Forum: Political Forum - Spirited Political comedy. All serious political and World Event posting is also to be posted in this forum.

Thread: Anti Immigration & Illegal Immigration Info - Ongoing Thread

  1. #26  
    RX Local roadreeler57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Reply With Quote  

  2. #27  
    RX Local roadreeler57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Reply With Quote  

  3. #28  
    Rx. Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Orlando, Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by roadreeler57 View Post
    Becoming Illegal (From a Maryland resident to his senator)

    The Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes
    Senate Office Building
    309 Hart
    Washington DC, 20510

    Dear Senator Sarbanes,

    As a native Marylander and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue
    Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the
    Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process
    for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.

    My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to
    illegal alien stems from the bill which was recently passed by the
    Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill's
    provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the Unit ed
    States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a
    $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years.
    I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the
    process started before everyone figures it out.

    Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay
    taxes every year so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two
    years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way
    that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an
    excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes
    in 2004 and 2005.

    Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local
    emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have
    stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant
    figures I could save almost $10,000 a year. Another benefit in
    gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive
    preferential treatment relative to her law school applications,
    as well as "in-state" tuition rates for many colleges throughout
    the United States for my son.

    Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the
    burden of renewing my driver's license and making those burdensome
    car insurance premiums. This is very important to me given that I
    still have college age children driving my car.

    If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become
    illegal (retroactively I f possible) and copies of the necessary forms,
    I would be most appreciative. Thank you for your assistanc e.

    Your Loyal Constituent,
    Pete McGlaughlin

    Get your Forms (NOW)!! Call your Internal Revenue
    Service 1-800-289-1040. Please pass this onto your friends so they
    can save on this great offer!!!!

    Explain it to me once more: WHY do I have to "Press 1 for English"?
    I love this's a classic.
    Reply With Quote  

  4. #29  
    RX Local roadreeler57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Some truths are self evident


    What It Means to Be an American Patriot

    By Gary Palmer

    Posted on: July 8, 2007

    Over the Independence Day holiday, my family and I watched the movie The Patriot starring Mel Gibson as Benjamin Martin, a South Carolina militia colonel. While there are certain historical inaccuracies in the movie, including the misrepresentation of the brutal incineration of women and children, the film is worth watching. There is one line in particular that I missed in my previous viewings of the movie. After Gen. Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown and it was apparent America had gained her freedom, Col. Martin wrote to his children, “My hope, my prayer, is that the sacrifices borne by so many will spawn and fulfill the promise of our new nation.”

    While Col. Martin is a fictitious character, his words ring as true as those of any of our Founding Fathers. These movie lines echo Lincoln’s admonition at Gettysburg that those who followed would not squander the sacrifices of those who “… gave the last full measure of devotion.”

    Not surprisingly, the vast majority of Americans consider themselves to be patriotic and do respect and honor the sacrifices of the men and women who have given their lives for our republic. In fact, a January 2007 Princeton Survey Research Associates/Pew poll found that 90 percent of Americans consider themselves “completely or mostly” patriotic.

    This raises the question: What does it really mean to be patriotic in America today?

    Patriotism as our Founding Fathers understood it was not pride in the land in a nationalistic sense. The foundation of American patriotism rests firmly on our ideals. It is what we believe about the relationship between people and their government that makes America different from the citizens of other nations. Upholding the ideals that our Founders set forth in the Declaration and protected in our Constitution means that we as citizens have a responsibility to hold our elected and appointed officials accountable to the Declaration and Constitution.

    By this standard, patriotism could be better measured by our understanding of core founding principles and our willingness to defend them against all enemies, foreign and domestic, including those who hold elected or appointed office, whether they are Democrats or Republicans. This requires a different kind of patriotism in that it also requires citizens to be educated and engaged.

    Patriotism must be based on a love for the ideals and principles upon which America was founded. The essence of America is that we are a nation of ideals, of free people and free markets, of people committed to the idea that we are all created equal with unalienable rights endowed to us by our Creator.

    Moreover, America was founded on the ideal that the only legitimate role of government is to protect those rights within the limited powers granted to it by the people. In this regard, we are different from any other nation in the history of the world. Consequently, our view of what it means to be a patriot is different that any other nation in the world.

    On January 11, 1989, in his farewell address to the nation, President Ronald Reagan said that one of the things he was most proud of as a result of his eight years as president was the resurgence of national pride; he called it the new patriotism. Reagan warned that the new patriotism would not last “… unless it’s grounded in thoughtfulness and knowledge. An informed patriotism is what we want.”

    Our nation needs a patriotism that calls each generation to do its part to guarantee, as Lincoln said at Gettysburg, “ … that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” To ensure this will require a renewed commitment to teach our citizens America’s history, core principles and what it means to be an American patriot. Only then can we fulfill the promise of this nation and make certain that those who gave their lives for our liberty “… shall not have died in vain.”
    Reply With Quote  

  5. #30  
    RX Local roadreeler57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Reply With Quote  

  6. #31  
    RX Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Roadreeler, nice job.
    Reply With Quote  

  7. #32  
    RX Local roadreeler57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Thanks Gameface.....Buster thanks for the add in.....More later...Keep the pressure on,Join the fight @ Rememer theres strength in numbers..Thanks Jim M.
    Reply With Quote  

  8. #33  
    RX Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2004

    They will not sleep until they shove this down are throats.
    Reply With Quote  

  9. #34  
    RX Local roadreeler57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Department of Physics, University of Colorado at Boulder : April 15 , 2006 -- by Albert A. Bartlett

    "Thousands of new jobs have been created in the last several decades in every major city that has experienced population growth. If creating jobs in a city reduced unemployment in the city, then each of these cities should now have an unemployment rate that is less than zero, whatever that means..." April 15, 2006


    Essentially every politician in America, at the local level, the state level, and the national level, promises to work to create new jobs in his or her jurisdiction. This seems to be regarded as the highest service a politician can render to constituents.


    Did you know that creating jobs in a community increases the number of people in the community who are out of work?


    Suppose the equilibrium unemployment rate in a community and across the country is 5%. A company comes into the community, builds a factory, and starts hiring people. This reduces the local unemployment rate to, say, 3%. Then what happens? People from the outside move into the community to take jobs so that the unemployment rate is returned to its equilibrium value of 5%. But because the population of the community has grown, the number of unemployed people is now 5% of the larger population. When the equilibrium unemployment rate is restored, more people are out of work in the community than before.

    Every time you create 100 new jobs in a community, you create 4 or 5 more unemployed people in the community.


    Thousands of new jobs have been created in the last several decades in every major city that has experienced population growth. If creating jobs in a city reduced unemployment in the city, then each of these cities should now have an unemployment rate that is less than zero, whatever that means. In spite of all of the growth, the unemployment rate in these cities is never far from the national average unemployment rate. So creating jobs in these cities has caused population growth but it has not caused any long-term reduction in the unemployment rate, so more individuals are out of work than before.


