Friday, June 25, 2010
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Obama Usurps Role of Legislative Branch
LETTER FROM 8 SENATORS
Dear President Obama:
We understand that there’s a push for your Administration to develop a plan to unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens in the United States. We understand that the Administration may include aliens who have willfully overstayed their visas or filed for benefits knowing that they will not be eligible for a status for years to come. We understand that deferred action and parole are discretionary actions reserved for individual cases that present unusual, emergent or humanitarian circumstances. Deferred action and parole were not intended to be used to confer a status or offer protection to large groups of illegal aliens, even if the agency claims that they look at each case on a “case-by-case” basis.
While we agree our immigration laws need to be fixed, we are deeply concerned about the potential expansion of deferred action or parole for a large illegal alien population. While deferred action and parole are Executive Branch authorities, they should not be used to circumvent Congress’ constitutional authority to legislate immigration policy, particularly as it relates to the illegal population in the United States.
The Administration would be wise to abandon any plans for deferred action or parole for the illegal population. Such a move would further erode the American public’s confidence in the federal government and its commitment to securing the borders and enforcing the laws already on the books.
We would appreciate receiving a commitment that the Administration has no plans to use either authority to change the current position of a large group of illegal aliens already in the United States, and ask that you respond to us about this matter as soon as possible.
(signed by)
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)
Sen. Hatch (R-Utah)
Vitter (R-La.)
Bunning (R-Ky.)
Chambliss (R-Ga.)
Isaakson (R-Ga.)
Inhofe (R-Okla.)
Cochran (R-Miss.)
Dear President Obama:
We understand that there’s a push for your Administration to develop a plan to unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens in the United States. We understand that the Administration may include aliens who have willfully overstayed their visas or filed for benefits knowing that they will not be eligible for a status for years to come. We understand that deferred action and parole are discretionary actions reserved for individual cases that present unusual, emergent or humanitarian circumstances. Deferred action and parole were not intended to be used to confer a status or offer protection to large groups of illegal aliens, even if the agency claims that they look at each case on a “case-by-case” basis.
While we agree our immigration laws need to be fixed, we are deeply concerned about the potential expansion of deferred action or parole for a large illegal alien population. While deferred action and parole are Executive Branch authorities, they should not be used to circumvent Congress’ constitutional authority to legislate immigration policy, particularly as it relates to the illegal population in the United States.
The Administration would be wise to abandon any plans for deferred action or parole for the illegal population. Such a move would further erode the American public’s confidence in the federal government and its commitment to securing the borders and enforcing the laws already on the books.
We would appreciate receiving a commitment that the Administration has no plans to use either authority to change the current position of a large group of illegal aliens already in the United States, and ask that you respond to us about this matter as soon as possible.
(signed by)
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)
Sen. Hatch (R-Utah)
Vitter (R-La.)
Bunning (R-Ky.)
Chambliss (R-Ga.)
Isaakson (R-Ga.)
Inhofe (R-Okla.)
Cochran (R-Miss.)
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
On the Frontlines of Illegal Immigration
A firsthand account by Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen
After Arizona rancher Rob Krentz was murdered on his ranch a month ago, I participated in a Senate hearing on border violence. Here are just some of the highlights from those who testified:
People who live within 60 miles of the Arizona/Mexico border have for years been terrorized by the daily invasion of foreigners who cross their property. One rancher testified that 300 to 1200 people per DAY come across his ranch, vandalizing his property, stealing his vehicles, cutting down fences, and leaving trash everywhere. In the last two years, he has found 17 dead bodies and two copies of the Koran.
Another rancher testified that drugs are brought across his ranch in a military operation. A point man with a machine gun goes in front … 1/2 mile behind are the guards, fully armed … 1/2 mile behind them are the drugs … behind the drugs 1/2 mile further are more guards. These people are violent, and they will kill anyone who gets in the way. This was not the only rancher we heard from that day who talked about the drug trains.
One man told of two illegals who came upon his property -- one shot in the back and the other in the arm by drug runners who had forced them to carry the drugs and then shot them. Daily, this rancher listens to gun fire; during the night, it is not safe to leave his family alone, and they can't leave their ranch for fear of nothing being left when they come back.
The Border Patrol is not on the border. They have set up 60 miles away with checkpoints that do nothing to stop the invasion. They are not allowed to use force to stop people who are sneaking across the border. The guards run around chasing them and, if they get their hands on them, then they can take them back across the border. I do not blame the Border Patrol; I blame Washington.
Approximately 15 percent of convicted prisoners in Arizona are illegal aliens. Over a 10-year period, nearly a third of our law enforcement officers killed on duty were killed by illegal aliens.
The federal government has refused for years to do anything to help the border states. We have been overrun, and we have the burden of funding the state services they use. Education and healthcare cost billions of dollars. Our state is broke – we have a $3.5 billion deficit. We do not have the money to care for illegal aliens. It has to stop. We have the ability to stop this invasion. The border can be secured. We have a responsibility to protect our citizens and to protect the integrity of our country.
There can be no talk of amnesty. We are being overrun to the point where we are becoming a North American Union rather than the United States. We have lost our language – everything must be printed in Spanish, as well as English. We have lost our history – it is no longer taught in our schools. And we have lost our borders.
The Arizona Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, Senate Bill 1070 because of the frustration we feel over illegal immigration. The media has distorted what SB1070 will do. It is not going to set up a Nazi Germany. SB1070 is an effort to give local law enforcement the ability – when there is probable cause – to determine if someone is here legally. Federal law is very clear: if you are here on a visa you must have your papers on you at all times. That is the law. No one is going to be stopped walking down the street to buy an ice cream cone. The Progressives in power in Washington, D.C., are angry because we dare try to fix this problem when what they want is to just let them come.
Maybe it is too late to save America. Maybe we are not worthy of freedom anymore. But, as an elected official, I must try to do what I can to protect our Constitutional Republic. Living in America is not a right just because you can walk across the border. Being an American is a responsibility, and it starts with respecting and upholding the Constitution and the law of our land. Freedom is not free.
After Arizona rancher Rob Krentz was murdered on his ranch a month ago, I participated in a Senate hearing on border violence. Here are just some of the highlights from those who testified:
People who live within 60 miles of the Arizona/Mexico border have for years been terrorized by the daily invasion of foreigners who cross their property. One rancher testified that 300 to 1200 people per DAY come across his ranch, vandalizing his property, stealing his vehicles, cutting down fences, and leaving trash everywhere. In the last two years, he has found 17 dead bodies and two copies of the Koran.
Another rancher testified that drugs are brought across his ranch in a military operation. A point man with a machine gun goes in front … 1/2 mile behind are the guards, fully armed … 1/2 mile behind them are the drugs … behind the drugs 1/2 mile further are more guards. These people are violent, and they will kill anyone who gets in the way. This was not the only rancher we heard from that day who talked about the drug trains.
One man told of two illegals who came upon his property -- one shot in the back and the other in the arm by drug runners who had forced them to carry the drugs and then shot them. Daily, this rancher listens to gun fire; during the night, it is not safe to leave his family alone, and they can't leave their ranch for fear of nothing being left when they come back.
The Border Patrol is not on the border. They have set up 60 miles away with checkpoints that do nothing to stop the invasion. They are not allowed to use force to stop people who are sneaking across the border. The guards run around chasing them and, if they get their hands on them, then they can take them back across the border. I do not blame the Border Patrol; I blame Washington.
Approximately 15 percent of convicted prisoners in Arizona are illegal aliens. Over a 10-year period, nearly a third of our law enforcement officers killed on duty were killed by illegal aliens.
The federal government has refused for years to do anything to help the border states. We have been overrun, and we have the burden of funding the state services they use. Education and healthcare cost billions of dollars. Our state is broke – we have a $3.5 billion deficit. We do not have the money to care for illegal aliens. It has to stop. We have the ability to stop this invasion. The border can be secured. We have a responsibility to protect our citizens and to protect the integrity of our country.
There can be no talk of amnesty. We are being overrun to the point where we are becoming a North American Union rather than the United States. We have lost our language – everything must be printed in Spanish, as well as English. We have lost our history – it is no longer taught in our schools. And we have lost our borders.
The Arizona Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, Senate Bill 1070 because of the frustration we feel over illegal immigration. The media has distorted what SB1070 will do. It is not going to set up a Nazi Germany. SB1070 is an effort to give local law enforcement the ability – when there is probable cause – to determine if someone is here legally. Federal law is very clear: if you are here on a visa you must have your papers on you at all times. That is the law. No one is going to be stopped walking down the street to buy an ice cream cone. The Progressives in power in Washington, D.C., are angry because we dare try to fix this problem when what they want is to just let them come.
Maybe it is too late to save America. Maybe we are not worthy of freedom anymore. But, as an elected official, I must try to do what I can to protect our Constitutional Republic. Living in America is not a right just because you can walk across the border. Being an American is a responsibility, and it starts with respecting and upholding the Constitution and the law of our land. Freedom is not free.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Operation Wetback
Operation Wetback was a 1954 operation by the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to remove about one million illegal aliens from the southwestern United States, focusing on Mexican nationals. Although the term "wetback" is now considered to be a slur, the problem remains essentially the same as it was in 1954 except that the numbers are now much greater. The recently-passed Arizona law is another long-overdue attempt to deal with the problem of illegal aliens This problem has become much worse since 1954 and even just since 1986when the last amnesty bill was passed. Accordingly, drastic action was called for particularly in the vacuum created by the federal government's ineptness and neglect.
Burgeoning numbers of illegal Mexican aliens prompted President Dwight D. Eisenhower to appoint his longtime friends, John Cox and General Joseph Swing, as INS Commissioner. It is indeed unfortunate that no presidents since Eisenhower has taken the decisive action needed to curb border violations. According to Attorney General Herbert Brownell Jr., Eisenhower had a sense of urgency about illegal aliens upon taking office. In a letter to Sen. J. William Fulbright, Eisenhower quoted a report in The New York Times that said, "The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican 'wetbacks' (rooted in the watery route taken by the Mexican immigrants across the Rio Grande) to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government." It's still happening and has now extended to many other expoitative employers and to many jobs traditionally held by citizens.
Unfortunately, all of the successive Administrations since Eisenhower have continued to appoint ineffective and unethical officials to important immigration policy positions resulting in a gross failure to provide even the semblance of effective border security and internal enforcement.
The original operation was modeled after a program that came to be termed the Mexican Repatriation, which put pressure on citizens of Mexico to return home during the Great Depression, due to the economic crisis in the United States. The Obama Administration should have implemented a similar program when the U.S. descended into a deep recession with double digit unemployment.
