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

Monday, November 29, 2010

An Excellent Post for Dee Perez-Scott

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

Saturday, November 27, 2010

DREAM -- The Nightmare Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, November 26, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, November 8, 2010

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

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

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

So, why doesn't Missouri receive attention?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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