    As long as people can move freely around the country to take jobs wherever they wish, creating new jobs in a community will always, in the long run, increase the number of people in the community who are out of work. So we can see that creating jobs in a community is an appealing mechanism for promoting population growth of the community. Considering all of the environmental destruction, congestion, crowding and increased taxes that are caused by growth it is clear that creating jobs is a promotion of quantity rather than quality. And we need to remember that, contrary to what the promoters say, the growth never pays for itself.

    Population growth increases the rate of consumption of fossil fuels and other non-renewable resources so that these resources won't be available for the use of future generations. This led the late David Brower to say words to the effect that,

    "Promoting population growth is simply a sophisticated way of stealing from our children."

    Reply With Quote  

  10. #35 numbersusa newsletter 8-8-07 
    RX Local roadreeler57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=650 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD rowSpan=3> </TD><TD class=t1fromdatetext>From: Dave Gorak </TD></TR><TR><TD class=t1fromdatetext>Date: Aug. 7, 2007 9:15 p.m. </TD></TR><TR><TD class=t1fromdatetext> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=t1redunderbigheader>LETTER SUCCESSES – Week ended Aug. 4 </TD></TR><TR><TD class=t1thinwhitespace> </TD></TR><TR><TD class=t1letterblock vAlign=top align=left>DO NOT REPLY TO THIS E-MAIL. PLEASE SEND ALL PUBLISHED LETTERS AND QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE LETTER-WRITING PROGRAM TO:

    Dave Gorak



    --Following is the published letters report for the period July 29-Aug. 4

    --As always, this memo is intended for participants in this program,plus a few friends, and not for wide distribution. Editors tend not to publish letters they suspect are part of an organized letter-writing campaign. So, please refrain from cc:ing us on your letters-to-the-editor and from talking about the program in public forums.

    --And please remember to include the full name of the paper that ran your letter and the date.

    -- NumbersUSA forwards these letters to you so you can share in the success of the program and see the published efforts of our writers. As a reminder, however, the letters are personal and do not necessarily represent NumbersUSA positions.

    RECOMMENDED WRITING STYLE: We recognize that each of you has the ability to make your own decisions about how to write your letters. NumbersUSA's opinion is that letters are more likely to be published and more likely to help our cause of dramatic immigration reductions if they are written in a temperate, self-controlled way that avoids name-calling and arguments based on race, religion or national origin. A strong use of a few facts, voting records, concise analysis and sometimes humor seems the best way to advance our arguments. We encourage specific criticism of open-border politicians and others, but caution against "in your face" rhetoric. Firm but civil argument tends to get the best results. You, of course, are free to disagree. We applaud all published letters that advocate for our immigration-reduction goals, but we may not disseminate those that move outside the tone that we encourage, a tone that many newspapers include in their own letters to the editor guidelines.

    --Thanks to you all.


    North County Times - 7/29
    (1) Bernard Dick Blom

    News-Leader (Mo.) – 7/29
    (2) John Decker

    The Examiner (Washington, D.C.) – 7/30
    (3) Al Eisner

    Odessa (Texas) American – 7/31
    (4) Stacy Wright

    Atlanta Journal-Constitution – 8/1
    (5) Edward A. Watkins

    The Tennessean – 8/1
    (6) Mike Beauchane

    Appen Newspapers (Ga.) – 8/1
    (7) D.A. King

    The Seattle Times – 8/2
    (8) Eldon Ball

    Chicago Tribune – 8/3
    (9) Dell Erickson

    Standard Examiner (Utah) - 8/3
    (10) Barbara Vickroy


    News-Leader (Mo.) - 7/23
    (11) Ben Kellerman

    North County Times - 7/29

    A one-issue voter

    I have always disapproved of the single-issue voter, feeling it is narrow-minded and shortsighted. But I find I am becoming just that. I have been a Democrat, agreeing with that party on most issues.

    I have always been strongly opposed to the war in Iraq, even though it doesn't touch me personally. That is true of most issues; I have good health insurance, have no personal stake in gay marriage or abortion. In fact, most of the issues for me are academic. But illegal immigration actually affects my life.

    I strongly believe English should be our only language, since the lack of a single language is the most divisive thing possible for our society. Illegals drag down wages for so many Americans, and are a drain on all of our social services. Appalling irresponsibility is shown by some illegals: example, driving with no driver's license, insurance or vehicle registration, only to run away if they have an auto accident.

    Any candidate or party that will work to actually secure our borders, enforce existing employment laws and work to create a national ID card that can't be counterfeited has my one-issue vote.

    Bernard Dick Blom
    Oceanside, Calif.

    News-Leader (Mo.) – 7/29

    Diversity harms, not helps, nations

    What did our founding fathers think about immigration? Let's look back to their comments.

    Thomas Jefferson in his Notes on Virginia posed the question, "Are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected by a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners?"

    He went on to say, "Suppose 20 millions of Republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom?" Jefferson asked. "If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here." (He speculated what would happen with half a million, not the 20 million that have invaded the U.S.)

    Alexander Hamilton was even more blunt. He invited his fellow Americans to consider the example of another people who had been more generous with immigration policy than prudence dictated: the American Indians. He wrote, "Prudence requires us to trace the history further and ask what has become of the nations of savages who exercised this policy, and who now occupies the territory which they then inhabited? Perhaps a lesson is here taught which ought not to be despised." Hamilton was likewise unconvinced that diversity was a strength. The safety of a republic, according to him, depended "essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment, on a uniformity of principles and bias and prejudice, and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family."

    He then drew out the implications of this point. "The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency."

    George Washington contended in a 1794 letter to John Adams that there was no particular need for the U.S. to encourage immigration, "except of useful mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions." He continued: "The policy or advantage of its taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for by so doing, they retain the language, habits and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them." Rufus King, a Massachusetts delegate to the Constitutional Convention, wrote in 1798 that emigrants from Scotland had typically brought with them certificates from "the religious Societies to which they belonged." That testified to their good character.

    These were the mental giants who formed and brought about our great country, perhaps we should listen closely to their words, not the mental midgets occupying political offices and the bureaucracy today. Ever wonder why the media never asks the hard questions? Could it be they know politicians today have no interest in doing what is right or best for our country, only what gets the most media attention and gets votes, the country be damned? Just my humble opinion. I want everyone to think. This is our country and we have a responsibility to be informed. Elections are not popularity contests.

    John Decker
    Ozark, Mo.

    The Examiner (Washington, D.C.) – 7/30

    Montgomery County shouldn’t run immigrant day labor center

    Montgomery County has no business operating a day labor center here and supporting illegal immigrants.