The Operation Wetback effort began in California and Arizona, and coordinated 1075 Border Patrol agents, along with state and local police agencies, to mount an aggressive crackdown. Tactics employed included going as far as systematic police sweeps of Mexican-American neighborhoods, and random stops and ID checks of "Mexican-looking" people in a region with many Native Americans and native Hispanics. This remains a problem today in Arizona mainly because racial profiling is illegal. From a strictly effectiveness point of view, profiling makes a great deal of sense. One does not go looking for illegals from Mexico or Central America among the Anglos or the Chinese communities. Hispanic citizens have chosen to take umbrage at this most efficient way to apprehend the illegals. The best way to avoid this situation is for Hispanic citizens to become part of the solution rather than remaining a part of the problem. If Hispanic citizens were willing to come forward with as many legitimate forms of proof as they have, sheriff's offices and police departments could find a way to carefully check these documents and then issue a new, guaranteed, counterfeit-proof biometric ID that would be accepted without question. Citizens would be put to no more trouble than they would be if asked for their drivers' license or other forms of ID. Limiting sweeps to employers places of business or worksites might also help to assuage the concerns of the Hispanic community. Of course, some number of Hispanics object to these procedures not because they represent a significant imposition but because they oppose all effective forms of border security and internal enforcement.
In some cases, during the operation, some American-born minor dependent children were deported with their illegal alien parents. This occurred despite the fact the children were, according to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 14th amendment, citizens of the United States. Nevertheless, a strong case can be made that parents should be allowed to abandon their minor children in the U.S. To some that would constitute a form of child abuse. The mere act of accompanying their parents would not deprive these minor children of their citizenship.
Some 750 agents targeted agricultural areas with a goal of 1000 apprehensions per day. By the end of July, over 50,000 immigrants were caught in the two states. An estimated 488,000 illegal immigrants are claimed to have left voluntarily, for fear of being apprehended. By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and the INS estimates that 500,000 to 700,000 had left Texas of their accord. To discourage illicit re-entry, buses and trains took many deportees deep within Mexican territory, prior to releasing them. Tens of thousands more were deported by two chartered ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried them from Port Isabel, Texas, to Veracruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles (800 kilometers) to the south. Some were taken as far as 1,000 miles. With the recent improvements in border infrastructure and staffing and a new law to permit sentencing every illegal who is appehended at the border or internally to six months working on border infrastructure, there may be somewhat less incentive to return, especially if all repatriations are classified as involuntary. Involuntary removal invokes stiffer penalties for those who attempt to return and causes them to be classified as felons.
Burgeoning numbers of illegal Mexican aliens prompted President Dwight D. Eisenhower to appoint his longtime friends, John Cox and General Joseph Swing, as INS Commissioner. It is indeed unfortunate that no presidents since Eisenhower has taken the decisive action needed to curb border violations. According to Attorney General Herbert Brownell Jr., Eisenhower had a sense of urgency about illegal aliens upon taking office. In a letter to Sen. J. William Fulbright, Eisenhower quoted a report in The New York Times that said, "The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican 'wetbacks' (rooted in the watery route taken by the Mexican immigrants across the Rio Grande) to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government." It's still happening and has now extended to many other expoitative employers and to many jobs traditionally held by citizens.
Unfortunately, all of the successive Administrations since Eisenhower have continued to appoint ineffective and unethical officials to important immigration policy positions resulting in a gross failure to provide even the semblance of effective border security and internal enforcement.
The original operation was modeled after a program that came to be termed the Mexican Repatriation, which put pressure on citizens of Mexico to return home during the Great Depression, due to the economic crisis in the United States. The Obama Administration should have implemented a similar program when the U.S. descended into a deep recession with double digit unemployment.
The Operation Wetback effort began in California and Arizona, and coordinated 1075 Border Patrol agents, along with state and local police agencies, to mount an aggressive crackdown. Tactics employed included going as far as systematic police sweeps of Mexican-American neighborhoods, and random stops and ID checks of "Mexican-looking" people in a region with many Native Americans and native Hispanics. This remains a problem today in Arizona mainly because racial profiling is illegal. From a strictly effectiveness point of view, profiling makes a great deal of sense. One does not go looking for illegals from Mexico or Central America among the Anglos or the Chinese communities. Hispanic citizens have chosen to take umbrage at this most efficient way to apprehend the illegals. The best way to avoid this situation is for Hispanic citizens to become part of the solution rather than remaining a part of the problem. If Hispanic citizens were willing to come forward with as many legitimate forms of proof as they have, sheriff's offices and police departments could find a way to carefully check these documents and then issue a new, guaranteed, counterfeit-proof biometric ID that would be accepted without question. Citizens would be put to no more trouble than they would be if asked for their drivers' license or other forms of ID. Limiting sweeps to employers places of business or worksites might also help to assuage the concerns of the Hispanic community. Of course, some number of Hispanics object to these procedures not because they represent a significant imposition but because they oppose all effective forms of border security and internal enforcement.
In some cases, during the operation, some American-born minor dependent children were deported with their illegal alien parents. This occurred despite the fact the children were, according to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 14th amendment, citizens of the United States. Nevertheless, a strong case can be made that parents should be allowed to abandon their minor children in the U.S. To some that would constitute a form of child abuse. The mere act of accompanying their parents would not deprive these minor children of their citizenship.
Some 750 agents targeted agricultural areas with a goal of 1000 apprehensions per day. By the end of July, over 50,000 immigrants were caught in the two states. An estimated 488,000 illegal immigrants are claimed to have left voluntarily, for fear of being apprehended. By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and the INS estimates that 500,000 to 700,000 had left Texas of their accord. To discourage illicit re-entry, buses and trains took many deportees deep within Mexican territory, prior to releasing them. Tens of thousands more were deported by two chartered ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried them from Port Isabel, Texas, to Veracruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles (800 kilometers) to the south. Some were taken as far as 1,000 miles. With the recent improvements in border infrastructure and staffing and a new law to permit sentencing every illegal who is appehended at the border or internally to six months working on border infrastructure, there may be somewhat less incentive to return, especially if all repatriations are classified as involuntary. Involuntary removal invokes stiffer penalties for those who attempt to return and causes them to be classified as felons.
Trade agreements and government failures
The Rockridge Institute argues that globalization and trade agreement affected international migration, as laborers moved to where they could find jobs. Raising the standard of living around the world, a promise the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank, would reduce the economic incentive for illegal immigration. However, governments have not followed through on all of these programs.
The Mexican government failed to make promised investments of billions of dollars in roads, schooling, sanitation, housing, and other infrastructure to accommodate the new maquiladoras (border factories) envisioned under NAFTA. As a result few were built, and China surpassed Mexico in goods produced for the United States market. Instead of the anticipated increase, the number of manufacturing jobs in Mexico dropped from 4.1 million in 2000 to 3.5 million in 2004. The 1994 economic crisis in Mexico,[34] which occurred the year NAFTA went into effect, resulted in a devaluation of the Mexican peso, decreasing the wages of Mexican workers relative to those in the United States. Meanwhile, more efficient agricultural operations in the United States and the elimination of tariffs under NAFTA caused the price of corn to fall 70% in Mexico between 1994 and 2001, and the number of farm jobs to decrease from 8.1 million in 1993 to 6.8 million in 2002.
Corruption hurts the economy of Mexico, which in turn leads to migration to the United States. Mexico was perceived as the 72nd least corrupt state out of 179 according to Transparency International's 2006 Corruption Perceptions Index, a survey of international business (for comparison, the United States ranked as the 20th least corrupt). Global Integrity estimates that in 2006 corruption cost the Mexican economy $60 billion per year. A survey by the Mexican research firm, Centro de Estudios Económicos del Sector Privado, found that 79 percent of companies in Mexico believe that “illegal transactions” are a serious obstacle to business development.
The Mexican government failed to make promised investments of billions of dollars in roads, schooling, sanitation, housing, and other infrastructure to accommodate the new maquiladoras (border factories) envisioned under NAFTA. As a result few were built, and China surpassed Mexico in goods produced for the United States market. Instead of the anticipated increase, the number of manufacturing jobs in Mexico dropped from 4.1 million in 2000 to 3.5 million in 2004. The 1994 economic crisis in Mexico,[34] which occurred the year NAFTA went into effect, resulted in a devaluation of the Mexican peso, decreasing the wages of Mexican workers relative to those in the United States. Meanwhile, more efficient agricultural operations in the United States and the elimination of tariffs under NAFTA caused the price of corn to fall 70% in Mexico between 1994 and 2001, and the number of farm jobs to decrease from 8.1 million in 1993 to 6.8 million in 2002.
Corruption hurts the economy of Mexico, which in turn leads to migration to the United States. Mexico was perceived as the 72nd least corrupt state out of 179 according to Transparency International's 2006 Corruption Perceptions Index, a survey of international business (for comparison, the United States ranked as the 20th least corrupt). Global Integrity estimates that in 2006 corruption cost the Mexican economy $60 billion per year. A survey by the Mexican research firm, Centro de Estudios Económicos del Sector Privado, found that 79 percent of companies in Mexico believe that “illegal transactions” are a serious obstacle to business development.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Call Them What They Are: Illegal Aliens
The push is on for providing amnesty to the estimated 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country. The supporters of this effort include President Barack Obama, former president George W. Bush, Senator John McCain, Majority Leader Harry Reid and New York Senator Chuck Schumer. (There is a chance that neither McCain nor Reid will be re-elected in Novmeber, 2010.) Senator Schumer is now chairman of the immigration subcommittee previously chaired by the late Senator Ted Kennedy, a major amnesty proponent.
Amnesty supporters see themselves as taking the high road and claim that amnesty opponents are opposed to all immigration, when nothing could be further from the truth. Although, most amnesty opponents favor legal immigration, they oppose any measure that grants illegal aliens the objective of their illegality, to stay in the U.S. and work. They believe the amnesty supporters are compromising the national interest, undercutting American labor, and giving the desires of foreigners precedence over the wishes of their fellow citizens.
An examination of the supporters of amnesty is revealing. First and foremost is the National Council of La Raza which many consider to be a racist organization if for no other reason than its title. Second is the group of ethnocentrists among Hispanic citizens who give precedence to the interests of their illegal ethnic brethren over the interests of their country and the wishes of their non-Hispanic fellow citizens. Third are the immigration lawyers whose bread and butter depend on a continuing flow of illegals and a complex set of immigration laws that require their expertise to negotiate. Fourth is the group of liberals who base their position on some sort of world view of human rights and social justice rather than the national interest. Shortsightedness is the common characteristic of all four groups. They do not consider the question of the long term consequences to be relevant to the discussion. They have no concern about the depletion of finite natural resources, increased pollution, and the resulting and inevitable decline in our quality of life and standard of living.
