so great, the aliens would have remained in their homelands. Instead they come here and begin immediately to re-create the very conditions that caused them [the illegal aliens] to leave their homelands. Maybe the Democrats and the Mexican-Americans should re-think their support of illegal aliens, porous borders, ineffective enforcement, and amnesty.

Dee's response:

What you ALWAYS forget...you say "leave their homelands"..what a silly silly comments. The majority of Latino citizens in the SW states are like me. We've always been here. Our ancestors have lived here for centuries, much longer than yours. These ARE our homelands!!! We built this country with our hard work ethic, family values and our sweat and blood!

Sorry, Dee, but some of our ancesters were here in the early 1600s in what became the U.S. The number of Hispanics in this country was not nearly enough to have "built this country" as I will demonstrate with population data below.

It's strange how Dee is unable to respond without distorting what has been written by others who disagree with her. Does she have ADD? She knew that I was speaking mostly about the illegal aliens, for example the 4-500,000 in Arizona. I referred to other Hispanics only in the sense that they may wish to reconsider their view of illegals. Also, if the Hispanic citizens were born here and have never been to Mexico except for an occasional trip to a resort, then they need to acquaint themselves with Mexico today to see if that is what they would like to see the U.S. become. As the illegal aliens continue to flood across the border and soak up the funds for Medicaid and other taxpayer-funded social and educational programs, they will begin to re-create here the very conditions that caused them to leave their homelands: poverty, joblessness, oligarchy, corruption, crime, gangs, and drug, human, and weapon smugglers.

Most of those whose ancestors have been here for centuries don't fit in the illegal alien category. However, they should know by now how the conversion of the U.S. into Mexico Norte is hastened by the flood of illegals and how that conversion will adversely affect them personally. Having given this thoughtful consideration, they might want to reconsider the support they provide to illegal aliens and their causes.

Although my ancestors arrived in the U.S. less than 200 years ago, my wife's ancestors were here in the early 1600s. Later, some fought in the Revolutionary War. In terms of building this nation, they were among the first of the builders because they were not only there when the nation was founded but because many gave their lives to enable our great country to come into being and achieve its manifest destiny.

No one would have objected if Dee's statement had been,..."we ,in some small way, helped to build this country..." instead of "...we built this country...".

The census data for the first year and subsequent years in which "Hispanic" was used as a category is a useful resource to see how much or how little they contributed to the building of this country based on their relative numbers.

Even as recent as 1970, Hispanics were only 4.7% of the total U.S. population. How many of them were migrant farm workers is unknown. Therefore, at best, based on their numbers, Hispanics could only claim to have built 4.7% of the incremental changes in America during the year 1970. If we were able to go back farther, we would see even smaller numbers of Hispanics relative to the total population, so claiming that Hispanics built this country is just so much hog wash, if not an outright lie.

In Arizona, the estimates of the 1940 population show Hispanics at 20.4% and the White-Non-Hispanics (WNH) at 65.1% of the population. By 1990 the Hispanics had declined to 18.8% while the WNH had increased to 71.7%. (I assume the Hispanic count includes both citizens and illegal aliens.)

In California, in 1940, the Hispanics were 6.1% of the population and the WNH were 89.6%. In 1990, the population was 25.8% Hispanic and the 57.2% WNH. This is La Reconquista no matter how much Dee protests. Obviously, when Victor Davis Hanson wrote his book, “Mexifornia: A State of Becoming”, he knew what he was talking about. At 25.8% Hispanic, Mexifornia is a microcosm of what we can expect when the entire U.S. approaches that percentage in 2050. Mexico Norte will then be an appropriate name for the U.S. in 2050. Mexifornia is therefore a good case study of what 2050 Mexico Norte will be like.

Here's the quote from my post with appropriate emphases so no one can miss it the point this time. This would not have been necessary if Dee had not chosen to deliberately distort and misinterpret my words.

"

It's hard to understand why anyone thinks a benign policy toward illegal aliens and their progeny is in the long term best interests of either Texas or the U.S. If the Latino culture is so great, the aliens would have remained in their homelands where it is already exists. Instead they come here and begin immediately to re-create the very conditions that caused them to leave their homelands.

Everyone should be able to see that at some point more becomes less -- the more there are of us: Hispanics, Anglos, Blacks, and others, the less there will be for each of us and the more our country will resemble impoverished and overpopulated countries like Mexico. It's a mystery to me why that is so hard for some to understand and accept.