    I wish to call on responsible elected officials to quit funding this center with our tax dollars and just close it down. I resent the fact that the money we pay to the county is being used to support Illegal immigrants, who are a burden to this county and utilize these facilities illegally.

    Illegal immigrants overburden our school and medical care systems and cause overcrowding in our neighborhoods by having numerous families reside in one dwelling. They continue to violate the county housing code and have become a burden on law enforcement.

    The day labor center only encourages them to move here and become a burden to the citizens. The only good solution is for Montgomery County to quit funding the center and close it down for good.

    Al Eisner
    Wheaton, Md.

    Odessa (Texas) American – 7/31
    Facts are facts

    The most important thing I continue to get from David Johnson’s flawed history lessons is his continued insistence that since the invading flood of illegal aliens is composed of mostly Mexicans or Hispanics is that it is OK for them to ignore our laws and legal borders.

    In at least one poll, conducted in 2002 by Zogby in Mexico, 58 percent of respondents agreed with the statement that “the territory of the United States’ Southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico.” This being based on the pretense that much of the Southwest was wrongfully taken from them in the war during 1846-’47 under the presidency of James K. Polk. Johnson’s history lesson wrongfully attributes this to the “Buchanan administration.”
    If Johnson wants to get technical on what belonged to whom and when, we can go all the way back to the amoebas. One wonders where Johnson’s loyalty lies since he supports the invasion of the United States by Mexico.

    There is absolutely nothing complicated about the illegal alien invasion into my country.

    The fact is Mexico is a corrupt country rich in mineral wealth that has two classes of people — the very rich connected and the very poor that the Mexican government encourages to illegally invade the United States and goes so far as to give them information comic book-style on how to avoid United States law enforcement.

    Then we have the greedy rich in America unwilling to pay Americans living wages, or cut into their million-dollar perks, and employ illegal aliens at substandard wages so they can cut wages and living conditions of American citizens.

    I guess stories of first-generation Europeans coming to America and changing their names and learning the language/customs can be discounted as “white” European lies. Most came for the opportunity to better them selves and become Americans. To become an American meant a lot to the newcomers with the ideal to be relatively free to seek better lives.

    As to the cost of illegal aliens to taxpayers, facts are facts and they are easily proved or disproved. To dismiss facts out of ignorance or to suggest they are used dishonestly without proof is a cop-out.

    “A new study by the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector found a household headed by an individual without a high school education, including about two-thirds of illegal aliens, costs U.S. taxpayers more than $32,000 in federal, state and local benefits. That same family contributes an average of $9,000 a year in taxes, resulting in a net tax burden of $22,449 each year.”

    Add to this fact the fact that illegal aliens with the illegal help of many United States banks accepting false Matricula Consular identification cards sent back to Mexico an estimated 20 billion dollars in 2007.

    All that money taken from the U.S. economy while taxpaying citizens subsidize illegal aliens to the tune of an estimated $12 to $16 billion (based on facts put forth by Joe Dunn in the Stanford Review), in taxes.

    As to Johnson’s statement, “I feel Wright’s statement that America was built on the backs of the middle class gets to the heart of our disagreement and is worth examining.” I feel the true middle class that built this nation into greatness occurred during and after World War II as our economy expanded greatly without a flood of illegal aliens.

    In the words of a great American and presidential candidate Tom Tancredo, who is concerned about our nations future and the unrelenting government approved invasion: “We are facing a situation, where if we don’t control immigration, legal and illegal, we will eventually reach the point where it won’t be what kind of a nation we are, balkanized or united, we will actually have to face the fact that we are no longer a nation at all.”

    Myself and millions of other Americans agree with this statement and feel that the unrelenting government approved invasion is the worst thing happening to this nation of all times.

    Stacy Wright
    Odessa, Texas

    Atlanta Journal-Constitution – 8/1

    Immigration debate: Responses to "Last stop for immigrants," Metro, July 30

    On deportation, follow Cobb's lead

    Good for Cobb County. At last, a local jurisdiction has taken meaningful steps to reduce the problem of illegal immigrants in this area.

    Pursuant to an agreement between Cobb County and federal authorities, Cobb is initiating deportation proceedings against illegals arrested for violation of law rather than allowing them to post bond, as in the past. The case in point is Maria Rivera, who was previously deported and chose to re-enter the country illegally and was apprehended for multiple violations of law by Cobb authorities.

    Rivera has three children now living in Chicago while she is in jail in Cobb. It's unfortunate for her children, and too bad for her, that she chose to enter America illegally and then commit multiple violations of law. Her children's future is in doubt due to her illegal activities.

    If she really cares for these children, she will take them back to Mexico if she is deported, as I hope she will be. As heartless as this may sound, we have no choice if we are to stop enabling illegal immigration and re-establish American sovereignty.

    It's time for some tough love. Cobb's program should be a model for all of Georgia and, in fact, for the entire United States.

    Edward A. Watkins
    Lilburn, Ga.

    The Tennessean – 8/1

    Politicians need to do their job

    It’s a saddening trend across this great nation, politicians and law enforcement alike are afraid to protect the people who elected them and pay their salaries. I’m referring to Mayor Carneal and city manager Paul Nutting and their comments on the incident with fireworks and the police. They refuse to put the blame on those responsible. I grew up in Springfield’s notorious Southtown, the problem lies with the parents of these soon to be convicts. Arrest not only the teenage thugs, but the parents as well and if all else fails, the Housing Authority has the right to evict them.

    There are too many handgun permit holders in Robertson County for the mayor and manager not to address this. Had this been a licensed permit holder instead of the police, it would have been a bloody mess! And justified. Read the law, put someone in fear of their life and you could lose yours. Address the real problem, mayor.

    The other issue is illegal immigrants. From the news clip on channel 5, Mayor Carneal, you are apparently more concerned with pandering to this group. This group did not elect you to office. On the surface it appears you’re going along with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Even when your son was running for office, you acted as though illegals being here was OK. It’s the wrong attitude. City manager Paul Nutting last year you wanted to address this issue. Did the raise that put your salary over $100,000 change your attitude?

    And I can’t just lay this all on these two. Our County Mayor and commissioners have yet to show any fortitude. Are you as elected officials really going to sit back and pretend your hands are tied? Or will you act when you lose a family member as I have? I do not care what conditions they live in back in whatever country they came from. I really don’t care how many businesses close up in Robertson County because they can no longer pay an illegal immigrants low wages. And so those who do use illegals know, I do turn your business information over to ICE ( Immigration and Custom Enforcement) 1-866-347-2423, call and help take back our county.

    Law enforcement has the authority to enforce all laws on the books, they refuse to do this in our county. They arrest drug dealers and bank robbers which are federal laws. Our Sheriff’s Department is getting a new $30 million jail and all top deputies have new patrol cars. So why do we not have the 287g program? Cost an excuse? Not anymore, there are Homeland Security grants that help pay all or some of the cost. However they will not admit to this. No more excuses, do your jobs or resign from office.