Currently, the U.S. has the highest level of legal immigration in the world. Every year, we allow 750,000 immigrants to enter the country legally and make them eligible for citizenship within five years. That is way too many. Legal immigration in all categories needs to be scaled back to no more than 250,000 per year, exclusive of students, tourists, and temporary agricultural workers. moreover, we need whatever tax and immigration reforms are necessarey to achieve a stable population within 20 years.
Legal immigrants have the right to work and earn a living; the asylees are eligible to work six months after applying to work. Therefore, to protect American workers, employers who claim that more immigrants are needed must present irrefutable evidence to support that need. The concurrence of local unions and professional organizations that might be adversely affected should be required. Government response should be constrained by the total unemployment rate in the relevant sectors of the economy. There should be a moratorium on immigration when the total unemployment rate exceeds a specified level.
If we give the current illegals amnesty, you can be sure that 20 or so years from now, there will be a clamor for another amnesty bill as the illegals will continue to pour in. The Simpson-Mazzoli bill, which was adopted by Congress in 1986, granted amnesty to 1.3 million illegals. That measure was hailed as the last amnesty bill we would need because the borders of the U.S., then a sieve, would be better protected. However, our borders continued to be porous, and the number of illegals burgeoned, and here we are again with the illegals and their supporters seeking amnesty once more for ever larger numbers, estimated to be 12 to 20 million. Thus, the number of illegal aliens has increased from 1.3 million in 1986 to a minimum of 12 million in 2010. This is a compound growth rate of at least 9.7% per year. If that growth rate were to continue, in 40 years, by the year 2050, we would have as many as 487 million illegal aliens in the U.S. (Do the math -- 12 million x 1.097^40 years = 487 million) No wonder the pro-illegal lobbyests want to sweep the problem under the carpet with another amnesty so they can start counting all over again from zero. If the 487 million were to actually materialize, it would not be unreasonable to begin to refer to the U.S. as Mexico Norte.
Given our experience since the 1986 bill, granting another amnesty would be tantamount to enacting an open borders bill. No country in the world has open borders that foreigners can cross at will, certainly not Mexico. Arizona has an estimated 500,000 illegal aliens living in the state and in 2009, the border patrol agents arrested 241,000 illegal aliens, which is why that state enacted controversial legislation out of frustration. Arizona’s citizens are outraged by the presence of many criminals among the people crossing their border – remember there is an ongoing drug war in Mexico with thousands of Mexicans being killed and wounded south of the border by other Mexicans. Arizona does not want that war to spill over into Arizona. Arizona citizens are also distressed with the demands made by illegals upon welfare, medical, and educational services.
As long as laws like the Arizona's stay within the bounds of constitutionality, they cannot be said to have gone too far. Allowing local police to ask individuals, stopped for other reasons, or who are “reasonably suspected” to be illegal immigrants for identifying papers is a reasonable thing to do given Arizona's huge problem. This approach should be extended to all of the border states. It is an especially sound and defensible policy to have the local police examine at the workplace the identity papers of all employees to ascertain whether they are legally allowed to work and, most important, to ascertain if employers , intentionally or not, had violated current U.S. laws requiring employers to check the immigration status of hired workers. Those employers who violate the law should be pursued criminally and, if convicted, go to prison. Regrettably, this is not what is happening. Part of the reason is the insertion of the term "knowingly hire" in the federal statute and in the Arizona law. This is a huge loophole that allows employers to escape prosecution by claiming "we didn't know." If that loophole was removed and the policy strictly enforced, illegal aliens would be denied jobs and would go home, since they are here primarily to get a job and send money home to their families. Recently, I saw an estimate that a million illegals, perhaps 7% of the total, had returned home because of the recession and 9.7% unemployment rate in the U.S.
Amnesty supporters, who use pejorative terms to describe their opponents, refuse to use the term "illegal aliens", preferring instead the euphemism "undocumented workers." They acknowledge that an open border policy is indefensible and irrational and has not been adopted by any other country. Yet, they would deny our country the tools it needs to control the borders. The question of whether all border violations can be stopped with improvements in border infrastructure, staffing, and rules of engagement has already been answered emphatically by the growth in the number of illegals since 1986 mentioned above. The quintessential element of in depth border security is continuous, vigorous internal enforcement. If the illegals are denied jobs and are expeditiously repatriated after serving a six month sentence working on border infrastructure, they will have little incentive to repeat their border violations.
A week ago, Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Great Britain had to apologize to a woman voter for referring to her as “bigoted” when she voiced her objections to millions of Europeans in the European Union lawfully flooding into Great Britain and taking jobs. I don’t know whether she is bigoted in her attitude toward other Europeans, but she doesn’t have to be a bigot to object to the English having to compete for jobs and services such as healthcare and education with immigrants from other countries.
In the U.S., those who favor amnesty, for lack of more substantive arguments, refer pejoratively to their opponents as nativists, bigots, racists, and xenophobes. In doing so, they ignore the adverse impact of illegal aliens on: the national interest, character, language, and sovereignty; the cost of welfare, education, and health care; and the rule of law. The states are tired of illegal aliens flooding into emergency rooms, soaking up Medicaid funds intended for citizens, crowding classrooms, and creating newborn, birthright citizens who qualify for a large range of welfare benefits at taxpayer expense.
Mark McKinnon, who was a senior adviser to John McCain and President George W. Bush, was quoted in The New York Times of April 28th, as stating, “Immigration is the most explosive issue I’ve seen in my political career.” According to The Times, Mr. McKinnon “…also supported giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.” But, in his view, “an election year is the worst time to move good public policy on this issue.” He does not say on what basis he has concluded that giving the never-ending flood of illegals a pathway to citizenship would constitute "good public policy." As a minimum, anyone who has entered this country illegally at any time should be permanently ineligible for citizenship. Many, if not most, should be quickly repatriated.
During the Bush presidency, amnesty proponents were twice defeated when they tried to shove their self-defined “good policy” down the throats of the voters. Amnesty advocates believed, as they do now, that they know what is best for us, but the American public stood up and said “no.” In an election year, the voters can throw the bums out, and that is why Congress fears to bring the issue up before the November elections.
I predict the Schumer legislation supported by President Obama and a whole host of prominent public officials and the media will fail. I also believe it is outrageous to threaten understandably frustrated, Arizona with boycotts because we disagree with the protective procedures it has adopted. Let’s leave the legality of those procedures to the courts. We are one country and should not be boycotting one another. Persuasion should be our tool of choice, not punishment.
Amnesty supporters see themselves as taking the high road and claim that amnesty opponents are opposed to all immigration, when nothing could be further from the truth. Although, most amnesty opponents favor legal immigration, they oppose any measure that grants illegal aliens the objective of their illegality, to stay in the U.S. and work. They believe the amnesty supporters are compromising the national interest, undercutting American labor, and giving the desires of foreigners precedence over the wishes of their fellow citizens.
An examination of the supporters of amnesty is revealing. First and foremost is the National Council of La Raza which many consider to be a racist organization if for no other reason than its title. Second is the group of ethnocentrists among Hispanic citizens who give precedence to the interests of their illegal ethnic brethren over the interests of their country and the wishes of their non-Hispanic fellow citizens. Third are the immigration lawyers whose bread and butter depend on a continuing flow of illegals and a complex set of immigration laws that require their expertise to negotiate. Fourth is the group of liberals who base their position on some sort of world view of human rights and social justice rather than the national interest. Shortsightedness is the common characteristic of all four groups. They do not consider the question of the long term consequences to be relevant to the discussion. They have no concern about the depletion of finite natural resources, increased pollution, and the resulting and inevitable decline in our quality of life and standard of living.
Currently, the U.S. has the highest level of legal immigration in the world. Every year, we allow 750,000 immigrants to enter the country legally and make them eligible for citizenship within five years. That is way too many. Legal immigration in all categories needs to be scaled back to no more than 250,000 per year, exclusive of students, tourists, and temporary agricultural workers. moreover, we need whatever tax and immigration reforms are necessarey to achieve a stable population within 20 years.
Legal immigrants have the right to work and earn a living; the asylees are eligible to work six months after applying to work. Therefore, to protect American workers, employers who claim that more immigrants are needed must present irrefutable evidence to support that need. The concurrence of local unions and professional organizations that might be adversely affected should be required. Government response should be constrained by the total unemployment rate in the relevant sectors of the economy. There should be a moratorium on immigration when the total unemployment rate exceeds a specified level.
If we give the current illegals amnesty, you can be sure that 20 or so years from now, there will be a clamor for another amnesty bill as the illegals will continue to pour in. The Simpson-Mazzoli bill, which was adopted by Congress in 1986, granted amnesty to 1.3 million illegals. That measure was hailed as the last amnesty bill we would need because the borders of the U.S., then a sieve, would be better protected. However, our borders continued to be porous, and the number of illegals burgeoned, and here we are again with the illegals and their supporters seeking amnesty once more for ever larger numbers, estimated to be 12 to 20 million. Thus, the number of illegal aliens has increased from 1.3 million in 1986 to a minimum of 12 million in 2010. This is a compound growth rate of at least 9.7% per year. If that growth rate were to continue, in 40 years, by the year 2050, we would have as many as 487 million illegal aliens in the U.S. (Do the math -- 12 million x 1.097^40 years = 487 million) No wonder the pro-illegal lobbyests want to sweep the problem under the carpet with another amnesty so they can start counting all over again from zero. If the 487 million were to actually materialize, it would not be unreasonable to begin to refer to the U.S. as Mexico Norte.
Given our experience since the 1986 bill, granting another amnesty would be tantamount to enacting an open borders bill. No country in the world has open borders that foreigners can cross at will, certainly not Mexico. Arizona has an estimated 500,000 illegal aliens living in the state and in 2009, the border patrol agents arrested 241,000 illegal aliens, which is why that state enacted controversial legislation out of frustration. Arizona’s citizens are outraged by the presence of many criminals among the people crossing their border – remember there is an ongoing drug war in Mexico with thousands of Mexicans being killed and wounded south of the border by other Mexicans. Arizona does not want that war to spill over into Arizona. Arizona citizens are also distressed with the demands made by illegals upon welfare, medical, and educational services.
