Indigenous Xicano's Post

Indigenous Xicano”s “The Law is the Law” is a generally moderate and well-written post that is worth thoughtful consideration.

He writes “The law is the law. So let us treat everyone the same. Show empathy for first-time offenders. Offer an avenue of forgiveness as we do to those who break the law and never get in trouble again. Allow good hard working people a chance to pay a price for their crime of illegal entry...”

Unfortunately he glibly dismisses phrases like, “… ‘the law is the law’ and, ‘no nation can exist without laws’ by declaring them to be meaningless in any intelligent conversation. Without those introductory remarks his post would have been more effective. His cavalier dismissal of such important concepts lost some potential readers immediately.

He goes on to explain the first “meaningless” phrase by giving its real meaning as

“…it is against the law to enter, reside, and work in the U.S.” if you have not followed the proper procedures and obtained the proper documents." There is nothing meaningless about that. He adds that the law requires that "...workers who are here illegally should be deported." Again there is nothing meaningless about that aspect of the law if one believes in national sovereignty and secure borders.

Xicano agrees that “…no nation can exist without laws”, the very foundation of civilized society. But his argument breaks down when he then suggests that this does not include any laws with which he disagrees or which in his personal judgment are not working. He does not indicate who appointed him as the final arbiter of which laws are not working and which are simply not being enforced by the current Administration for political reasons.

Xicano does admit that some laws are needed and good, for example, those that proscribe murder as a solution to societal problems. However, he doesn’t address the fact that those laws do not prevent murder and many go unsolved and unpunished. Yet, he uses that very argument against immigration laws. The only difference is the immigration laws have rarely been properly and vigorously enforced. When they were, the result was astonishingly effective. If it was easy to impeach Administration officials for their failures in that regard, the problem would be quickly solved and the argument against those laws would fall on deaf ears.

We can concede that no laws are perfect in their conception and execution. However, we cannot agree that the “…presence and functionality of illegal immigration suggest that the current laws do not work.” While they are far from adequate for the 21st century, no judgment can be made about their effectiveness because they have not been continuously and vigorously enforced in a consistent way that would enable such an assessment. Xicano seems to suggest that if laws are not working because of their imperfections or a lack of enforcement, we should simply sweep the problem under the carpet by changing the law to absolve those who have violated the law. Such an approach would truly undermine the rule of law and encourage people to follow only those laws that serve their purposes and that are consistent with their risk tolerance.

Citing the Michael Vick example of forgiveness and another chance, Xicano tries to convince us that we should extend the same opportunity to non-citizens. He fails to mention that Michael Vick did a significant amount of prison time and that he can no longer even own a dog. First time immigration offenders are usually given a second chance. They generally can self-deport without any other consequences unless they have committed a felony in which case they may have to serve time like Michael Vick did before they are free to return to their homelands. In other words, we do allow good hard-working people a chance to pay for their crime of illegal entry by correcting their previous transgressions and returning to their homelands until they can return legally. Self-deportation is a huge loophole in the law because those who self-deport can and do return without being considered felons subject to mandatory removal.

Compassion and Generosity for Americans

In the in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries America welcomed many European immigrants who spoke little or no English. Many of them got jobs that have lost their appeal since that time. Can you imagine spending eight hours a day or longer splitting beef or pork carcasses with what looked like a huge long-handled cleaver or be-heading ax? I suppose that if those jobs hadn't gone to immigrants, they would have gone to Americans. And Americans were usually given first dibs because they spoke English. However, if, because of a labor shortage, the jobs could not be filled with citizens, the immigrants were put to work. If there was a recession or “panic” as they were sometimes called, immigrants found it tough- going. Some returned to their homelands because they concluded they wouldn’t be any worse off there than they were in America without work.