Dee Wrote:
Our ancestors have lived here for centuries, much longer than yours. These ARE our homelands!!!

I remarked, "Spoken like a true Reconquista [Reconquistadoro]! Good luck with that!"

I asked, "Do you really want to return to being a part of Mexico? Is that the culture, the economy, the mores, the disregard for the rule of law, etc. you want to be emulated and re-created in Texas?"

Dee did not answer that question.

Instead of building America, the influx of illegal aliens from south of the border more likely will end up destroying it.

The demographics in Texas are much the same as Arizona and California. Its Hispanic population increased from 12% in 1940 to 25.5% by 1990. So it may well be that some of the ancestors of that 12% were here centuries ago but certainly not the ancestors of all of them. Some of those ancestors must have been in Mexico or points south at one time in the past, so any claim that Hispanics built even the border states is totally off base and greatly exaggerated.

I Travel for JOOLS added...

I read that Mexico is building a fence across their southern border. I almost laughed out loud. At the same time, they chastise the U.S. for our feeble attempt at a fence. Now today I read several mayors from Mexican states are upset that we are deporting Mexican national criminals because those same criminals are committing heinous crimes in Mexico.

Maybe the fat cat richest man in the world who is Mexican could do something for his own country. Or maybe Mexico could exploit its own rich resources to better the living conditions for its own people. And maybe the Mexican government could spend a little money to educate its own citizens so they could get decent jobs and live a happy life in their own homeland.

But, no, Mexico doesn't do any of those things so their people flee here and expect the U.S. taxpayer to pick up the tab for their medical care, their education, their foodstamps, and their public housing. That illegal maid who was crying on national tv saying Whitman abused her even though she was paid a handsome wage of $23 an hour!!" Is it any wonder that unhypenated Americans are upset...

Dee wrote

The estimated Hispanic Citizen population of the United States as of July 1, 2009, was 48.4M; today, it is closer to 50M, making people of Hispanic origin the nation's largest ethnic or race minority. Hispanics constitute 16 percent of the nation's total population. In addition, there are approximately 4 million residents of Puerto Rico, a Caribbean U.S. territory. The US has 97 men for every 100women. However, there are 107 Hispanic men for every 100 Hispanic women.

Many celebrations are being held across the country in honor of Hispanic Heritage Month. This year, the theme of these very American celebrations is to celebrate Hispanic Heritage, Diversity, Integrity and Military Honor.

I don't know what the significance of the male to female ratio is unless it means that some Hispanic men, in the end, will be looking for Anglo, Black or Asiatic mates. I highlighted the words diversity and integrity because the influx of Hispanics in the numbers cited is reducing diversity in the U.S. It is becoming more Hispanic and that does not equate to more diversity. Hispanics and their progeny account for as many immigrants as those from the next ten countries combined.

Integrity means fidelity to moral principles like the rule of law. Therefore, there is little reason for illegal aliens to celebrate integrity since most of them are of Hispanic origins and who have ignored the rule of law. I question their personal integrity and that of their fellow travelers and supporters.

Dee said...

I doubt you UNDERSTAND the term reconquista. How dare you name call. It is repugnant and stupid.

Well, actually I do understand that term. It is an accurate description of illegal aliens and those who support them. Dee may consider the term reconquista "repugnant and stupid"because it is too close to the truth or perhaps she is calling me personally repugnant and stupid. I will make note of those words so I can remind her next time when she says she never calls people names. When she wrote that using the term "Reconquista" is stupid and repugnant name calling, it is rather obvious that she meant that admonition in a very personal way, a form of indirect name calling in and of itself.

Reconquista means "reconquest". Perhaps the word "Reconquistadoros" is more appropriate for those whose purpose is to aid and abet the reconquest of the Southwest by defending and supporting the causes of illegal aliens and standing in the way of the most effective deterrents.

Dee wrote,

As my bio states, my family has roots IN Texas prior to it becoming a state. We've been Tejanos and we became American. Our family worked hard to help Nation Build this country, serving in the military, defending this great nation of ours in War and in Peace. It is too bad people like you see Color First and DO NOT respect minorities as True Americans.