    Mike Beauchane
    Springfield, Tenn.

    Appen Newspapers (Ga.) – 8/1

    Amnesty for aliens not worth the price

    There is an old axiom for writers that is too often ignored: Write about what you know.

    This reader thinks that Mr. Appen's ill-informed column regarding State Senator Chip Rogers' and his Georgia Security and Immigration Compliance Act (SB 529) and the huge majority of Americans who opposed the recent attempt at amnesty for illegal aliens and illegal employers is a good example of ignoring that advice.

    It could be true that Americans will pay a little more for living in the United States if we are ever successful in finding a president and a Congress that will secure our borders as is required by the constitution.

    It would seem a no-brainer to most, considering the war on terror. Let's try it!

    Some of us – who are paying attention – know that the price of labor in our agriculture industry represents less than 10 percent of the final retail price in the supermarket. We could double the wages of farm workers and not drastically increase our food costs.

    We hope Mr. Appen writes about that someday soon.

    Maybe if we actually find a government that will equally apply the rule of law upon which our great nation was founded, we will see the price of homes rise somewhat. Paying Americans a living wage to work in our construction industry doesn't seem so very extreme to this long-time American.

    To preserve the rule of law, return to a common language and enjoy defended and defined borders, most Americans without a vested and direct interest in employing black market labor apparently are willing to forgo amnesty.

    According to a December 2005 AJC/Zogby poll, more than 82 percent of Georgians wanted something done about illegal immigration on a state level.

    Mr. Appen seems to ignore the fact that there is no such thing as cheap labor. It is actually taxpayer subsidized labor and that we all pay considerably to provide the services to illegals that they cannot afford on the artificially low wages paid to them by the criminal employers.

    "Get out your wallets" indeed.

    It is a federal crime to assist, transport, harbor, employ or to encourage an illegal alien to remain these United States. The penalty is increased for doing so for commercial profit.

    Because of Chip Rogers' legislation, employers in Georgia no longer have a better chance of being struck by lightning than suffering consequences for drawing illegals into our state.

    Rogers should be considered a hero for suffering the name-calling and personal attacks that always come with speaking out for the American people who have little voice in their own nation when the big money is allowed to decide which laws are to be enforced.

    What we don't know is if Appen understands that we tried amnesty in 1986. We were told then that if we granted amnesty to about 1 million illegals, our government would then secure our borders and begin to sanction the employers who violated the laws. The "one time" amnesty of '86 turned out to be applied to nearly 3 million victims of geography.

    Look around, it didn't stop illegal immigration. Amnesty is not enforcement.

    We are now told, more than 21 years later, that there are 12 million illegals here. Most of us who study the issue understand that figure to off by at least half.

    English is now an optional language in Georgia.

    We also know that Appen is not a news hound, as he writes about new state laws that make it much more difficult for the illegals to get driver's licenses. Wrong. Illegal aliens are not legally permitted to get a Georgia driver's license and never have been. Maybe he is thinking of the fact that Rogers' also sponsored a law to require a valid license to register an automobile?

    Likely an un-American move, but it will serve to cut down on illegal drivers who are killing Americans on our roads.

    Most of us regard that as a good thing and understand that enforcement works.

    Most of us recognize that doing so is not somehow ""anti-immigration" - and that real immigrants join the American family according to the same rule of law that allows Appen to attack the Americans who want a level playing field.

    Appen takes a shot a guessing that "75 percent" of the construction workforce in this nation is illegal. Those of us who study the issue know that the Pew Hispanic Center reports that the number is actually 14 percent – meaning that 86 percent is legal labor.

    Last year we watched as millions of illegals marched in a demand for American citizenship while waving the flag of Mexico – with corporate support.

    Appen, like most who mindlessly oppose actually enforcing the law, describes the Americans who stopped amnesty as "extremists"

    Who exactly are the "extremists" here?

    D.A. KING

    (This ran in Appen’s 4 newspapers serving north Atlanta counties: Forsyth Herald, Johns Creek Herald, and Revue & News.)

    The Seattle Times – 8/2

    Old haven in turmoil

    New World overflows with problems coming from legal residents

    Editor, The Times:

    In "New Haven does the job Congress refuses to do" [Times editorial, July 26>, you forgot to mention that a nation (the U.S.) has a right and duty to control immigration. At 301 million people, the U.S. is overpopulated by 100 million, or more. We don't need more people to overcrowd our highways, schools, hospitals, parks, beaches and wilderness!

    With 4.6 percent of the world's population, we use 25 percent of total resources and cause 25 percent of global warming. We should limit (legal) immigration to emigration; build a wall from San Diego to Brownsville, Texas, on the border, to stop terrorists and drug runners; give free birth control to everyone on Earth and economic aid to all nations exporting migrants; and imprison those who hire illegals.

    When the word gets out, the practice will stop. When the illegals can't find work, most will go home. The rest can be rounded up and deported by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). Problem solved!

    There are enough unemployed and underemployed citizens and legal residents in the U.S. to do any job that pays a decent wage. Illegals drive down wages, drive up prices and destroy the middle class! The gulf between the rich and poor in the U.S. is at its widest since 1929.

    We need to get Congress and the Bush administration to look out for us rather than for those who get rich from hiring illegal labor!

    Eldon Ball

    Chicago Tribune – 8/3

    Trespassers, please leave

    Re "Immigration fight spurs exodus," Page 1, Aug. 3:
    The Catholic Priest thinks illegal aliens are being made to feel fear. No, they feel fear because they are criminals in our country and know it.

    Recently President Bush, Vice President John McCain and Senator Ted Kennedy tried to force what they termed, "comprehensive immigration reform" on the American citizen.

    This terrible bill provided an amnesty to illegal aliens, virtually eliminated the U.S. border, did away with English language and U.S. dollar, and would have combined Mexico and Canada with the U.S.
    What the attempt did was to galvanize Americans into taking back their country, getting control of all immigration.

    Americans don't want illegal aliens crossing the border or residing in Illinois or Minnesota or anywhere else in the U.S.
    If they feel unwelcome and unwanted it is because their actions demonstrate contempt for our laws and people; they forgot to ask Americans for permission.

    Trespassers, please leave.

    Dell Erikson
    Brooklyn Center, Minn.

    Standard Examiner (Utah) - 8/3

    Gangsters threaten, recruit young Latinos

    Regarding the July 26 letter "Gang ordinance will increase harassment": The claim made by the Ph.D. from New Mexico University stating that a gang ordinance passed by the city of Ogden is designed to harass one ethnic group is nothing short of paranoia.