Given our immigrant back ground, some think it's hypocritical of us to close the doors behind us (unless you're a pure Navajo), yet there's a genuine problem with the impact of immigration on the poorest Americans. Moreover, America today is hardly the same as it was in those earlier centuries. In the earliest days, a largely unsettled continent lay before the Founding Fathers. Native Americans might disagree with that but it is true in comparison with today’s population of 308 million. Natural resources like fish, game, timber, water, minerals and arable land seemed limitless. Now we know they are not. The amount of arable land is declining as developers and others cover it with concrete for highways, streets and condominiums. Water in the Southwest is a critical resource as water rights continue to be bought up by cities to serve their burgeoning populations, leaving the farm and ranch land unproductive for lack of water.
True immigration reform must be based on the current population, physical and resource status of America, and not some romantic notion about the days when we were indeed a nation of immigrants. We must think in terms of what immigration and tax policies will best preserve our quality of life and our standard of living. Neither a respect for our immigrant past nor compassion for all the impoverished millions of the world should be the guiding principle for immigration reform.
I used to favor a program to allow in guest workers and temporary migrant farm workers, thinking it would be good for them and also great for America by providing a source of low-cost labor. But we are no longer living in the 18th, 19th or 20th centuries. It was good for America to admit our own ancestors when times were different but immigration policies require a proper consideration of the economic, natural resource, and population environment of today rather than living in the past and extending compassion to others at the expense of our own citizens.
Illegal aliens overwhelmingly are hard-working people who help to keep the economy humming, but sometimes just establish businesses to serve others like themselves and while competing directly with citizen owned and operated businesses. The most important fact, however, is that they are here illegally. They deserve to be treated just like other lawbreakers, as human beings but who have violated the rules. If they are living a marginalized life in the shadows, they have no one to blame but themselves. It represents the minimum punishment for their transgressions. What they really deserve is systematic identification, apprehension, detention and expeditious, involuntary repatriation. Even those who choose to self-deport must be categorized as involuntary removals so that if they return they will be considered felons and repeat offenders.
This may seem unduly harsh to some, especially those who think the basis for such a policy is merely xenophobic resentment rather than the other far more important factors. Xenophobia, racism, nativism, and bigotry all pale in significance in relation to our finite natural resources, the supremely important quality of life and standard of living considerations, and the rule of law. We have already seen what the erosion of the concept of the rule law produces in the lawlessness, murder and mayhem endemic in Northern Mexico and the border areas of Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas

The impulse behind immigration reforms should not be a misguided generosity or compassion. The cold reality is that admitting poor immigrants often means hurting poor Americans. We can salve the pain with job programs for displaced Americans, but the fundamental trade-off is unavoidable. But that is not the only outcome. Ordinary Americans who are not so poor are also hurt by a population out of control driven largely by excessive legal immigration and the flood of illegal aliens from south of the border. And American is hurt by an immigration program that is structured so as to bring in cheap laborers more than brilliant minds. At last count, only 16 percent of admissions for permanent residence went to those with employment qualifications, while the great majority went to applicants on the basis of family ties. Giving priority to chain immigrations is just another example of a poor immigration policy. There is no reason to give favorable immigration treatment to adult relatives of citizens or permanent residents. They should be required to compete on a level playing field with all other adult applicants.
Given the paucity of engineering and science terminal degrees earned by citizen students, we must extend accelerated citizenship to foreign students who complete the PhD in engineering, physical science, medicine and mathematics. This the only way we can remain competitive in the global economy. That approach should be supplemented with a major new scholarship program for those Americans who have the capability and desire to succeed that the PhD level in those fields. We have more than enough lawyers and social studies professors so they would not be eligible for such scholarships.

Extensively modified and adapted from Nicholas Kristof, April 9, 2006, NYT

My Wish List for 2011

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

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

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

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

For continued improvement in the economy.

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

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

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

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

For an end to sanctuary cities.

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

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

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

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

For performance-based school funding and teachers salaries.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For a repeal of NAFTA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Congress will take a Different Line on Immigration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Barack Obama could be a wild card.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lame Duck Demos and RINOS Fail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support Arizona's Law Against Illegal Immigration!

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

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

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

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

So, why doesn't Missouri receive attention?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Dee Perez-Scott: SB1070 Reduces Crime in Phoenix

La Reconquista

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

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

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

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

Let's call it Mexifornia!

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

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

The Lamentations of Dee Perez-Scott

Dee Perez-Scott
Don't let that chubby little smile fool you. Behind it lies a person who gives precedence to illegal aliens over the national interest.