Ah, Dee, that is where you are wrong and have always been wrong. Whatever I write or have written has nothing to do with a lack of respect for minorities. I judge each individual according to his or her individual merits. That judgment has often hinged on his or her support of national boundaries, sovereignty, and the rule of law. Then there are fellow travelers who aid and abet the entry and presence of illegal aliens in the U.S. In that regard, I make no distinction based on color or minority status. If Dee thinks otherwise that is unfortunately her biases coming through loud and clear. All I ask is that Dee read my posts very carefully and draw no conclusions except those which are explicitly stated. If I have made a typo or other mistake, I am quite willing to admit them. If Dee disagrees with me, that's okay but she shouldn't expect me to agree with her position regarding illegal aliens. I regard that as a sign of disloyalty. Dee has failed time and again to properly assess the long term adverse impact on the U.S. of illegal aliens and those who support them. We need to authorize the use of the most effective measures to apprehend and repatriate illegal aliens and create the necessary deterrents to future border violations.

If she is a loyal American as she claims, why is that so hard for her to endorse?

La Reconquista

The term Reconquista (in English, "reconquest") was popularized by Mexican writers Carlos Fuentes and Elena Poniatowska to describe the demographic and cultural presence and movement of Mexicans, especially illegal aliens, into the Southwestern United States.

Excelsior, the national newspaper of Mexico, "The American Southwest seems to be slowly returning to the jurisdiction of Mexico without firing a single shot."

Mario Obledo, California Coalition of Hispanic Organizations and California State Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare under Governor Jerry Brown, also awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Bill Clinton, said

"California is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who doesn't like it should leave."

Let's call it Mexifornia!

Jose Pescador Osuna, Mexican Consul General, said "We are practicing 'La
Reconquista' in California."

It's clear that those who actively encourage and defend the illegal aliens Mexican invasion of the Southwest are in fact, supporting, encouraging and defending La Reconqista Ths same can be said about those who favor amnesty as the principal element of comprehensive immigration reform.

Gumballs II

Dee Perez-Scott - Alice in Wonderland Tea Party

These are some of the responses I would have made at the Alice in Wonderland Tea Party

Dee: President Obama is trying to fix the economy but the Republicans are blocking him every step of the way.

Ultima: Maybe you should also consider how many critical Democrat "no" votes that have thwarted Obama’s plans at one time or another. The current debate on whether all of the tax cuts should be extended is a good example. Even if all the Republicans vote against any measure to raise the taxes on the wealthy, the Democrats would still have the votes to push it through. However, enough of the Democrats are siding with the GOP at this time to keep tax increase on the wealthy from passing. In other words, it is members of his own party that are thwarting Obama’s tax plan on the basis that a tax increase doesn’t make any sense during a recession. Such a tax increase could have some negative impact on small businesses.

Dee: Bush sent us off the cliff and we could have been in a deep depression if not for the bailouts and the stimulus programs.

Ultima: As I recall, the Bush Administration took the first step in reaction to the the banking crisis. It was appropriate to hand the ball off to Obama at that point. The criticism of the bailouts and the stimulus programs is due to: politics in an election year; the sometimes irrational reactions of people who are hurting because of the recession; and the legitimate criticism of the programs because of their mismanagement and failures.

Dee: Control us? Are you talking about regulation? During Bush's regime, they deregulated everything. Now look what's happening with BP and Eggs/Poultry and Beef.

Ultima: These events all took place on Obama’s watch. As I recall, a top administrator was removed because of the failure to properly supervise BP’s activities under the existing law. Similarly, no new legislation has been passed and yet the Eggs/Poultry industry has been under scrutiny as permitted by existing laws. The unfortunate incident in that industry is less the result of de-regulation than it is of administrative failures and the shortages of manpower to do the necessary inspections. In many respects this is an exact parallel to the failures of the Obama Administration to audit employers who hire illegal aliens. They have already have the tools they need to do those audits but have failed to do so. You can't blame that on the Bush Administration. These are just policy, enforcement, and administrative failures.

Independent Stan: (the older of the two, chuckling to himself) You know these were exactly the same conditions before Hitler came into power.

Dee: Oh yes, I know and he was a great orator too (eyes roll).

Ultima: Both of you are exactly right. People tend to pursue radical solutions when economic times are tough. Wasn’t it Rahm Emanuel who said something about taking advantage of every crisis to get something done? That is exactly what Hitler did even though his initial Putsch failed and he served time as a result. When economic conditions are desperate, a nation is vulnerable to power grabs and freedom infringement. Some say that is what is happening in America in a very subtle way.