As long as laws like the Arizona's stay within the bounds of constitutionality, they cannot be said to have gone too far. Allowing local police to ask individuals, stopped for other reasons, or who are “reasonably suspected” to be illegal immigrants for identifying papers is a reasonable thing to do given Arizona's huge problem. This approach should be extended to all of the border states. It is an especially sound and defensible policy to have the local police examine at the workplace the identity papers of all employees to ascertain whether they are legally allowed to work and, most important, to ascertain if employers , intentionally or not, had violated current U.S. laws requiring employers to check the immigration status of hired workers. Those employers who violate the law should be pursued criminally and, if convicted, go to prison. Regrettably, this is not what is happening. Part of the reason is the insertion of the term "knowingly hire" in the federal statute and in the Arizona law. This is a huge loophole that allows employers to escape prosecution by claiming "we didn't know." If that loophole was removed and the policy strictly enforced, illegal aliens would be denied jobs and would go home, since they are here primarily to get a job and send money home to their families. Recently, I saw an estimate that a million illegals, perhaps 7% of the total, had returned home because of the recession and 9.7% unemployment rate in the U.S.
Amnesty supporters, who use pejorative terms to describe their opponents, refuse to use the term "illegal aliens", preferring instead the euphemism "undocumented workers." They acknowledge that an open border policy is indefensible and irrational and has not been adopted by any other country. Yet, they would deny our country the tools it needs to control the borders. The question of whether all border violations can be stopped with improvements in border infrastructure, staffing, and rules of engagement has already been answered emphatically by the growth in the number of illegals since 1986 mentioned above. The quintessential element of in depth border security is continuous, vigorous internal enforcement. If the illegals are denied jobs and are expeditiously repatriated after serving a six month sentence working on border infrastructure, they will have little incentive to repeat their border violations.
A week ago, Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Great Britain had to apologize to a woman voter for referring to her as “bigoted” when she voiced her objections to millions of Europeans in the European Union lawfully flooding into Great Britain and taking jobs. I don’t know whether she is bigoted in her attitude toward other Europeans, but she doesn’t have to be a bigot to object to the English having to compete for jobs and services such as healthcare and education with immigrants from other countries.
In the U.S., those who favor amnesty, for lack of more substantive arguments, refer pejoratively to their opponents as nativists, bigots, racists, and xenophobes. In doing so, they ignore the adverse impact of illegal aliens on: the national interest, character, language, and sovereignty; the cost of welfare, education, and health care; and the rule of law. The states are tired of illegal aliens flooding into emergency rooms, soaking up Medicaid funds intended for citizens, crowding classrooms, and creating newborn, birthright citizens who qualify for a large range of welfare benefits at taxpayer expense.
Mark McKinnon, who was a senior adviser to John McCain and President George W. Bush, was quoted in The New York Times of April 28th, as stating, “Immigration is the most explosive issue I’ve seen in my political career.” According to The Times, Mr. McKinnon “…also supported giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.” But, in his view, “an election year is the worst time to move good public policy on this issue.” He does not say on what basis he has concluded that giving the never-ending flood of illegals a pathway to citizenship would constitute "good public policy." As a minimum, anyone who has entered this country illegally at any time should be permanently ineligible for citizenship. Many, if not most, should be quickly repatriated.
During the Bush presidency, amnesty proponents were twice defeated when they tried to shove their self-defined “good policy” down the throats of the voters. Amnesty advocates believed, as they do now, that they know what is best for us, but the American public stood up and said “no.” In an election year, the voters can throw the bums out, and that is why Congress fears to bring the issue up before the November elections.
I predict the Schumer legislation supported by President Obama and a whole host of prominent public officials and the media will fail. I also believe it is outrageous to threaten understandably frustrated, Arizona with boycotts because we disagree with the protective procedures it has adopted. Let’s leave the legality of those procedures to the courts. We are one country and should not be boycotting one another. Persuasion should be our tool of choice, not punishment.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
A 20 Point Plan to Curb Illegal Aliens
1. Make it easier to immigrate legally to the U.S. but reduce the total number allowed to no more than 250,000 per year in all categories.
2. Repeal NAFTA, CAFTA and all other trade agreements to enable the poor in other countries to make a living.
3. Make E-verification of work status mandatory.
4. Require foreign workers to be paid at the same rate as American workers.
5. Deduct $100,000 from U.S. foreign aid to Mexico for every illegal alien apprehended internally or caught trying to violate the border.
6. Require every illegal alien apprehended at the border or internally to serve a six month sentence.
7. Impose harsh penalties on landlords who rent living quarters to anyone not in this country legally.
8. Withhold all federal funds from any cities or other local governments who refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
9. Require every foreigner seeking work in the United States under a temporary worker program to have a temporary work authorization card issued by the United States.
10. If a U.S. company can prove that it cannot fill its jobs with citizen workers, it may apply to one of the federally-licensed employment agencies for the admission of the number of foreign workers needed.
11. Fine employers of illegal aliens on an escalating scale whether or not they hired them knowingly.
12. Stop employers from exploiting cheap immigrant labor by enforcing existing labor laws.
13. Vigorously and continuously pursue internal enforcement of immigration laws and provide for expeditious repatriation of illegals after they have served any prescribed sentence.
14. Issue a counterfeit-proof, machine-readable, biometric ID to all those who can prove their citizenship or permanent residency status with multiple non-fraudulent documents presented for careful review and confirmation.
15. Reinterpret the 14th Amendment to require at least one parent to be a citizen before any child can be awarded birthright citizenship.
16. Limit chain immigrations to the minor children and spouses of citizens.
17. Focus immigration quotas on those most likely to enable the U.S. to regain its fiscal solvency and remain competitive in the global economy.
18. Make everyone who enters this country illegally permanently ineligible for naturalized citizenship.
19. Make true fluency in English a mandatory requirement for citizenship.
20. Make English the official language of the United States and repeal EO 13166.
2. Repeal NAFTA, CAFTA and all other trade agreements to enable the poor in other countries to make a living.
3. Make E-verification of work status mandatory.
4. Require foreign workers to be paid at the same rate as American workers.
5. Deduct $100,000 from U.S. foreign aid to Mexico for every illegal alien apprehended internally or caught trying to violate the border.
6. Require every illegal alien apprehended at the border or internally to serve a six month sentence.
7. Impose harsh penalties on landlords who rent living quarters to anyone not in this country legally.
8. Withhold all federal funds from any cities or other local governments who refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
9. Require every foreigner seeking work in the United States under a temporary worker program to have a temporary work authorization card issued by the United States.
10. If a U.S. company can prove that it cannot fill its jobs with citizen workers, it may apply to one of the federally-licensed employment agencies for the admission of the number of foreign workers needed.
11. Fine employers of illegal aliens on an escalating scale whether or not they hired them knowingly.
12. Stop employers from exploiting cheap immigrant labor by enforcing existing labor laws.
13. Vigorously and continuously pursue internal enforcement of immigration laws and provide for expeditious repatriation of illegals after they have served any prescribed sentence.
14. Issue a counterfeit-proof, machine-readable, biometric ID to all those who can prove their citizenship or permanent residency status with multiple non-fraudulent documents presented for careful review and confirmation.
15. Reinterpret the 14th Amendment to require at least one parent to be a citizen before any child can be awarded birthright citizenship.
16. Limit chain immigrations to the minor children and spouses of citizens.
17. Focus immigration quotas on those most likely to enable the U.S. to regain its fiscal solvency and remain competitive in the global economy.
18. Make everyone who enters this country illegally permanently ineligible for naturalized citizenship.
19. Make true fluency in English a mandatory requirement for citizenship.
20. Make English the official language of the United States and repeal EO 13166.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
What Porous Borders Really Mean!
Just last year, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano testified before a Senate panel that Mexican drug cartels were operating in as many as 230 American cities. During her testimony, she claimed that cartels are the greatest organized crime threat to the United States.
The federal government’s refusal to secure the border has enabled Mexican cartels to operate across America. In April, a North Carolina DEA special agent reported that Mexican drug organizations have taken over most of the Charlotte heroin market.
At the same time in Oregon, about a dozen armed marijuana growers were caught working for a Mexican drug family. Last December, Salvador Guzman, a member of a Mexico-based cartel, imported and concealed kilograms of cocaine in the drive shaft of vehicles. He transported the drugs to the Midwest, dismantled the drive shafts, extracted the cocaine and delivered it to customers in Ohio and Tennessee.
Mexican drug trafficking organizations are now operating in every region of the United States. Last year, there were more than 200 incursions of ultra-light aircraft crossing the southwest border. These aircraft have become the transport of choice for many cartel operatives and traffickers to ferry drugs and cash and help give cartels links in virtually every state in America.
The Department of Justice now reports that Mexican cartels have expanded operations in Florida, the Mid-Atlantic, New York, New Jersey, and New England. Cities such as Atlanta, Chicago, and New York City, as well as parts of North Carolina, serve as consolidation points for tens of billions of dollars in bulk cash drug proceeds that are smuggled into Mexico.
Mexican cartels are also expanding outdoor marijuana cultivation in the U.S. from their traditional strongholds in California, Washington, and Oregon to states such as Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, North Carolina, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
Cartels aren’t the only organizations that see our ill-defended border as their strategic opportunity. There is little doubt that terrorists are constantly attempting to illegally cross into our country to try and harm innocent Americans.
Since January, Mexican immigration officials have detained more than 600 individuals from more than two dozen nations trying to enter the United States illegally, including those from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran.
Our porous border endangers every American, yet Washington refuses to make border security a priority. President Obama’s recent proposal, which would provide up to 1,200 members of the National Guard across a 2,000 mile border, would only add one guardsman for every 1.6 miles of border.
Obama’s budget request for Fiscal Year 2011 cuts the Secure Border Initiative by more than 25 percent and the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program by more than 12 percent. At first, the White House even proposed cutting the Border Patrol by 181 agents, before many of us in Congress pushed back. The Obama’s proposals are an unacceptably small short-term solution to a large long-term border problem.
The federal government’s refusal to secure the border has enabled Mexican cartels to operate across America. In April, a North Carolina DEA special agent reported that Mexican drug organizations have taken over most of the Charlotte heroin market.
At the same time in Oregon, about a dozen armed marijuana growers were caught working for a Mexican drug family. Last December, Salvador Guzman, a member of a Mexico-based cartel, imported and concealed kilograms of cocaine in the drive shaft of vehicles. He transported the drugs to the Midwest, dismantled the drive shafts, extracted the cocaine and delivered it to customers in Ohio and Tennessee.
