Dee Perez-Scott - Alice in Wonderland Tea Party

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dee: And what about Christine McConnell in Delaware?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interview #3 with Dee Perez Scott -- Islam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interview #2 with Dee Perez-Scott -- the 14th Amendment

Ultima: I hope you found the blog transcript of my last interview with you to be fair and accurate.

Dee: I suppose I could nitpick the transcript but, yes, basically it reflects my views on the matter.

Ultima: Okay let’s move on to another topic. First, however, let me clear up one other issue. You have been quoted as saying, "I am as gentle as a grandmotherly lamb. I always remain civil and never name call". Somehow that doesn’t seem very truthful to me. Many of your posts (and those of your proxies who post on your blog) literally drip with venom and incivility. That means that any claim to being gentle as a lamb lacks credibility. There are many ways to be uncivil and name call. For example, recently you posted an image of six distinguished United States senators which you inscribed with the following legend, “hydro-head, hate-filled, racist Republicans.” Now if that is not name-calling, I don’t know what is. Had I recorded every similar episode from your long history of rants, incivility, and name-calling, you would be convicted a thousand times over by your own words. There would be such a large volume of those words and their repetition that the conclusion would be undeniable. To give you your dues, you seem to have a schizoid personality which allows you to post some factual news items without much if any spin. Then you turn right around and lose it, returning to your invective and name-calling mode. I can’t explain it any other way than to attribute it to a schizoid personality, unless you are just pretending when you seem reasonable. With those observations out of the way, let’s move on to the 14th Amendment controversy. As long as it is the law of the land, we all have a responsibility to adhere to it and no one to my knowledge has been able to do otherwise.

Dee: I won’t respond to your charge of incivility and name-calling except to point out that you have frequently responded in kind. As far as the 14th Amendment is concerned, you are right; it is a part of the constitution and we all should act accordingly.

Ultima: At some point in the recent past, you seemed to suggest that the Constitution should not be changed but the fact of the matter is that the Constitution has been amended 27 times and there is at least one amendment out there, the Equal Rights Amendment for Women, that has still not received the necessary approval of 3/4ths of the states. There are likely to be more in the future and we are fortunate that the Founding Fathers made a provision for doing so. In recognition of the difficulty in gaining full approval of Constitutional Amendments, the current trend seems to be to rely on a legislative solution that would ultimately have to be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Dee: I don’t believe that is possible since the Court has already affirmed the meaning of the Amendment in 150 cases. It would therefore be a waste of time for Congress to take such an action.

Ultima: Some may think the 14th Amendment is “elegant in its simplicity” but the number of cases brought to test that simplicity would suggest otherwise. Usually the only way to correct a defective amendment is with another amendment to the U.S Constitution. However, another way the Constitution's meaning is changed is often referred to as "informal amendment." This phrase is a misnomer, because there is no way to informally amend the Constitution, only the formal way. However, the meaning of the Constitution, or the interpretation, can change over time.

Dee: I don’t believe that.

Ultima: There are two main ways that the interpretation of the Constitution changes, and hence its meaning. The first is simply that circumstances can change, like the present circumstances in which, unlike before the 1986 amnesty, 12 million illegal aliens now exist within our borders. One prime example is the extension of the vote. In the times of the Constitutional Convention, the vote was often granted only to moneyed land holders. Over time, this changed and the vote was extended to more and more groups. Finally, the vote was extended to all males, then all persons 21 and older, and then to all persons 18 and older. The informal status quo became law, a part of the Constitution; because that was the direction the culture was headed. Another example is the political process that has evolved in the United States: political parties, and their trappings (such as primaries and conventions) are not mentioned or contemplated in the Constitution, but they are now fundamental to our political system.

Dee: Those two examples don’t quite seem to be the same as the presence of illegal aliens since some number of them, Chinese, Irish, Italian, Mexican and others have always been present in our country.

Ultima: Perhaps not but in the U.S., one of the strongest incentives for border violations is the 14th amendment which grants citizenship to anyone who is born in this country. “It is difficult to imagine 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 [birthright citizenship].” Since the current interpretation of the 14th promotes border violations, anyone who is interested in securing the borders needs to help find a way to achieve a more rational interpretation.

Dee: I think the current interpretation has withstood the tests of time and therefore I support it. There are other ways of securing the borders which we discussed in a previous interview.

Ultima: The authors of the 14th Amendment never would have imagined their words would bestow citizenship on the offspring of illegal aliens, tourists, foreign students, visa overstays, and temporary farm workers. If an act of Congress could be brought before the Supreme Court, the majority of the Justices might agree that times have indeed changed sufficiently to warrant a different view of the Amendment, especially in view of the fact that other most developed countries, with the exception of Canada, have already abandoned Jus Soli as the primary determiner of citizenship.

Dee: Do you really think it is likely that the Court would overturn all of those prior precedents?