Dee: Oh yeah, kick them all out and then we're stuck with the wacko Tea Party candidates.

Ultima: Most of the candidates are still from the main stream in both parties so there’s no need to worry about Congress being taken over by wackos from the right or the left. They may, however, shake up both parties enough for them to get the message that business as usual behind closed doors with lobbyists will not be tolerated. If Congress was paying attention it would never have proposed an end to "don't ask, don't tell" during wartime, it would have outlawed amnesties for illegal aliens, it would have cited a certain Obama fundraiser for treason, and it would have taken steps to pare down the size of government by getting rid of the new departments that have been created since 1950, and it would have frozen the entire federal budget until the budget is balanced and the national debt is reduced to 35% of GDP. Maybe the Tea Party candidates will cause the Congress to shake off its lethargy and begin to address those problems.

Dee: And what about Christine McConnell in Delaware?

Ultima: If you turned over all of the political rocks, you would find all kinds of unsavory squiggly things under them about just about every Congressman and woman. McDonnell was suffering economically like many Americans and earlier also indulged in some youthful indiscretions. Who hasn’t? I guess if she mishandled PAC money, she will hear from the Federal Elections Commission. Her selection as the GOP nominee had more to do with her RINO opponent than her own personal qualifications. Nevertheless, if she wins, I believe the office will make her into an effective senator (the office makes the man or the woman in this case!)

Dee: I agree. But let's get back to the real issue. We do need a Jobs Program.

Ultima: This is something we all agree on. However, it is the GOP that has always been considered the party of the businesses, both big and small, that create the jobs. Investments in new plant, equipment, and hiring are all in limbo because of the tax, health care, and other uncertainties related to actions and plans of the Obama Administration. The sooner these uncertainties are clarified the sooner companies will be willing to use the cash in their balance sheets and whatever they can borrow to put America back to work. Pulling good paying jobs back into the U.S. is important but both parties know that any action in this area that increases the price of goods people want is a politically losing proposition. There are a number of jobs that were formerly done by citizens but have now been taken over by illegal aliens. So one way to create jobs is to repatriate the illegal aliens
who are in jobs Americans will take if offered a living wage.

Independent Stan: I bet you believe the President is not an American.

Ultima: Although there are some indications to the contrary, most people accept that he was born in Hawaii and is therefore a natural born citizen. However, some people are still disturbed by the fact that his aunt allegedly said that she witnessed his birth in Kenya. It is interesting that none of the mainstream media bothered to send an investigative reporter to Kenya to get the facts first hand. Also, in spite of what you say about his birth certificate, others continue to question why the original document has not been made available for inspection by experts. Did you know that Hawaii will issue a "certificate of live birth" even for those who weren’t born there? Did you know that a "certificate of live birth" is different from the actual original birth certificate? It is this secrecy about Obama’s original birth certificate, as opposed to a copy or certificate of live birth, that raises people’s concern. Obama could remove any doubt by directing the State of Hawaii to make the original available for inspection by anyone who wishes to do so.

Stan: I've seen his Birth Certificate and they had a birth announcement the week after he was born. Come on. They've shown the same kind we all have. And he's not a Muslim anyway. It wouldn't even matter if he was one. freedom of religion. Remember? That argument is silly.

Ultima: Not so fast there, Stan. If you have seen his original birth certificate, you are the only one who has. Do you have any idea how easy it is to get a birth announcement into the newspaper? If it was important to establish a child’s status as a natural born citizen that would be fairly easy to do. My uncle, who was born in Dallas in 1884, had no birth certificate. He finally got one after his older sister initiated an affidavit attesting to the fact that she had firsthand knowledge of his birth.

I think we should take Obama at his word that he is a Christian. However, everyone has to also agree that there were many Muslim influences in his life and his own writings and public statements reflect his pro-Islam position. Accordingly, those who still have legitimate doubts about him are not “silly.” After his election, Obama visited several mosques before he ever made an appearance in a church in Washington. Therefore, a little skepticism is certainly in order and that is not silliness. As far as the freedom of religion goes, one has to ask: if Obama was a sub rosa advocate of all of the barbarous practices prescribed by Sharia Law, would you still defend him under the 1st Amendment?

Interview #3 with Dee Perez Scott -- Islam

Ultima: Did you receive the transcript of my last interview with you regarding the 14th Amendment and was it satisfactory?