Mexican drug trafficking organizations are now operating in every region of the United States. Last year, there were more than 200 incursions of ultra-light aircraft crossing the southwest border. These aircraft have become the transport of choice for many cartel operatives and traffickers to ferry drugs and cash and help give cartels links in virtually every state in America.
The Department of Justice now reports that Mexican cartels have expanded operations in Florida, the Mid-Atlantic, New York, New Jersey, and New England. Cities such as Atlanta, Chicago, and New York City, as well as parts of North Carolina, serve as consolidation points for tens of billions of dollars in bulk cash drug proceeds that are smuggled into Mexico.
Mexican cartels are also expanding outdoor marijuana cultivation in the U.S. from their traditional strongholds in California, Washington, and Oregon to states such as Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, North Carolina, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
Cartels aren’t the only organizations that see our ill-defended border as their strategic opportunity. There is little doubt that terrorists are constantly attempting to illegally cross into our country to try and harm innocent Americans.
Since January, Mexican immigration officials have detained more than 600 individuals from more than two dozen nations trying to enter the United States illegally, including those from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran.
Our porous border endangers every American, yet Washington refuses to make border security a priority. President Obama’s recent proposal, which would provide up to 1,200 members of the National Guard across a 2,000 mile border, would only add one guardsman for every 1.6 miles of border.
Obama’s budget request for Fiscal Year 2011 cuts the Secure Border Initiative by more than 25 percent and the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program by more than 12 percent. At first, the White House even proposed cutting the Border Patrol by 181 agents, before many of us in Congress pushed back. The Obama’s proposals are an unacceptably small short-term solution to a large long-term border problem.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Immigration Reform…
Immigration Reform…Poll
Should America Follow Arizona's Lead?
Here are the results!
The Total Number of people who voted in this poll: 17,337
1) Should America follow Arizona’s lead when it comes to immigration reform?
98% voted: Yes
1% voted: No
0% voted: Undecided
2) Do you believe illegal immigrants take jobs U.S. citizens want?
86% voted: Yes
9% voted: No
5% voted: Undecided
3) Do you feel being asked for proof of citizenship is a violation of your civil rights?
3% voted: Yes
96% voted: No
1% voted: Undecided
4) Would you like to see your state pass a similar immigration law?
94% voted: Yes
1% voted: No
0% voted: Undecided
4% voted: I live in Arizona
Should America Follow Arizona's Lead?
Here are the results!
The Total Number of people who voted in this poll: 17,337
1) Should America follow Arizona’s lead when it comes to immigration reform?
98% voted: Yes
1% voted: No
0% voted: Undecided
2) Do you believe illegal immigrants take jobs U.S. citizens want?
86% voted: Yes
9% voted: No
5% voted: Undecided
3) Do you feel being asked for proof of citizenship is a violation of your civil rights?
3% voted: Yes
96% voted: No
1% voted: Undecided
4) Would you like to see your state pass a similar immigration law?
94% voted: Yes
1% voted: No
0% voted: Undecided
4% voted: I live in Arizona
Saturday, June 5, 2010
The Disconnect between the Will of the American People and Congress
Rep. Jared Polis, (D., 2nd CD) writing in the Denver Post on May 13, 2010 starts out well with the statement, “I have never seen such a disconnect between the will of the American people and Congress.” Polis claims that “the American people have had it with our broken immigration system” but in actuality, as all the polls show, the American people have had it with the Congress and the Administration, not our immigration system. Polis further states that “across the ideological spectrum, no one is happy with the status quo.” Of course, voters are unhappy with the status quo for a multitude of reasons. Foremost among those reasons is the fact that the Administration has done little or nothing to enforce the immigration laws already on the books. Instead of a broken immigration system, it is a failure of enforcement that has created the disconnect Polis speaks of.
Polis seems to think that states like Arizona are diverting their police officers to enforce immigration laws. This is a misrepresentation of what the new Arizona immigration law requires. Since the state is overrun with illegal aliens and the federal government has failed in its duty to the people, Arizona has enabled police officers to check the bona fides of anyone they stop for other law infractions. The officers are not being diverted from their regular duties. They are merely being allowed to check legal residency status at the same time as they check other forms of identification such as drivers’ licenses and proof of insurance. The ability of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to apprehend illegal aliens is seriously compromised when the local law enforcement authorities in sanctuary cities are directed not to cooperate or assist in the task of apprehending illegal aliens. Given the huge size of the problem and the sheer volume of illegals in some communities, ICE agents are simply overwhelmed without the help of the police. There is no other solution than the one enacted in Arizona. ICE is dependent on the active assistance of local enforcement agencies in the performance of their regular duties.
In the absence of any effort by the current Administration in Washington to deal with the problem, States like Arizona are providing the leadership needed to turn the tide of illegal aliens by enabling local authorities to provide the assistance needed by ICE to do its job. Polis, using a very unfortunate choice of words, says, “Unless Congress acts, more states, counties, and cities will likely pass thuggish and spiteful laws that scare and scapegoat American citizens of certain ethnic heritages.” These laws passed by states like Arizona are neither thuggish nor spiteful. They are legitimate attempts by duly-elected local and state representatives of the people to deal with a problem that both the Congress and the Administration have chosen to ignore. To call these efforts thuggish and spiteful is an insult to the American people. The misguided use of such words is indicative of those with a mindset that favors illegal aliens over citizens and who therefore are responsible for the disconnect.
Both the Congress and the Administration have been deaf to the pleas of citizens for the immigration laws to be vigorously enforced. The E-verification system languishes because Congress has failed make it mandatory across the border for all employers, public and private, and all employees, both current employees and potential new hires.
Every member of congress has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic and bear true faith and allegiance to the same. They swear or affirm that they take that obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that they will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which they are about to enter. When it comes to illegal aliens, it becomes clear that the Congress has no intention of honoring that oath. They have a different agenda and the American people are just an impediment to that agenda.
Liberal “Sens. Harry Reid, Charles Schumer and Robert Menendez (RSM) recently released a conceptual proposal for immigration reform with a simple theme: If you obey our laws, learn our language and pay our taxes, we will welcome you to America.” Not so fast there, senators! We don’t need or want anymore impoverished immigrants to burden our social, educational, and medical services budgets and add to our crushing national debt. Instead, we need a national objective of a stable population to be achieved with a soft landing for our economy within twenty years.
The senators say nothing about the failure of the federal government to enforce the laws already on the book. Instead they trot out the tired cliché about “fixing our broken immigration system.” Before we can reach any conclusions about the effectiveness of the current immigration system, we must first make a comprehensive effort to enforce the existing immigration laws.
If the Senate proposal is turned into a bill and brought to the floor, we will see which members of Congress have the backbone to stand up for the national interest, national sovereignty, and national character and which will pander to special interest lobbies like La Raza and cheap labor interests. Polis talks about the disconnect between the Congress and the American people but fails to recognize that the RSM framework is a perfect example of that disconnect. Poll after poll has shown that the voters are opposed to amnesty for illegal aliens. Yet, Reid, Schumer, and Menendez have ignored those results and opted instead to include a form of amnesty in their framework. This will extend the disconnect not mend it.
Similarly, the House is working to pass some form of comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) that, like earlier laws, purports to secure our borders, restore the rule of law to our country, create jobs for Americans, prevent illegal immigration from occurring in our country, and provide for a new amnesty. In the minds of these legislators “CIR” is erroneously considered to be synonymous with “amnesty.”
Some argue that what is being proposed is not amnesty. Technically, it is not amnesty if any penalty is imposed, even if it is just a slap on the wrist or some requirements that will never be enforced. However, the common understanding of amnesty is any measure that allows illegal aliens to remain in this country and work, thereby rewarding them with the object of their illegality.
The Senate outline is a tired rerun of the same provisions and promises of the bills that failed in 2007 and 2008. The senators have tried to repackage those provisions to make it look like they have made some important compromises. But the amnesty provision that most Americans object to is still there in one form or another. A bill that omits the amnesty provision would garner widespread support. The other elements of the House version are important and would have a good chance for quick passage if the provisions for amnesty were removed. Our long experience with the existing laws has clearly demonstrated that none of the House provisions can be achieved without vigorous and continuous internal enforcement based on electronic verification of the work status of all employees. While adding more border patrol agents, improving border infrastructure, and revising the rules of engagement are all important, internal enforcement remains the sine qua non of in depth border security. Without internal enforcement, secure borders will remain a pipe dream. The failure of Congress to recognize this fact is part of the disconnect from will of the people.
Typically, Congress tries to candy coat each new proposal to assuage hunger of the voting public for real border security. But most of the proposals turn out to be just another snow job consisting of empty promises that will never be enforced.
No one is suggesting that all illegals should be deported en masse. Some foreign workers are important to our economy. If it can be shown that illegals in certain jobs have not displaced citizen workers, then green cards should be issued on a selective basis. However, foreign workers who have entered the U.S. illegally must never be eligible for citizenship. That is the least penalty that must be imposed to create the disincentive to violate our borders. However, if their foreign-born children remain in school and learn English and civics, they could become eligible for naturalized citizenship at age 21. Illegal aliens are more interested in legal status than they are in citizenship. They mainly want to be out from under the threat of deportation.
There is no reason why E-verify cannot be implemented immediately. We need it right now to detect Social Security name and number mismatches, duplicate and fraudulent Social Security numbers, and other fraudulent identification cards so that employers will no longer have any excuse for hiring or retaining individuals who are here illegally. It is against the law to “knowingly” hire illegal aliens. But employers can get off the hook easily by saying, “I didn’t know” so that loophole must be closed.
The fine for those who have worked here illegally should be based on the applicable tax bracket times the average earnings of illegals times the number of years worked. For example, if the applicable tax bracket is 15% and the average earnings of illegals is $30,000 per year and a particular individual has worked here for 10 years, his fine should be 0.15 x $30,000 x 10 or $45,000 payable over a 10 year period at $4,500 per year.
Polis quotes Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who studies immigration, as saying the Senate proposal "shows how far the Democrats have moved in terms of tougher and tougher enforcement" and that "across the board you see language that would be very comfortable in a proposal written by Republicans." If the Administration gives as much attention to enforcing the senate proposals as it has those already on the books, the new enforcement ideas will remain useless and meaningless. With no intention or mechanism for enforcement, the new proposals are just another attempt to hoodwink the public and facilitate the passage of the bill. As long as the bill contains anything that looks like amnesty it will not represent a true effort to solve the problem.