Ultima: One of the cases often cited as evidence of the meaning of the 14th Amendment is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). This was a United States Supreme Court decision that set an important legal precedent about what determines United States citizenship. The legal question presented to Court was:
“[W]hether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, were subjects of the Emperor of China, but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.”
The Court ruled decisively, 6 – 2, in favor of Wong Kim Ark. But, since Ark’s parents were here legally, had a permanent domicile and residence in the U.S., and were carrying on a business, the Court did not address the question of the offspring of illegal aliens and tourists who had no such legal status or domicile.
The minority also argued that "it is not open to reasonable doubt that the words 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the amendment, were used as synonymous with the words 'and not subject to any foreign power' . . . ." They thus reasoned that the majority opinion exactly contradicted the original intended meaning of the 14th Amendment.

Dee: This is all very interesting but it does not alter the difficulties faced by those who wish to have the Amendment reinterpreted to exclude the children of illegal aliens and tourists.

Ultima: I take it this is another area where you would not be supportive of any change that would improve border security by reducing the incentives for illegal entry.

An Interview with Dee Perez-Scott – Anti-America, Pro-Illegal

Ultima: What do you think it would take to secure our border?

Dee: I believe in a secure border, but I don't believe in a 2000 mile fence.

Ultima: That doesn’t really answer the question. It’s so easy to give lip service to secure borders because that costs nothing. Talk is cheap; effective action is what counts. You didn’t mention whether you support drones, and staffing and infrastructure improvements at the border.

Dee: I do support the improvements you mentioned. I just don’t believe a fence would be very effective.

Ultima: The fence seems to have worked quite well in the areas where it has been installed. Admittedly, the fence diverts some of the illicit traffic to other areas but if the terrain is more difficult in those areas, then the fence has served its purpose. What else would you propose to secure the borders if you were in charge?

Dee: Well, I have always been in favor of employer sanctions. If the penalties are high enough, employers will find that it is not profitable to hire undocumented workers.

Ultima: That brings up another point. Why do you insist on using the euphemism “undocumented worker” when “illegal alien” is both more descriptive and more accurate whether the border jumper is employed or not.

Dee: Well, I just think it sounds better because while illegal entry is a crime, illegal presence is only a civil offense appropriately dealt with by deportation.

Ultima: So you are a firm believer in political correctness even though it disguises the truth?

Dee: I guess that is one way of looking at it. Euphemisms may weaken the language of discourse but it shows a greater sensitivity to the plight of some people.

Ultima: Getting back to the issue of border security, I note that you focused only on the employers. I take it you would not apply any sanctions to the illegal aliens in their employ. Why is that? Aren’t they both at fault in one way or another? After all the illegal aliens committed a crime when they crossed the border and now are subject to civil action that could result in deportation. The employer, of course, knowingly hired the illegal aliens who are not entitled to work in the U.S.

Dee: I take the view that if there are no jobs, there will be no incentive for border violations. Therefore, if we have an escalating schedule of fines and jail time for employers, they will no longer find it profitable to hire undocumented workers.

Ultima: How would you go about identifying miscreant employers?

Dee: (silence)

Ultima: Okay, if you don’t have an answer to that question, let me supply one. There is a perfectly good way of doing this which is called E-Verification. If all employers, public and private, were required to use E-verify to check the bona fides of all employees, both current and potential new hires, we would soon know who the miscreants are. Those employers with a significant number of employees with social security name and number (ssn) mismatches, duplicate ssns, and fictitious ssns could be subjected to frequent on site audits at their own expense and significant penalties. Of course, the illegals in their employ should be rounded up ad detained pending an expedited immigration hearing and decision.

Dee: I don’t like the idea of roundups or workplace audits. These undocumented workers are just trying to improve the lot of their families. They should not be treated as common criminals or cattle to be rounded up and herded back to their homelands.

Ultima: I understand your position on this but I believe that position is in conflict with your purported position on securing the borders. Most reasonable people would see that the border patrol will never be able to apprehend all of those who violate our borders so if we are serious about border security, we must buttress our efforts at the borders with vigorous internal enforcement to create the necessary disincentive for those who evade the border patrol. If they are quickly apprehended and repatriated, they will soon learn that entering our country illegally is a losing proposition.

Dee: What you say is true. However, I am inclined to ignore all those who are already here and those who are able to evade the border patrol, unless they have committed serious crimes. That appears to be the Administration’s current policy.

Ultima: You are right about the Administration's policy and that is why we have so many illegals in this country and why the hemorrhaging continues at the border. The current policy and what you propose creates an incentive rather than a disincentive for border violations.

The East Germans found to their dismay that even mine fields, machine gun towers, multi-layered fences and walls did not deter those who wished to escape to the West. Why? Because they knew if they made it, they would never be repatriated? We need to take that lesson to heart. If illegal aliens believe if they can escape the immediate environs of the border, they will be home free and that the probability of being apprehended and repatriated will be very low, then they obviously will keep coming. That means border security is seriously undermined by the lack of the threat and the actuality of the expeditious apprehension and repatriation which are an essential part of border security in depth.

Dee: I understand what you are saying but I tend to come down on the side of the illegal aliens, rather than the side of my fellow citizens and the strict enforcement of the law.