    I've lived in Southern California for 70 years, surrounded by folks with a Latino heritage. My extended family has many such persons. I have never known any of my Latino classmates, co-workers, family members or neighbors to belong to a gang. Furthermore, they are often far more outraged than I am when those gangs threaten and attempt to recruit their brown-skinned children.

    If the New Mexican academic is ignorant of the brown-on-brown, Nortenos vs. Surenos deadly violence that strikes fear into far too many communities, then he has not been paying attention.

    The FBI says that half of the 100,000 gangsters in Los Angeles County are deportable. They identify the Asian gangs as particularly violent, but most are of Latino heritage. I suggest he study Salinas, Calif., to see that its Latino-majority population is seeking solutions to a deadly gang problem. There should be no ivory-tower elitist whining about Latino harassment. They've buried too may of their children to listen to that nonsense.

    Barbara Vickroy
    Escondido, Calif.


    News-Leader (Mo.) - 7/23

    Ethnic tensions at core of dispute

    Most Americans are well aware of the racial and ethnic tensions in our society, and consider them a serious problem. Often overlooked, however, is how immigration heightens that tension. When cultures collide, ethnic tension is inevitable. People of different cultures and ethnicities often operate with different sets of assumptions about the world and ways of doing things. When those different world views are at odds, tensions and the likelihood of conflict are heightened.

    The conflict is not about race. Although high-immigration advocates sometimes try to cast the issue of immigration as a racial one, in order to stifle debate, ethnic tension is not a simple problem of one race against another. Immigration drives conflict between white/black/hispanic Americans and immigrants of all races, as well as among the immigration groups themselves, regardless of their races.

    High-immigration and illegal immigration advocates often assert the answer to immigration-related ethnic tension is more "tolerance" on the part of native-born Americans. But simply labeling Americans as "intolerant" cannot change the fact that the share of foreign-born people has at least doubled in one generation. As a result, there is an ever-increasing bulk of unassimilated people in the United States, a pattern that almost ensures growing conflict.

    Ben Kellerman
    Forsyth, Mo.


    The letters program - as all the projects of NumbersUSA - relies upon individuals like you, along with grants from private foundations to reach its goal of an environmentally sustainable and economically just America. Would you consider making a donation? Click on: or send your donation to NumbersUSA, 1601 N. Kent St., Suite 1100, Arlington, VA 22209-2105; 1-877-885-7733.

    </TD></TR><TR><TD class=t1redoversmallheader vAlign=top align=left></TD></TR><TR><TD class=t1redundersmallfooter vAlign=top align=left colSpan=2>This may be a good time for you to make sure that you've let us know all of the areas you are interested in. In order to further customize the type of alerts you receive click here
    As a NumbersUSA subscriber, you will receive occasional emails about immigration-related opportunities. If you want to increase or reduce the frequency of these emails, click here and choose from Total Activism, Moderate Activism, or Limited Activism at the bottom of your registration form:

    NumbersUSA - relies upon individuals like you to reach its goal of an environmentally sustainable and economically just America.
    Reply With Quote  

  11. #36  
    RX Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Every time they bring up this immigration scam we need to make it clear we will DEPORT ALL POLITICIANS OUT OF OFFICE IF THEY VOTE FOR SCAMNESTY.

    Lyndsay Gramnesty will be the first to go.
    Reply With Quote  

  12. #37  
    RX Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Republicans are as dishonest & immoral as Democrats.

    The GOP has already sold the American people out on immigration.

    Bush had six years with a GOP house & did nothing, nada , zero on illegals flooding the nation.

    Over twenty years ago , under that Great GOP myth maker Ron Reagan.

    Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was enacted and really put a halt on illegals.

    The Immigration Reform and Control Act (Simpson-Mazzoli Act (IRCA), Pub. L. No. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359 (November 6, 1986) (signed by President Ronald Reagan) is an Act of Congress which reformed United States immigration law. The Act made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants, required employers to attest to their employees' immigration status, and granted amnesty to illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously.

    The law criminalized the act of knowingly hiring an illegal immigrant and established financial and other penalties for those employing illegal aliens under the theory that low prospects for employment would reduce illegal immigration. It introduced the I-9 form to ensure that all employees presented documentary proof of their legal eligibility to accept employment in the United States.

    These sanctions would only apply to employers that had more than three employees and that did not make a sufficient effort to determine the legal status of the worker.

    The legislation is frequently cited by opponents of illegal immigration as a failure in that, for each illegal alien granted amnesty under the plan, approximately four new ones have since replaced them. This assertion is based on the estimate that 2.7 million illegal aliens were legalized and the current estimate of illegal aliens in the United States between 12 to 21 million.

    Critics point to the IRCA of 1986 as proof in their view that amnesty is not the solution for the large number of illegal immigrants currently in the United States.

    Another criticism is what may be referred to as "daisy chain" migration. An immigrant who has been legalized can file a petition for a relative (CIS Form I-130) so that his or her family can immigrate to the United States.

    Reply With Quote  

  13. #38  
    RX Local roadreeler57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Jakebpg wrote: 1m ago news story blogs
    No doubt about this. I don't know. It may be too late already. This country is being torn apart at the seams with the diversity and victimology principle.

    Wherever you stand, please take the time to read this.
    We know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of America's finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor by the name of Victor Davis Hansen talked about his latest book, "Mexifornia," explaining how immigration - both legal and illegal was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.

    Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States.

    He said, "If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee
    observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that 'An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide'"

    "Here is how they do it," Lamm said: "First, to destroy America, turn America into a bilingual or multilingual and bicultural country." History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it this way: "The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy." Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans.".

    Lamm went on: Second, to destroy America, "Invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. Make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural
    differences. Make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.

    Third, "We could make the United States an 'Hispanic Quebec' without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: "The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multi cultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentricity and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together."Lamm said, "I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities."

    "Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50&#37; dropout rate from high school."

    "My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology.' I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population."

    "My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people
    worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common Language and literature; and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. "E. Pluribus Unum" --From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the 'pluribus' instead of the 'Unum,' we will balkanize America as surely as Kosovo."

    "Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits; make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'xenophobe' halt discussion and debate. Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of 'Victimology,' I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them."

    In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed. Finally he said,. "Lastly, I would censor Victor Davis Hanson's book "Mexifornia." His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America. deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book."

    There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Even barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate 'diversity.' American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America - take note of California and other states - to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell's book "1984." In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: "War is peace," "Freedom is slavery," and "Ignorance is strength."

    Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don't get this immigration
    monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path especially The American Dream.

    If you care for and love our country as I do, take the time to pass this on just as I did for you. NOTHING is going to happen if you don't
    Reply With Quote  

  14. #39  
    RX Local roadreeler57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Jakebpg wrote: 4m ago
    A list of how your senator voted for the great give away to illegals. Pass this on to all of your friends so they know who voted for illegals over Americans.

    Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Yea
    Alexander (R-TN), Nay
    Allard (R-CO), Nay
    Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
    Baucus (D-MT), Nay
    Bayh (D-IN), Nay
    Bennett (R-UT), Yea
    Biden (D-DE), Yea
    Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
    Bond (R-MO), Nay
    Boxer (D-CA), Yea
    Brown (D-OH), Nay
    Brownback (R-KS), Nay
    Bunning (R-KY), Nay
    Burr (R-NC), Nay
    Byrd (D-WV), Nay
    Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
    Cardin (D-MD), Yea
    Carper (D-DE), Yea
    Casey (D-PA), Yea
    Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
    Clinton (D-NY), Yea
    Coburn (R-OK), Nay
    Cochran (R-MS), Nay
    Coleman (R-MN), Nay
    Collins (R-ME), Nay
    Conrad (D-ND), Yea
    Corker (R-TN), Nay
    Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
    Craig (R-ID), Yea
    Crapo (R-ID), Nay
    DeMint (R-SC), Nay
    Dodd (D-CT), Yea
    Dole (R-NC), Nay
    Domenici (R-NM), Nay
    Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
    Durbin (D-IL), Yea
    Ensign (R-NV), Nay
    Enzi (R-WY), Nay
    Feingold (D-WI), Yea
    Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
    Graham (R-SC), Yea
    Grassley (R-IA), Nay
    Gregg (R-NH), Yea
    Hagel (R-NE), Yea
    Harkin (D-IA), Nay
    Hatch (R-UT), Nay
    Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
    Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
    Inouye (D-HI), Yea
    Isakson (R-GA), Nay
    Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting
    Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
    Kerry (D-MA), Yea
    Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
    Kohl (D-WI), Yea
    Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
    Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
    Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
    Leahy (D-VT), Yea
    Levin (D-MI), Yea
    Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
    Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
    Lott (R-MS), Yea
    Lugar (R-IN), Yea
    Martinez (R-FL), Yea
    McCain (R-AZ), Yea
    McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
    McConnell (R-KY), Nay
    Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
    Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
    Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
    Murray (D-WA), Yea
    Nelson (D-FL), Yea
    Nelson (D-NE), Nay
    Obama (D-IL), Yea
    Pryor (D-AR), Nay
    Reed (D-RI), Yea
    Reid (D-NV), Yea
    Roberts (R-KS), Nay
    Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
    Salazar (D-CO), Yea
    Sanders (I-VT), Nay
    Schumer (D-NY), Yea
    Sessions (R-AL), Nay
    Shelby (R-AL), Nay
    Smith (R-OR), Nay
    Snowe (R-ME), Yea
    Specter (R-PA), Yea
    Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
    Stevens (R-AK), Nay
    Sununu (R-NH), Nay
    Tester (D-MT), Nay
    Thune (R-SD), Nay
    Vitter (R-LA), Nay
    Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
    Warner (R-VA), Nay
    Webb (D-VA), Nay
    Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
    Wyden (D-OR), Yea
    Reply With Quote  

  15. #40  
    RX Local roadreeler57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Tuesday, September 19, 2006 - Page updated at 12:00 AM

    E-mail article Print view

    Low-paid illegal work force has little impact on prices
    By Drew DeSilver

    Seattle Times business reporter

    PREV of NEXT


    Part 1 | Home-building boom relies on illegal workers
    Part 2 | Get-tough policy on employers has had limited effect

    More than 7 million illegal immigrants work in the United States. They build houses, pick crops, slaughter cattle, stitch clothes, mow lawns, clean hotel rooms, cook restaurant meals and wash the dishes that come back.

    You might assume that the plentiful supply of low-wage illegal workers would translate into significantly lower prices for the goods and services they produce. In fact, their impact on consumer prices — call it the "illegal-worker discount" — is surprisingly small.

    The bag of Washington state apples you bought last weekend? Probably a few cents cheaper than it otherwise would have been, economists estimate. That steak dinner at a downtown restaurant? Maybe a buck off. Your new house in Subdivision Estates? Hard to say, but perhaps a few thousand dollars less expensive.

    The underlying reason, economists say, is that for most goods the labor — whether legal or illegal, native- or foreign-born — represents only a sliver of the retail price.

    Consider those apples — Washington's signature contribution to the American food basket.

    At a local QFC, Red Delicious apples go for about 99 cents a pound. Of that, only about 7 cents represents the cost of labor, said Tom Schotzko, a recently retired extension economist at Washington State University. The rest represents the grower's other expenses, warehousing and shipping fees, and the retailer's markup.

    And that's for one of the most labor-intensive crops in the state: It takes 150 to 190 hours of labor to grow and harvest an acre of apples, Schotzko said, compared to four hours for an acre of potatoes and 1 &#189; hours for an acre of wheat.

    The labor-intensive nature of many crops is a key reason agriculture continues to rely on illegal workers. A report by Jeffrey Passel, a demographer at the Pew Hispanic Center who has long studied immigration trends, estimates that 247,000 illegal immigrants were employed as "miscellaneous agricultural workers" last year — only 3.4 percent of the nation's 7.2 million illegal workers, according to Pew statistics, but 29 percent of all workers in that job category.

    Eliminating illegal farmworkers, by shrinking the pool of available labor, likely would raise wages for those who remain. Philip Martin, a professor of agricultural economics at the University of California, Davis, noted that two years after the old bracero program ended in 1964, the United Farm Workers union won a 40 percent increase for grape harvesters.

    A decade ago, two Iowa State University agricultural economists estimated that removing all illegal farmworkers would raise wages for seasonal farmworkers by 30 percent in the first couple of years, and 15 percent in the medium term.

    But supermarket prices of summer-fall fruits and vegetables, they concluded, would rise by just 6 percent in the short run — dropping to 3 percent over time, as imports took up some of the slack and some farmers mechanized their operations or shifted out of labor-intensive crops. (Winter-spring produce would be even less affected, they found, because so much already is imported.)

    If illegal workers disappeared from the apple harvest and wages for the remaining legal workers rose by 40 percent in response — and that entire wage increase were passed on to the consumer — that still would add less than 3 cents to the retail price of a pound of apples.

    Cluster in construction

    Illegal immigrants, like legal ones, tend to concentrate in particular locales and industries, increasing their impact on wages and prices there.

    Pew's Passell estimates that more than two-thirds of all illegal immigrants live in just eight states: California leads with nearly a quarter of all illegal immigrants, followed by Texas, Florida, New York, Arizona, Illinois, New Jersey and North Carolina.

    Similarly, legal and illegal immigrants tend to cluster in specific industries, among them construction.

    Based on census data, Passell estimates that in construction specialties, illegal immigrants range from 20 percent of carpet, floor and tile installers to 28 percent of drywallers to 36 percent of insulation workers. Overall, about 14 percent of all workers in the construction industry are in the United States illegally, he says.