The RSM framework represents no significant departure from the existing unenforced statutes. It is just another cynical attempt on the part of the Congress to assuage the concerns of the voting public without any real plan to enforce the result, except for any amnesty provision. If the Congress really wanted to enact an immigration reform bill, the first step should be to remove anything that an ordinary citizen would consider to be tantamount to amnesty.
Polis asks, “Why does this disconnect persist? Should we blame the xenophobes who scream 'amnesty' at any reform effort? Or the civil libertarians who oppose any real type of verification of employment status?” The answer is: None of the above! Polis is simply indulging in insulting hyperbole when he refers pejoratively to “screaming xenophobes.” He doesn't mention those who fly foreign flags and demonstrate in the streets for rights they are not entitled to.
The disconnect persists because Congress has its own agenda and is not listening to the people. It would not be difficult to pass any necessary immigration reforms but the devil is in the details. If the Congress were to omit any amnesty considerations or pathways to citizenship, make internal enforcement the centerpiece of a reform bill, and make failure to enforce immigration laws an impeachable offense, the bill would have smooth sailing.
No matter what it is called or what penalties are imposed, amnesty is a nonstarter for the immigration debate. Amnesty, per se, is not immigration reform. Immigration reform is: (1) flexible immigration quotas tied to the total unemployment rate by sector; (2) a national objective of a stable population; (3) an end to chain immigrations except for the children and spouses of citizens; (4) a requirement for at least one parent to be a citizen before citizenship is granted to the child; (5) a delay in the award of citizenship until one’s 21st birthday; (6) English as the official language of the U.S.; (7) a system that requires employers to provide irrefutable evidence of need before any foreign worker can be hired; (8) a label on green cards that specifies what kind of work the aliens can perform; (9) a six month term working on border infrastructure for illegal aliens apprehended at the border or internally; (10) a rigid set of criteria for immigration decisions that excludes family separation as a valid basis for appeal; (11) a limit of no more than 250,000 legal immigrants per year in all categories including chain immigrations but excluding visas issued to students, tourists, and temporary migrant farm workers; (12) fast track citizenship for those who enlist in the armed forces for not less than 4 years and who have served at least one tour in a combat zone; (13) legal immigration quotas focused on those who possess innovative or entrepreneurial skills or who have successfully completed a PhD in a physical science, engineering, math or medicine; (14) a prohibition against citizenship for anyone who has entered the U.S. illegally; and (15) a requirement for true fluency in English before citizenship can be granted.
This framework for immigration reform that would eliminate the disconnect between the people and the Congress on this issue. It would sidestep the contentious issue of amnesty. Anyone opposing or delaying these immigration reforms will be seen as directly responsible for making the problem worse. Without swift and bold action, we will undoubtedly have many more illegal aliens living and working within our borders. In 1968 there were about 1.3 million illegals in the U.S. On the occasion of the 1968 amnesty bill Senator Ted Kennedy stood up and said,
“This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 -- 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another Amnesty Bill like this."
Now Rep. Polis, Senators Reid, Schumer, and Menendez and others are proposing another amnesty. It is déjà vu all over again.
If the 1.3 million in 1968 has grown to 12 million today, that would represent a compound rate of increase of 9.7% per year. At that rate the 12 million will become 12 million x 1.097^40 years = 487 million by mid-century. That is a staggering figure! No wonder Congress wants to sweep the 12 million under the carpet with a mass legalization and then begin to count all over again from zero. Although the math is correct, the demographers insist that our population will be “only” about 485 million by 2050. However, unless something is done besides putting words on paper in another useless bill, the U.S. population could easily exceed 1 billion by the end of this century.
Colorado Senators Michael Bennet and Mark Udall have ignored the cries from Main Street and have called upon Senate Majority Leader Reid to promote the same old amnesty ideas. Represenatives Ed Perlmutter, Diana DeGette and John Salazar have joined Representative Polis as co-sponsors of HR 4321, a new amnesty bill.
People shouldn't be able to cross the border without the proper documents, or to overstay their visas, and businesses shouldn't be able to exploit cheap labor off the books. This continues to happen because the Congress has yet to realize that internal enforcement is the essential ingredient. If the illegals believe that if they can escape the immediate environs of the border, they will be home free, they will keep coming no matter how many agents we assign to the border. East Germans were willing to brave mine fields, machine gun towers, and multi-layered fences and walls to escape to the West because they knew they would not be repatriated. With no such deterrents to contend with, illegal aliens will keep flooding across our borders because they know the probability of being apprehended and repatriated is nil under the current no enforcement policy. Polis is right when he says, “We must stop playing politics with a problem that we should have fixed long ago.” The fix is clear: no amnesty -- vigorous and continuous internal enforcement based on E-verification of work status. E-verify works and will become even better once we implement it across the board for all employers, public and private, and all employees, current and potential new hires.
Politicians in both parties have been barking up the wrong tree and need to come to grips with the fact that while improvements in border staffing, infrastructure, and rules of engagement are necessary, they are not sufficient without internal enforcement that conveys the message: “If you come here illegally, we will catch you and you will serve a minimum of six months working on border infrastructure before you are repatriated with the admonition that if you return you will do a minimum of two years of hard time. The East Germans found out that fences, walls, and mine fields are not enough to deter illegal border crossings. We need to take that lesson to heart and implement a bold program to apprehend and repatriate illegal aliens. Fences and border patrols are not enough.
“So let's not replay this Republican vs. Democrat game with immigration. Good ideas and solutions transcend party.” This issue is too important, and it's time for us to get behind a plan that provides border security in depth and denies jobs, citizenship, and sanctuary to illegal aliens. We know what will work. It is time to get off the amnesty bandwagon and get on with border security.
Polis seems to think that states like Arizona are diverting their police officers to enforce immigration laws. This is a misrepresentation of what the new Arizona immigration law requires. Since the state is overrun with illegal aliens and the federal government has failed in its duty to the people, Arizona has enabled police officers to check the bona fides of anyone they stop for other law infractions. The officers are not being diverted from their regular duties. They are merely being allowed to check legal residency status at the same time as they check other forms of identification such as drivers’ licenses and proof of insurance. The ability of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to apprehend illegal aliens is seriously compromised when the local law enforcement authorities in sanctuary cities are directed not to cooperate or assist in the task of apprehending illegal aliens. Given the huge size of the problem and the sheer volume of illegals in some communities, ICE agents are simply overwhelmed without the help of the police. There is no other solution than the one enacted in Arizona. ICE is dependent on the active assistance of local enforcement agencies in the performance of their regular duties.
In the absence of any effort by the current Administration in Washington to deal with the problem, States like Arizona are providing the leadership needed to turn the tide of illegal aliens by enabling local authorities to provide the assistance needed by ICE to do its job. Polis, using a very unfortunate choice of words, says, “Unless Congress acts, more states, counties, and cities will likely pass thuggish and spiteful laws that scare and scapegoat American citizens of certain ethnic heritages.” These laws passed by states like Arizona are neither thuggish nor spiteful. They are legitimate attempts by duly-elected local and state representatives of the people to deal with a problem that both the Congress and the Administration have chosen to ignore. To call these efforts thuggish and spiteful is an insult to the American people. The misguided use of such words is indicative of those with a mindset that favors illegal aliens over citizens and who therefore are responsible for the disconnect.
Both the Congress and the Administration have been deaf to the pleas of citizens for the immigration laws to be vigorously enforced. The E-verification system languishes because Congress has failed make it mandatory across the border for all employers, public and private, and all employees, both current employees and potential new hires.
Every member of congress has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic and bear true faith and allegiance to the same. They swear or affirm that they take that obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that they will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which they are about to enter. When it comes to illegal aliens, it becomes clear that the Congress has no intention of honoring that oath. They have a different agenda and the American people are just an impediment to that agenda.
Liberal “Sens. Harry Reid, Charles Schumer and Robert Menendez (RSM) recently released a conceptual proposal for immigration reform with a simple theme: If you obey our laws, learn our language and pay our taxes, we will welcome you to America.” Not so fast there, senators! We don’t need or want anymore impoverished immigrants to burden our social, educational, and medical services budgets and add to our crushing national debt. Instead, we need a national objective of a stable population to be achieved with a soft landing for our economy within twenty years.
The senators say nothing about the failure of the federal government to enforce the laws already on the book. Instead they trot out the tired cliché about “fixing our broken immigration system.” Before we can reach any conclusions about the effectiveness of the current immigration system, we must first make a comprehensive effort to enforce the existing immigration laws.
If the Senate proposal is turned into a bill and brought to the floor, we will see which members of Congress have the backbone to stand up for the national interest, national sovereignty, and national character and which will pander to special interest lobbies like La Raza and cheap labor interests. Polis talks about the disconnect between the Congress and the American people but fails to recognize that the RSM framework is a perfect example of that disconnect. Poll after poll has shown that the voters are opposed to amnesty for illegal aliens. Yet, Reid, Schumer, and Menendez have ignored those results and opted instead to include a form of amnesty in their framework. This will extend the disconnect not mend it.
Similarly, the House is working to pass some form of comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) that, like earlier laws, purports to secure our borders, restore the rule of law to our country, create jobs for Americans, prevent illegal immigration from occurring in our country, and provide for a new amnesty. In the minds of these legislators “CIR” is erroneously considered to be synonymous with “amnesty.”
Some argue that what is being proposed is not amnesty. Technically, it is not amnesty if any penalty is imposed, even if it is just a slap on the wrist or some requirements that will never be enforced. However, the common understanding of amnesty is any measure that allows illegal aliens to remain in this country and work, thereby rewarding them with the object of their illegality.
The Senate outline is a tired rerun of the same provisions and promises of the bills that failed in 2007 and 2008. The senators have tried to repackage those provisions to make it look like they have made some important compromises. But the amnesty provision that most Americans object to is still there in one form or another. A bill that omits the amnesty provision would garner widespread support. The other elements of the House version are important and would have a good chance for quick passage if the provisions for amnesty were removed. Our long experience with the existing laws has clearly demonstrated that none of the House provisions can be achieved without vigorous and continuous internal enforcement based on electronic verification of the work status of all employees. While adding more border patrol agents, improving border infrastructure, and revising the rules of engagement are all important, internal enforcement remains the sine qua non of in depth border security. Without internal enforcement, secure borders will remain a pipe dream. The failure of Congress to recognize this fact is part of the disconnect from will of the people.
Typically, Congress tries to candy coat each new proposal to assuage hunger of the voting public for real border security. But most of the proposals turn out to be just another snow job consisting of empty promises that will never be enforced.