Ultima: I believe we have exhausted this topic. In summary, you have indicated that you are in favor of secure borders but would deny us tools like E-Verification, workplace audits, and vigorous internal enforcement necessary to achieve that goal. And moreover, you have admitted that you give precedence to the illegal aliens over the rule of law and the wishes of your fellow citizens.

Sentence increased for Illegal Aliens

In a much-needed legal victory for the often defeated immigration enforcement movement, a federal appellate court has ruled that a criminal’s sentence can be increased if he or she is in the United States illegally.

The case involves a pair of illegal aliens (Hector Loaiza-Sanchez and Jose Luis Juarez-Gonzalez) who pleaded guilty in an Iowa federal court to drug felonies, conspiring to distribute and possessing with intent to distribute a substantial quantity of methamphetamine.
Federal sentencing guidelines for such crimes range from 168 to 210 months for each defendant. A northern Iowa district court judge, Mark Bennett, said that he would have sentenced the illegal immigrant drug dealers near the bottom of the guidelines if they were in the country legally. Due to their unauthorized status, Judge Bennett instead slapped one defendant with a 188-month punishment and the other with 200 months.

The illegal aliens appealed, claiming that their sentence was improperly based on their immigration status and that it’s illegal to use alienage as a reason to increase a sentence. Upholding Judge Bennett’s decision, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week that unauthorized immigrant status is separate from alienage because not all Hispanics are in the country illegally.

The appellate court dismissed the defendants’ suggestion that taking immigration status into account is national origin discrimination because the majority of illegal aliens are Hispanic. “A person’s legal status as a deportable alien is not synonymous with national origin,” the court points out in its 7-page ruling.

Furthermore, the ruling says, judges are allowed to consider all information concerning the background, character and conduct of an individual when sentencing them. Guidelines specifically point out that a sentence can be lengthened when the defendant’s criminal history does not completely characterize his illegal acts and entering the country without papers is an illegal act, the judges write.

Tell that to the open borders movement, which includes President Obama and the cabinet official he appointed to protect the nation from foreign threats.

No New Amnesty!

History demonstrates that another amnesty will encourage more desperate people to come here illegally. It happened after the 1986 amnesty. In that instance, 3 million people were legalized on the premise that there would be robust immigration enforcement to stop more people from coming, according to the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. The U.S. administration failed to provide this promised enforcement and millions more came here illegally; and still coming.

Rector stated" Current immigration practices, both legal and illegal, operate like a system of trans-national welfare outreach bringing millions of fiscally dependent individuals into the U.S. This policy needs to be changed. U.S. immigration policy should encourage high-skill immigration and strictly limit low-skill immigration. In general, government policy should limit immigration to those who will be net fiscal contributors, avoiding those who will increase poverty and impose new costs on overburdened U.S. taxpayers."

Means-tested programs are typically termed welfare programs. Unlike direct benefits, means-tested programs are available only to households below specific income thresholds. Means-tested welfare programs provide cash, food, housing, medical care, and social services to poor and low-income persons. For example, children in illegal immigrant households are eligible for and do receive public education. We all know by now nobody asks for immigration status at the emergency room, whereas Americans must supply a driver’s license and SS #. So then debt collection companies can hunt YOU unmercifully for payment, while illegal aliens walk out never to be seen again.


The Us Border Patrol estimates that an average of 10,000 illegal aliens cross the border every day - over 3 million per year. A third will be caught and many of them immediately will turn around and try again. About half of those remaining will become permanent (ILLEGAL) U.S. residents.

Illegal aliens have cost billions of taxpayer-funded dollars for medical services. Dozens of hospitals in Texas, New Mexico Arizona, and California, have been forced to close or face insolvency since federally-mandated programs requiring free emergency room services to illegal aliens. Taxpayers pay half-a-billion dollars per year incarcerating illegal alien criminals.

In just the state of California in relating to birthright citizenship FAIR estimates "there are currently between 287,000 and 363,000 children born to illegal aliens each year. This figure is based on the crude birth rate of the total foreign-born population (33 births per 1000) and the size of the illegal alien population (between 8.7 and 11 million). In 1994, California paid for 74,987 deliveries to illegal alien mothers, at a total cost of $215.2 million (an average of $2,842 per delivery). Illegal alien mothers accounted for 36 percent of all Medi-Cal funded births in California that year."

EVERY INCUMBENT, CAREER POLITICIAN WHO HAS A BAD IMMIGRATION RECORD, BEGINNING WITH SEN. HARRY REID AND HIS CZARS MUST BE REMOVED FROM THEIR SEAT IN WASHINGTON. THE ASYLUM IN WASHINGTON NEEDS A CHANGE OF GUARDS? JOIN NUMBERSUSA AND AID IN FIGHTING AGAINST AMNESTY OR BENEFITS FROM THIS INVASION. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! Tell your Representative in Washington at 202-224-3121 and State level officials. Remember illegal aliens could have voted in the midterm elections? The Obama administration has shown its true colors, that illegal immigration is a great way to collect votes in the future by pacifying large minority groups.

--Brittanicus