Dee rails against everything on the Right regardless of the truth. An advocate, like Dee, or advocacy organization like La Raza, is not interested in truth -- it is committed in advocating a certain position regardless of the facts. Dee is the grand dame of the left-wing, ethnocentric CIR advocates, mainly because, in large part,CIR is synonymous with amnesty for 12 million illegal aliens and easier chain immigration. She, and her cohort, look at the illegals and say, "What is the problem?"

With enough rhetoric from the left, they are able to watch the naked emperor and exclaim, "How splendid the emperor's new clothes; how well they fit; and what a magnificent train." To avoid appearing stupid or insensitive, they see what is not there. And fail to see what is.

The liberal propagandists in the media are nothing but a feeding trough for the supporters of illegals, brewed in a caldron of bias, stirred by anti-America,left-wing statist politicians and elitist social engineers masquerading as humanitarians.
And sucking up like chubby piglets are thousands of myopic idiots. It is a blatant lie put forth by the media and in the blogosphere that attempts to portray opponents of La Raza-style CIR as fringe elements rather than those in the mainstream of America who want their country back.

Dee Perez-Scott Opposes Real Immigration Reform - Dave Gibson Examiner

Is Mexico annexing the U.S. through their so-called "anchor babies?" The widely known but always down-played Reconquista Movement is alive and well and coming to a town near you. Mexico is taking much of this country through very aggressive illegal immigration, as well as an equally aggressive birth rate. Some point out that babies cannot anchor anyone until they are 21 years old. Under the current unwritten policy of the Obama Administration, anyone with children born in the U.S. will not be deported, a complete reversal of the prior policy which did not allow this as a basis for appeal.

The Pew Hispanic Center just announced the results of a recent study which found that of the 4.3 million babies born in the U.S., during 2008, about 340,000 were born to illegal aliens.

The study found that children born to illegal aliens account for 7 percent of the total population of people under the age of 18, or 5.1 million children. 79 percent of those children were born in the United States, automatically making them U.S. citizens.

The goal of the Reconquista Movement was once designed to takeover the southwestern border states of California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas. However, through the exploitation of the 14th Amendment, illegal aliens are now building colonies in every state of the union.

The following statistics provided by the U.S. Census Bureau are staggering and frightening:

-In 2005, Latinos accounted for half of the U.S. population growth.

-The total U.S. population more than doubled from 131.7 million in 1940 to 290.8 million in 2003, the Latino population increased nearly 30 times in that same period. In 1940, the Latino population within the U.S. was 1.4 million, by 2003 it had swelled to 40 million.

-Between 2000-2003, the Latino population within the U.S. grew at a rate of 13 percent, while the U.S. non-Latino population grew at a rate of only 0.8 percent during the same period.

-Recently, the ethnocentric Latino group known as La Raza proudly reported on their website that 85 percent of the Latino population under 18 were born inside the United States. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 80 percent of our Latino population is age 44 or younger, which means that the vast majority of Latinos in the U.S. are still of child-bearing age.

With the unchecked illegal immigration crisis, this country will become another Latin American nation in our lifetime. What will this mean to you?...The disappearance of the English language, the destruction of our traditional American culture, the over-population of our cities, epidemics of once-thought eradicated diseases, crushing poverty, and soaring crime.

Considering the fact that illegal aliens already account for 29 percent of this nation's prison population, we can expect that prison building will become the new growth industry.

Public schools will only teach English as a second language, and municipal services will be stretched beyond their limits.

But the real problem will be that our politics will be controlled by those whose loyalties actually lie with another nation. Once our political system becomes dominated by illegal aliens and their offspring, our resources will no longer be our own, but will be used only to benefit Mexico.

If an effort is not made to protect our border with Mexico and we do not soon adopt a sensible immigration policy--the United States as we know it will cease to exist in the near future. Birthright citizenship has been the fear of those of us that want a sovereign America. If left unchecked, the ‘anchor baby’ movement will be the death knell of the USA, without a shot fired.

Legal Brief filed by Nine States in support of AZ law

DETROIT — States have the authority to enforce immigration laws and protect their borders, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox said Wednesday in a legal brief on behalf of nine states supporting Arizona's immigration law.

Cox, one of five Republicans running for Michigan governor, said Michigan is the lead state backing Arizona in federal court and is joined by Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia, as well as the Northern Mariana Islands.

The Arizona law, set to take effect July 29, directs officers to question people about their immigration status during the enforcement of other laws such as traffic stops and if there's a reasonable suspicion they're in the U.S. illegally.