No one is suggesting that all illegals should be deported en masse. Some foreign workers are important to our economy. If it can be shown that illegals in certain jobs have not displaced citizen workers, then green cards should be issued on a selective basis. However, foreign workers who have entered the U.S. illegally must never be eligible for citizenship. That is the least penalty that must be imposed to create the disincentive to violate our borders. However, if their foreign-born children remain in school and learn English and civics, they could become eligible for naturalized citizenship at age 21. Illegal aliens are more interested in legal status than they are in citizenship. They mainly want to be out from under the threat of deportation.
There is no reason why E-verify cannot be implemented immediately. We need it right now to detect Social Security name and number mismatches, duplicate and fraudulent Social Security numbers, and other fraudulent identification cards so that employers will no longer have any excuse for hiring or retaining individuals who are here illegally. It is against the law to “knowingly” hire illegal aliens. But employers can get off the hook easily by saying, “I didn’t know” so that loophole must be closed.
The fine for those who have worked here illegally should be based on the applicable tax bracket times the average earnings of illegals times the number of years worked. For example, if the applicable tax bracket is 15% and the average earnings of illegals is $30,000 per year and a particular individual has worked here for 10 years, his fine should be 0.15 x $30,000 x 10 or $45,000 payable over a 10 year period at $4,500 per year.
Polis quotes Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who studies immigration, as saying the Senate proposal "shows how far the Democrats have moved in terms of tougher and tougher enforcement" and that "across the board you see language that would be very comfortable in a proposal written by Republicans." If the Administration gives as much attention to enforcing the senate proposals as it has those already on the books, the new enforcement ideas will remain useless and meaningless. With no intention or mechanism for enforcement, the new proposals are just another attempt to hoodwink the public and facilitate the passage of the bill. As long as the bill contains anything that looks like amnesty it will not represent a true effort to solve the problem.
The RSM framework represents no significant departure from the existing unenforced statutes. It is just another cynical attempt on the part of the Congress to assuage the concerns of the voting public without any real plan to enforce the result, except for any amnesty provision. If the Congress really wanted to enact an immigration reform bill, the first step should be to remove anything that an ordinary citizen would consider to be tantamount to amnesty.
Polis asks, “Why does this disconnect persist? Should we blame the xenophobes who scream 'amnesty' at any reform effort? Or the civil libertarians who oppose any real type of verification of employment status?” The answer is: None of the above! Polis is simply indulging in insulting hyperbole when he refers pejoratively to “screaming xenophobes.” He doesn't mention those who fly foreign flags and demonstrate in the streets for rights they are not entitled to.
The disconnect persists because Congress has its own agenda and is not listening to the people. It would not be difficult to pass any necessary immigration reforms but the devil is in the details. If the Congress were to omit any amnesty considerations or pathways to citizenship, make internal enforcement the centerpiece of a reform bill, and make failure to enforce immigration laws an impeachable offense, the bill would have smooth sailing.
No matter what it is called or what penalties are imposed, amnesty is a nonstarter for the immigration debate. Amnesty, per se, is not immigration reform. Immigration reform is: (1) flexible immigration quotas tied to the total unemployment rate by sector; (2) a national objective of a stable population; (3) an end to chain immigrations except for the children and spouses of citizens; (4) a requirement for at least one parent to be a citizen before citizenship is granted to the child; (5) a delay in the award of citizenship until one’s 21st birthday; (6) English as the official language of the U.S.; (7) a system that requires employers to provide irrefutable evidence of need before any foreign worker can be hired; (8) a label on green cards that specifies what kind of work the aliens can perform; (9) a six month term working on border infrastructure for illegal aliens apprehended at the border or internally; (10) a rigid set of criteria for immigration decisions that excludes family separation as a valid basis for appeal; (11) a limit of no more than 250,000 legal immigrants per year in all categories including chain immigrations but excluding visas issued to students, tourists, and temporary migrant farm workers; (12) fast track citizenship for those who enlist in the armed forces for not less than 4 years and who have served at least one tour in a combat zone; (13) legal immigration quotas focused on those who possess innovative or entrepreneurial skills or who have successfully completed a PhD in a physical science, engineering, math or medicine; (14) a prohibition against citizenship for anyone who has entered the U.S. illegally; and (15) a requirement for true fluency in English before citizenship can be granted.
This framework for immigration reform that would eliminate the disconnect between the people and the Congress on this issue. It would sidestep the contentious issue of amnesty. Anyone opposing or delaying these immigration reforms will be seen as directly responsible for making the problem worse. Without swift and bold action, we will undoubtedly have many more illegal aliens living and working within our borders. In 1968 there were about 1.3 million illegals in the U.S. On the occasion of the 1968 amnesty bill Senator Ted Kennedy stood up and said,
“This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 -- 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another Amnesty Bill like this."
Now Rep. Polis, Senators Reid, Schumer, and Menendez and others are proposing another amnesty. It is déjà vu all over again.
If the 1.3 million in 1968 has grown to 12 million today, that would represent a compound rate of increase of 9.7% per year. At that rate the 12 million will become 12 million x 1.097^40 years = 487 million by mid-century. That is a staggering figure! No wonder Congress wants to sweep the 12 million under the carpet with a mass legalization and then begin to count all over again from zero. Although the math is correct, the demographers insist that our population will be “only” about 485 million by 2050. However, unless something is done besides putting words on paper in another useless bill, the U.S. population could easily exceed 1 billion by the end of this century.
Colorado Senators Michael Bennet and Mark Udall have ignored the cries from Main Street and have called upon Senate Majority Leader Reid to promote the same old amnesty ideas. Represenatives Ed Perlmutter, Diana DeGette and John Salazar have joined Representative Polis as co-sponsors of HR 4321, a new amnesty bill.
People shouldn't be able to cross the border without the proper documents, or to overstay their visas, and businesses shouldn't be able to exploit cheap labor off the books. This continues to happen because the Congress has yet to realize that internal enforcement is the essential ingredient. If the illegals believe that if they can escape the immediate environs of the border, they will be home free, they will keep coming no matter how many agents we assign to the border. East Germans were willing to brave mine fields, machine gun towers, and multi-layered fences and walls to escape to the West because they knew they would not be repatriated. With no such deterrents to contend with, illegal aliens will keep flooding across our borders because they know the probability of being apprehended and repatriated is nil under the current no enforcement policy. Polis is right when he says, “We must stop playing politics with a problem that we should have fixed long ago.” The fix is clear: no amnesty -- vigorous and continuous internal enforcement based on E-verification of work status. E-verify works and will become even better once we implement it across the board for all employers, public and private, and all employees, current and potential new hires.
Politicians in both parties have been barking up the wrong tree and need to come to grips with the fact that while improvements in border staffing, infrastructure, and rules of engagement are necessary, they are not sufficient without internal enforcement that conveys the message: “If you come here illegally, we will catch you and you will serve a minimum of six months working on border infrastructure before you are repatriated with the admonition that if you return you will do a minimum of two years of hard time. The East Germans found out that fences, walls, and mine fields are not enough to deter illegal border crossings. We need to take that lesson to heart and implement a bold program to apprehend and repatriate illegal aliens. Fences and border patrols are not enough.
“So let's not replay this Republican vs. Democrat game with immigration. Good ideas and solutions transcend party.” This issue is too important, and it's time for us to get behind a plan that provides border security in depth and denies jobs, citizenship, and sanctuary to illegal aliens. We know what will work. It is time to get off the amnesty bandwagon and get on with border security.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
An Immigration Poll
Here's a poll I would like to see:
1. Should illegal aliens be allowed to remain in the U.S. and work if they are in jobs citizens would take if offered a living wage and a hiring preference?
2. Is giving precedence to illegal aliens over the wishes of citizens an act of disloyalty to this country?
3. Is it both a right and a responsibility of a democratic society to manage immigration so that it serves the national interest?
4. Should the United States take whatever steps are necessary to preserve our national sovereignty, character, language, ideals, history, the rule of law, and the national interest?
5. Do you believe the authors of the 14th Amendment would have imagined their words would bestow citizenship to the offspring of illegal aliens, tourists, foreign students, or temporary farm workers?
6. Do you believe that there could be a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry, that is 14th amendment birthright citizenship?
7. Do you believe the term "comprehensive immigration reform" (CIR) is a code term for "amnesty?"
8. Should English be the official language of the United States and used exclusively in all official documents, ballots, publications, and proceedings at all levels of government?
9. Should Public Interpreters, like Public Defenders, be provided to those who cannot afford one or who do not have a family member who can serve in this capacity?
10. Should all other interpreters be provided only on a billable basis?
11. Would a consolidated counterfeit-proof, machine-readable, biometric ID containing the information from Social Security cards, green cards, driver licenses, library cards, voter registration, proofs of auto and health insurance, thumb prints, photos, physical descriptions, coded DNA info, and a record of military service help sort out illegal aliens from citizens in border states and reduce the possibility of racial profiling?
12. Should employers be required to present irrefutable proof that they have been uable to fill their jobs with citizens workers before they are authorized to retain or hire any foreign workers?
13. Should any benefits other than those mandated by federal law be provided to illegal aliens?
14. Should illegal aliens under a removal order be required to take their minor children with them, regardless of the children's citizenship?
15. Should illegal aliens who are ill be deported after their condition has be stabilized?
16. Should foreign women who are pregnant be denied entry into the U.S. and the opportunity to have an instant 14th amendment citizen baby on U.S. soil?
17. Should chain immigrations be allowed for other than the children and spouses of U.S. citizens?
18. Should chain immigrations be counted against the overall immigration quota?
19. Should total legal immigration be reduced to the 1965 level to enable our population to be stabilized?
20. Do you believe that the "limit" of finite natural resources per capita as population grows without bounds is zero?
21. Do you believe that those who have entered our country illegally should ever be granted a pathway to citizenship?
22. Do you believe that the common understanding of amnesty is anything that permits illegal aliens to remain and work in the U.S.?
23. Are you in favor of comprehensive immigration reform if it involves amnesty for tens of millions of illegal aliens?
24. Do you think we should have objective evidence that the borders are secure before any other immigration reforms are undertaken?
25. Should true fluency in English be a requirement for citizenship?
26. Should immigration quotas be focused on applicants who can fill a demonstrated need of our economy or who possess the education, entrepreneurial spirit, innovative skills, or inventiveness needed to keep America competitive in the global economy?