    How does all that illegal labor affect the price you pay for a new house?

    The National Association of Home Builders pegs labor's share of the cost of a new home at 20 to 25 percent. For a typical U.S. single-family home that sold for $298,412 in 2002, then, about $68,000 went for construction labor. If Passell's estimates are correct, around 14 percent of those workers would be illegal.

    But illegal workers generally are less skilled than legal ones, points out Barry Chiswick, an economist at the University of Illinois, Chicago, who has studied illegal immigration for decades. You're more likely to find illegal drywallers or painters, say, than illegal electricians or plumbers.

    Since higher-skilled workers earn more than less-skilled ones, Chiswick said, the "illegal share" of construction labor costs — and, by extension, the wages illegal workers receive — will be smaller than their numbers would suggest. But even if illegal workers make only half as much as legal workers, that would work out to about $5,000, or about 1.6 percent of that "typical" home's sale price.

    If the supply of illegal workers were cut off, wages for those low-skilled jobs presumably would have to rise enough to attract legal workers into them. If, hypothetically, wage levels rose by a third, that would either add around $1,600 to the cost of the typical house or shave half a percentage point off the builder's 12 percent average profit margin.

    "If I'm buying just one home, there's not that big an impact," Chiswick said. "But if I'm building a lot of homes and I can save a few thousand on each one.... "

    Even in service-intensive businesses with high incidences of illegal labor, such as hotels and restaurants, customers get only a small benefit.

    A Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) study estimated that every 10-percent increase in the proportion of low-skilled immigrants in the labor force lowers the price of immigrant-intensive services — gardening, housekeeping, baby-sitting and dry cleaning — by 1.3 percent, and of other services by 0.2 percent.

    Take hotels. Industrywide, more than 44 percent of hotels' expenses are for salaries and benefits (including employee meals), so labor is a major factor.

    "We've got a lot of jobs that are tough to fill," said Dan Mount, who teaches hotel management at Penn State. "To find someone who's going to clean 16 guestrooms a day for $6 or $7 an hour — people aren't lining up for those jobs."

    Illegal workers help close the gap. According to Pew's Passell, 22 percent of maids and housekeepers (including domestic help) are in the United States illegally.

    Similarly, in restaurants an estimated 20 percent of cooks and 23 percent of dishwashers are illegal immigrants.

    Jim Harbour, a former restaurant manager who now teaches at Washington State University's School of Hospitality Business Management, estimated that, without illegal immigrants, wages for dishwashers and other "back of the house" staff would have to rise anywhere from 10 to 20 percent to attract the necessary workers.

    With labor costs averaging around 30 percent of operating costs, passing on that kind of increase might raise the cost of a meal anywhere from 3 to 6 percent.

    Under a similar scenario, Mount said, hotel-room rates would rise, but the increase likely would be measured in dollars rather than tens of dollars.

    How much could be passed on to the consumer is another question. On the one hand, Harbour said he's raised menu prices by 10 percent across the board with few customer complaints; and hotels in the Seattle area are fuller now than they were a year ago despite higher room rates.

    On the other hand, hotel and restaurant operators' ability to pass on higher wage costs isn't unlimited, said Terry Umbreit, director of the WSU hospitality school. At a certain point, he said, people won't pay any more for a room or a meal; budget hotels and casual-dining restaurants, which compete most on price, likely would reach that point soonest.

    Benefits top layers

    Of course, the "illegal-immigrant discount" affects different layers of society differently.

    The more often you eat out, stay in hotels or get your yard trimmed, the more you benefit from the illegal-immigrant discount.

    And by increasing the supply of low-skilled labor relative to high-skilled labor, illegal immigration effectively boosts the purchasing power of the better-educated, more-skilled — and richer — portion of society.

    The MIT study, by researcher Patricia Cortes, estimated that the low-skilled immigration wave of the 1990s — much of it outside the bounds of immigration law — raised the "real wages" of college graduates by 0.71 percent, and of high-school graduates and people with some college by 0.59 percent.

    High-school dropouts? No discount for them: Cortes estimated that their real wages were cut by 2.66 percent. But since most adult Americans have at least a high-school diploma, Cortes concluded that most people benefited from low-skilled immigration — at least a little.

    Drew DeSilver: 206-464-3145 or
    Reply With Quote  

  16. #41  
    RX Local roadreeler57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Just a reminder to the activists here...Keep the heat on...Turn up the heat to your Congressmen & vote out anybody that voted for amnesty-Don't be fooled-Tell them we're sick & tired of lip service & no action...All the info & organizations you can join are at: & the fine organization that I use almost exclusively is: Your all doing a great job & remember theres strength in numbers so jump on the anti immigration bandwagon 2day..TELL THEM NATURAL AMERICAN CITIZENS COME FIRST FROM NOW ON!..Tell them enuf is enuf were sick & tired of their bullshit & thanks for all your help whatever you can do....Jim M.
    Reply With Quote  

  17. #42  
    RX Local roadreeler57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Are liberals for free speech for everyone, or just liberals? (Stolen from KMAN)

    By the way... San Franciscoans congratulations!!!!
    You are close to getting all of the illegal aliens to move to SF to get free legalization... Congrats!

    Savage attacked by officials pushing immigrant bailout
    San Francisco leaders want taxpayers to pay for green cards, citizenship

    Posted: August 10, 2007
    1:00 a.m. Eastern

    &#169; 2007

    San Francisco city officials are trying to force taxpayers to pay for immigrants' green cards and citizenship – and to bolster their case for the new tax, they've introduced a resolution condemning national radio talk-show host Michael Savage for what they call his "defamatory language ... against immigrants."
    Supervisor Chris Daly, reacting to the new and significantly higher federal fee structure for immigrants seeking citizenship, imposed last week by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, complained that the fee hikes raise concerns that immigrants "cannot obtain safe pathways to legal immigrant status and citizenship" and "further exacerbates pressures on families, increasing stress," according to the San Francisco Examiner.
    Under the new fee structure, the cost to apply for a green card is now $930, up $605 from the old fee. Citizenship applications went from $330 to $595. On Tuesday, Daly asked the city attorney to draw up legislation that would subsidize immigrants applying for citizenship, green cards and petitions for relatives and workers.
    On the same day, apparently to further generate sympathy for immigrants and bolster Daly's bailout effort, Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval introduced a resolution condemning popular radio talk-show host Michael Savage, a mainstay of the San Francisco airways for years. Since he was syndicated nationally by Talk Radio Network, Savage has become one of the nation's most-listened-to radio talkers.