President Barack Obama's administration recently filed suit in federal court to block it, arguing immigration is a federal issue. The law's backers say Congress isn't doing anything meaningful about illegal immigration, so it's the state's duty to step up.

"Arizona, Michigan and every other state have the authority to enforce immigration laws, and it is appalling to see President Obama use taxpayer dollars to stop a state's efforts to protect its own borders," Cox said in a statement.

Arizona's Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, in a statement released by Cox's office, said she was thankful for the support.

In a telephone interview, Cox said the nine states supporting Arizona represents "a lot of states," considering it was only Monday that he asked other state attorneys general to join him. The brief was filed in U.S. District Court in Arizona on the same day as the deadline for such filings.

"By lawsuit, rather than by legislation, the federal government seeks to negate this preexisting power of the states to verify a person's immigration status and similarly seeks to reject the assistance that the states can lawfully provide to the Federal government," the brief states.

The brief doesn't represent the first time Cox has clashed with the Obama administration. Earlier this year, he joined with more than a dozen other attorneys general to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of federal health care changes signed into law by the Democratic president.

Like with his stance on health care, the immigration brief again puts Cox at odds with Democratic Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm. Granholm, who can't seek re-election because of term limits, disagrees with the Arizona law, her press secretary Liz Boyd said. The Michigan primary is less than three weeks away on Aug. 3.

"It's a patently political ploy in his quest for the Republican nomination for governor," Boyd said. [And a damned good one too given the mood of the country!}

Immigration Laws in Missouri

On July 7, 2008, Governor Matt Blunt signed a comprehensive immigration bill that implements new restrictions on illegal immigrants
and imposes new requirements on government officials and businesses. In addition to the provisions discussed in more detail below,
the legislation requires law enforcement agencies to verify the legal status of arrested persons, establishes penalties for those who assist
illegal aliens in obtaining driver’s licenses and prohibits local governments from creating sanctuaries for persons who are in the United
States illegally. Most of the provisions of the new law concerning businesses will take effect January 1, 2009.
Four principal provisions of the legislation that may affect a business are related to the following topics:
• Use of a federal electronic employment eligibility verification program, known as “E-Verify”
• Agreements between general (or sub-) contractors and direct subcontractors regarding the employment of illegal immigrants
• Proper classification of workers: Are they employees or independent contractors?
• Transporting illegal immigrants for employment purposes
Electronic Verification of Employment Authorization Mandatory for Some Employers
The law makes clear that business entities and employers are prohibited from knowingly employing, hiring, or continuing to employ
illegal immigrants to perform work in Missouri.
Under the new law, all Missouri public employers must use E-Verify, a federal employment eligibility verification program that
searches records from the Social Security Administration and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. In addition, as a condition
for the award of a state (or political subdivision) contract or grant in excess of $5,000, or to qualify for a state-administered tax credit,
tax abatement, or loan from the state, business entities must use E-Verify for employees working in connection with the contracted
services.
Private employers do not have to use E-Verify, but they may want to consider doing so, because, under the new law, participation in
the program is an affirmative defense to an allegation that a business entity knowingly employs an illegal immigrant.
The Attorney General’s Office is charged with enforcing these provisions, and, to that end, may bring a civil action if it reasonably
believes a business entity knowingly employed an illegal immigrant.
Penalties include suspension of business permit, license or exemption of the business for 14 days (for first violations), for one year
(for second violations) or permanently (three or more violations). In addition, an employer will be expected to correct the violations
by either terminating the unauthorized employee or requesting secondary verification through E-Verify, and submit a sworn affidavit
explaining how the violations were corrected and documentation proving that the employer has enrolled in E-Verify.
In addition to the above penalties, state contractors and entities receiving tax abatements, etc. that knowingly employ an unauthorized
immigrant will be deemed in breach of contract, and the state may terminate the contract or suspend or debar the entity from doing
business with the state for a period of three years (for first violations) or permanently (for two or more violations). In addition, the
state may withhold up to 25 percent of the total amount due to the business entity upon termination of the contract.
A business entity that terminates an employee in accordance with the new law will not be liable for any claims regarding the termination
brought under the Missouri Human Rights Act.

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.

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.

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.

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.