27. Should citizenship be expedited for immigrants and foreign students who have successfully completed a PhD degree in engineering, physical science, math, or medicine?
28. Is focusing on the population or area where illegal aliens are most likely to be found a form of racial profiling?
29. Would less than 10,000 apprehension per year at the border and internally represent secure borders?
30. Is internal enforcement with penalties for both employers and illegal alien employees essential to achieve secure borders?
31. Can our borders ever be secure without internal enforcement?
32. Should illegal aliens who are apprehended serve at least six months working on border infrastructure before they are repatriated?
33. Should repeat offenders do hard time?
34. Should border violations be considered class 3 felonies?
35. Now that the U.S. is fully settled and developed, do we have any need or obligation to admit more immigrants?
36. Are immigrants more energetic and inventive than current citizens?
37. Is a systematic, stepwise approach to immigration reform in a series of separate shorter simpler bills a better approach than a thousand page bill?
38. Does the rule of law apply to illegal aliens?
39. Should immigration laws currently on the books be fully enforced?
40. Should any failure to enforce immigration laws be cause for termination of INS, ICE and Border Patrol agents, and higher level officials in the Administration?
50. Should we negotiate an agreement with our neighbors to permit hot pursuit of drug smugglers and the use of lethal force when they fail to halt when ordered?
51. Should an American labor protection provision be included in all immigration legislation?
52. Should deportation procedures and appeals be simplified to assure minimum detention periods and expeditious deportation?
53. Should all deportations be classified as involuntary even if the deportee agrees to self deport and does so at his own expense?
54. Should employers be held accountable for the immigration status of all employees whether or not they hired them knowingly or intentionally without regard to that status?
55. Should employers be held responsible for all the health care costs of their foreign employees and their families?
56. Should cross border traffic and work commutes be reduced to enable the Border Patrol to do a more effective job of identifying potential terrorists?
57. Should the type of work that a foreign worker is authorized to do be specified on the ID?
58. Should Executive Order 13166 requiring multi-lingual ballots be repealed?
59. Should dual citizenship and dual allegiance be allowed?
60. Should the U.S. provide free schooling for Mexican children in American schools near the borders?
61. Should there be restrictions on the display of foreign flags at other than foreign embassies and consulates except by permit for ethnic holiday parades?
62. Should illegal aliens who participate in street demonstrations be arrested?
63. Do we need a new alien and sedition act to cover illegal aliens and their fellow travelers and supporters?
64. Should any statements by foreign dignitaries regarding our immigration or other laws be treated as interference in our internal affairs?
65. Do we need a law that holds those who aid and abet border violators accountable?
66. Do we need a provision that enables local communities to enact measures to help enforce immigration laws?
67. Should local police and sheriffs' offices be required to determine the immigration status of any one apprehended for other law violations and hold any illegals until ICE takes custody?
68. Should local jurisdictions be enabled to charge illegal aliens with criminal trespass?
69. Should all zoning regulations regarding occupancy rates in private residences be fully enforced?
70. Should all foreign workers who qualify for legal status be paid at the same rate as their citizen counterparts with the same skill level and experience?
71. Should employers who fail to pay foreign workers at the American standard wage be prosecuted for unfair competition?
72. Should anyone who registers for voting using fraudulent documents be sentenced to five years in jail?
73. Should a five year jail term be imposed on anyone permitting or encouraging false voter registration?
74. Should there be a regular audit of voter registration roles to determine the extent of irregularities and to permit the prosecution of those responsible?
75. Should we set higher standards for citizenship by naturalization?
76. Should the U.S. adopt a plan to achieve a stable population?
77. Should Roy Beck be the Executive Director of the INS?
78. Should the deductions for exemptions for dependent children be limited to two per couple?
79. Should we deny cross border permits for work commuters?
80. Should NAFTA be repealed?
81. Should only American tractors be allowed on American highways?
82. Should a cap and trade policy for family size be adopted?
1. Should illegal aliens be allowed to remain in the U.S. and work if they are in jobs citizens would take if offered a living wage and a hiring preference?
2. Is giving precedence to illegal aliens over the wishes of citizens an act of disloyalty to this country?
3. Is it both a right and a responsibility of a democratic society to manage immigration so that it serves the national interest?
4. Should the United States take whatever steps are necessary to preserve our national sovereignty, character, language, ideals, history, the rule of law, and the national interest?
5. Do you believe the authors of the 14th Amendment would have imagined their words would bestow citizenship to the offspring of illegal aliens, tourists, foreign students, or temporary farm workers?
6. Do you believe that there could be a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry, that is 14th amendment birthright citizenship?
7. Do you believe the term "comprehensive immigration reform" (CIR) is a code term for "amnesty?"
8. Should English be the official language of the United States and used exclusively in all official documents, ballots, publications, and proceedings at all levels of government?
9. Should Public Interpreters, like Public Defenders, be provided to those who cannot afford one or who do not have a family member who can serve in this capacity?
10. Should all other interpreters be provided only on a billable basis?
11. Would a consolidated counterfeit-proof, machine-readable, biometric ID containing the information from Social Security cards, green cards, driver licenses, library cards, voter registration, proofs of auto and health insurance, thumb prints, photos, physical descriptions, coded DNA info, and a record of military service help sort out illegal aliens from citizens in border states and reduce the possibility of racial profiling?
12. Should employers be required to present irrefutable proof that they have been uable to fill their jobs with citizens workers before they are authorized to retain or hire any foreign workers?
13. Should any benefits other than those mandated by federal law be provided to illegal aliens?
14. Should illegal aliens under a removal order be required to take their minor children with them, regardless of the children's citizenship?
15. Should illegal aliens who are ill be deported after their condition has be stabilized?
16. Should foreign women who are pregnant be denied entry into the U.S. and the opportunity to have an instant 14th amendment citizen baby on U.S. soil?
17. Should chain immigrations be allowed for other than the children and spouses of U.S. citizens?
18. Should chain immigrations be counted against the overall immigration quota?
19. Should total legal immigration be reduced to the 1965 level to enable our population to be stabilized?
20. Do you believe that the "limit" of finite natural resources per capita as population grows without bounds is zero?
21. Do you believe that those who have entered our country illegally should ever be granted a pathway to citizenship?
22. Do you believe that the common understanding of amnesty is anything that permits illegal aliens to remain and work in the U.S.?
23. Are you in favor of comprehensive immigration reform if it involves amnesty for tens of millions of illegal aliens?
24. Do you think we should have objective evidence that the borders are secure before any other immigration reforms are undertaken?
25. Should true fluency in English be a requirement for citizenship?
26. Should immigration quotas be focused on applicants who can fill a demonstrated need of our economy or who possess the education, entrepreneurial spirit, innovative skills, or inventiveness needed to keep America competitive in the global economy?
27. Should citizenship be expedited for immigrants and foreign students who have successfully completed a PhD degree in engineering, physical science, math, or medicine?
28. Is focusing on the population or area where illegal aliens are most likely to be found a form of racial profiling?
29. Would less than 10,000 apprehension per year at the border and internally represent secure borders?
30. Is internal enforcement with penalties for both employers and illegal alien employees essential to achieve secure borders?
31. Can our borders ever be secure without internal enforcement?
32. Should illegal aliens who are apprehended serve at least six months working on border infrastructure before they are repatriated?
33. Should repeat offenders do hard time?
34. Should border violations be considered class 3 felonies?
35. Now that the U.S. is fully settled and developed, do we have any need or obligation to admit more immigrants?
36. Are immigrants more energetic and inventive than current citizens?
37. Is a systematic, stepwise approach to immigration reform in a series of separate shorter simpler bills a better approach than a thousand page bill?
38. Does the rule of law apply to illegal aliens?
39. Should immigration laws currently on the books be fully enforced?
40. Should any failure to enforce immigration laws be cause for termination of INS, ICE and Border Patrol agents, and higher level officials in the Administration?
50. Should we negotiate an agreement with our neighbors to permit hot pursuit of drug smugglers and the use of lethal force when they fail to halt when ordered?
51. Should an American labor protection provision be included in all immigration legislation?
52. Should deportation procedures and appeals be simplified to assure minimum detention periods and expeditious deportation?
53. Should all deportations be classified as involuntary even if the deportee agrees to self deport and does so at his own expense?
54. Should employers be held accountable for the immigration status of all employees whether or not they hired them knowingly or intentionally without regard to that status?
55. Should employers be held responsible for all the health care costs of their foreign employees and their families?
56. Should cross border traffic and work commutes be reduced to enable the Border Patrol to do a more effective job of identifying potential terrorists?
57. Should the type of work that a foreign worker is authorized to do be specified on the ID?
58. Should Executive Order 13166 requiring multi-lingual ballots be repealed?
59. Should dual citizenship and dual allegiance be allowed?
60. Should the U.S. provide free schooling for Mexican children in American schools near the borders?
61. Should there be restrictions on the display of foreign flags at other than foreign embassies and consulates except by permit for ethnic holiday parades?
62. Should illegal aliens who participate in street demonstrations be arrested?
63. Do we need a new alien and sedition act to cover illegal aliens and their fellow travelers and supporters?
64. Should any statements by foreign dignitaries regarding our immigration or other laws be treated as interference in our internal affairs?
65. Do we need a law that holds those who aid and abet border violators accountable?
66. Do we need a provision that enables local communities to enact measures to help enforce immigration laws?
67. Should local police and sheriffs' offices be required to determine the immigration status of any one apprehended for other law violations and hold any illegals until ICE takes custody?
68. Should local jurisdictions be enabled to charge illegal aliens with criminal trespass?
69. Should all zoning regulations regarding occupancy rates in private residences be fully enforced?
70. Should all foreign workers who qualify for legal status be paid at the same rate as their citizen counterparts with the same skill level and experience?
71. Should employers who fail to pay foreign workers at the American standard wage be prosecuted for unfair competition?
72. Should anyone who registers for voting using fraudulent documents be sentenced to five years in jail?
73. Should a five year jail term be imposed on anyone permitting or encouraging false voter registration?
74. Should there be a regular audit of voter registration roles to determine the extent of irregularities and to permit the prosecution of those responsible?
75. Should we set higher standards for citizenship by naturalization?
76. Should the U.S. adopt a plan to achieve a stable population?
77. Should Roy Beck be the Executive Director of the INS?
78. Should the deductions for exemptions for dependent children be limited to two per couple?
79. Should we deny cross border permits for work commuters?
80. Should NAFTA be repealed?
81. Should only American tractors be allowed on American highways?
82. Should a cap and trade policy for family size be adopted?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)