Dee: Yes, I understand this interview is about Islam. Is that correct?

Ultima: Yes, there have been a number of recent articles about Islam written by various authors pro and con so this is a topic of current interest. I believe you have expressed the opinion that Islam is just another benign religious movement which has and deserves the Constitutional protection provided by the 1st Amendment.

Dee: Only a handful of Muslims in this country have shown any tendency toward violence or terrorism and they have been quickly apprehended. They represent a counterpart to other terrorists like Timothy McVeigh. Both should be treated in the same manner and brought swiftly to justice. The other Muslims among us are just ordinary citizens and are identifiable only through the head covering some of the women wear and the mosques they attend.

Ultima: While what you say is true, it does not go far enough. Although there are some parallels with other religions in the sense that they permeate both the private and religious lives of their adherents, Islam goes much farther. In truth, Islam is a comprehensive political, social, and economic system with its own authoritarian legal framework, Sharia, which aspires to govern all aspects of life. Under Islam freedom is the first casualty.

Dee: If that is the system the Muslims want to live under, why should we worry about it? Our country was founded upon Freedom of Religion. Muslims believe in God. They believe that the purpose of life is to worship God. Muslims have every right to live in America and to worship as they please.

Ultima: Surely you are not suggesting that the entire Islamic system is protected and that Islam is free to do anything it wishes in all of those areas including politics and still expect the protection of the first amendment.

Dee: I am a Christian, an American and I believe in religious freedom, whether it be for Catholics, like me, Protestant, Muslim or even atheists. Think of the different life styles of the Amish or the Born Again Christians or the Jehovah Witnesses or the Mormons. ...gain tolerance and stop preaching Fear. The Muslim people are not planning a takeover of America and the Muslim people are NOT terrorists. That is ridiculous.

Ultima: I think that is a very naïve view of Islam in America. It wouldn't be hard to reframe your comment to reflect the views of Germans during the rise to power of Adolf Hitler. Had you been there then you would have complained or protested strongly and persistently against those who tried to sound warning notes about Hitler and his intentions. Hitler had laid out his plan in Mein Kampf. Islam's plan is laid out in Sharia. We can ignore it or defend it, as you have chosen to do, or we can sound the warning now so that action can be taken in the Congress to limit the application of the first amendment to only the religious aspects of Islam while all other aspects – legal, political and financial--come under careful scrutiny. It is always good to know how much someone you are interviewing really knows about Islam. How would you characterize your understanding of the basic tenets of Islam and Sharia Law?

Dee: Well, I am certainly no expert on either of them. My position is based mostly on the moderate Muslims I know and what I feel to be their appreciation of the freedoms they enjoy in the U.S.

Ultima: Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual guide and a favorite of the Saudi royal family has stated that “Secularism can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society.” If you were to say Islam and secularism cannot co-exist, John Esposito, Georgetown’s apologist-in-chief, would call you an Islamophobe; but when Qaradawi says it, no problem — according to Esposito, he’s a “reformist.” But the facts suggest otherwise; Qaradawi has issued fatwas calling for the killing of American troops in Iraq and for suicide bombings in Israel.

Dee: Sheikh Qaradawi cannot dictate the position of all the moderate Muslims in America even if he is “the most well-known legal authority in the whole Muslim world today.”

Ultima: It is worth understanding why Qaradawi says Islam and secularism cannot co-exist. Secularism is nothing less than the framework by which the West defends religious freedom but denies legal and political authority to religious creeds. An excerpt from his books states: “As Islam is a comprehensive system of worship (Ibadah) and legislation (Shari’ah), the acceptance of secularism means the abandonment of Shari’ah, a denial of the divine guidance and a rejection of Allah’s injunctions. It is indeed a false claim that Shari’ah is not proper to the requirements of the present age. The acceptance of a legislation formulated by humans means a preference of humans’ limited knowledge and experiences to the divine guidance: Say! Do you know better than Allah?” So the question becomes, “Do you condone the barbaric practices of Sharia Law such as the stoning of adulterers, the execution of public apostates, and the amputation of a hand if someone is caught stealing, and the murder of cartoonists who depict Muhammad.

Dee: I certainly don’t condone those barbaric practices but I don’t believe moderate Muslims in the U.S. would consider them acceptable either.

Ultima: There is much more to discuss on this subject but our time is up. We will have to continue this interview later.