    Condemning the "defamatory language used by radio personality Michael Savage against immigrants," Sandoval's resolution is apparently in response to Savage's July 5 broadcast, when the talker commented on a group of students who had announced they were fasting in support of changes in immigration policy.
    "I would say, let them fast until they starve to death," quipped Savage, "then that solves the problem."
    Sandoval's resolution calls Savage's comments "symbolic of hatred and racism," according to the Examiner.
    "I really for the life of me cannot understand why there is not more media outrage to what Michael Savage said," Sandoval said in the Examiner report, which added that Sandoval plans to hold a press conference on the steps of City Hall Tuesday just before the entire Board of Supervisors votes on his resolution against Savage.
    "The intolerant and racist comments of Michael Savage demand a strong condemnation," Sandoval insisted.
    However, almost all of the Examiner's readers who posted comments on the newspaper's website after the story sided with Savage.
    Representative responses included these:
    "Hey Sandoval, we are not outraged at Michael Savage because we agree with him ... check the polls on immigration, lame-o."
    "If we had more Michael Savages and less milk toast leaders we wouldn't be in this situation. They are taking over and bringing our country down to a 3rd world level. Thank God for the Michael Savages and the other true AMERICANS."
    "Screw Sandoval and the illegal alien criminals who continue to invade this country. It's people like him who are causing the downfall of the west. Savage is 100&#37; right on! My mom came here LEGALLY – FROM MEXICO ... I have every right to be totally nuclear about these illegal aliens bringing their bankrupt culture from Southern Mexico."
    "The Mexican illegal immigrants think they don't have to obey our laws and are taking advantage of our health care system and robbing our Medicare, emergency rooms at hospitals and then have the gall to mail there American dollars back to Mexico!!! I listen to your talk show every night Mr. Savage and can't wait to listen to you tell it like it is ..."
    "God Bless M. Savage. Down with La Raza "The Race."
    "Making me learn your language (Spanish) to even get a job isn't racist? C'mon, we the legal citizens are tired of the catering to the illegals. Come here legally and follow our laws, that is all we ask. Michael Savage is the voice of the true Americans, not the scum (politicians) who get bought off to cater to lawbreakers."
    "Savage is a true man of the people of this country. That is, the people of this country who live here legally. The rest can go to hell – or starve to death."

    The San Francisco government's proposed resolution condemning Savage is just the latest in a major, multifaceted – and largely unreported – effort both in and out of government to transform American talk radio. The entire campaign, complete with details of battles against Rush Limbaugh, Savage and other top talkers, is revealed in-depth in the current edition of WND's monthly Whistleblower magazine, titled THE WAR ON TALK RADIO."
    Reply With Quote  

  18. #43  
    RX Local roadreeler57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    August 16, 2007 PrintSaveE-mailSize: +/–SPECIAL REPORT: Mexico plans to send trucks across border this month Thursday, Aug. 16, 2007 – A Mexican publication that covers Mexico’s transportation industry reported Wednesday that the Secretariat of Communications and Transportes said that the cross-border pilot program is coming by the end of this month.

    Despite continued opposition from Mexican trucker group – CANACAR – the country’s transportation secretary claims the plan is on the move, according to the transportation publication T21.

    In a business meeting on Tuesday, Mexican Transportation Secretary Luis Tellez Kuenzler announced that “necessary conditions” in Mexico are a reality. He also said he had been informed by the U.S. Department of Transportation that 37 Mexican carriers have been evaluated as satisfactory.

    T21 also reported that on Wednesday, Tellez stated through a press release that the necessary conditions existed to develop the project and declared the Mexican government has decided to stick to the proposed start date, which is the last week of August.

    While the Mexican government is chatting up the subject, the U.S. DOT is deadly quiet.

    Melissa DeLaney, DOT spokesperson, recited the familiar line for Land Line on Thursday that nothing could happen without the Inspector General’s go-ahead. She said she was not aware of any preliminary report on the status of the pilot program.

    “The IG is an independent entity. We don’t have a hand in the process of them doing this report,” she said. “We are complying with the law and the law clearly states this program cannot start until that process has been done.”

    T21 reported officials from the Mexican government will meet next week with U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters in Tijuana to “see the progress of the program” and to “guarantee the start.”

    Delaney confirmed to Land Line that Peters was, indeed, going to Mexico next week.

    “She is taking congressional staff down there next week, to highlight border operations, to show them an inspection, show them a ‘PASA’ (Pre-Authorization Safety Audit),” she told Land Line. “(It’s) a very standard trip that happens in recess. Not the first time they’ve taken staff to the border to look at the operations down there.”

    – By Sandi Soendker, managing editor

    Mexican news reports translated by OOIDA’s Stephanie Caswell.
    source; &
    Reply With Quote  

  19. #44  
    RX Local roadreeler57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    From: Dave Gorak
    Date: Aug. 14, 2007 4:32 p.m.

    LETTER SUCCESSES – Week ended August 11


    Dave Gorak



    --Following is the published letters report for the period August 5 – 11

    --BUT FIRST: Californian Bill Terry asks why do we need another guestworker program when one already exists to provide growers with an unlimited number of temporary workers; D.A. King in Georgia says Sen. Arlen Specter still doesn’t get it; and Texan Bill Terry wants to know why the Houston Chronicle places more emphasis on the interests of illegals than it does on those of the city’s legal residents.

    --As always, this memo is intended for participants in this program,plus a few friends, and not for wide distribution. Editors tend not to publish letters they suspect are part of an organized letter-writing campaign. So, please refrain from cc:ing us on your letters-to-the-editor and from talking about the program in public forums.

    --And please remember to include the full name of the paper that ran your letter and the date.

    -- NumbersUSA forwards these letters to you so you can share in the success of the program and see the published efforts of our writers. As a reminder, however, the letters are personal and do not necessarily represent NumbersUSA positions.

    RECOMMENDED WRITING STYLE: We recognize that each of you has the ability to make your own decisions about how to write your letters. NumbersUSA's opinion is that letters are more likely to be published and more likely to help our cause of dramatic immigration reductions if they are written in a temperate, self-controlled way that avoids name-calling and arguments based on race, religion or national origin. A strong use of a few facts, voting records, concise analysis and sometimes humor seems the best way to advance our arguments. We encourage specific criticism of open-border politicians and others, but caution against "in your face" rhetoric. Firm but civil argument tends to get the best results. You, of course, are free to disagree. We applaud all published letters that advocate for our immigration-reduction goals, but we may not disseminate those that move outside the tone that we encourage, a tone that many newspapers include in their own letters to the editor guidelines.

    --Thanks so much for your hard work and persistence.


    Orange County (Calif.) Register – 8/5
    (1) Max Harris

    The Seattle Times – 8/6 (online only)
    (2) Cliff Borns

    The Fredericksburg (Va.) Free Lance-Star – 8/8
    (3) Marty Lich

    Pittsburgh Tribune Review – 8/10
    (4) Haydee Pavia

    The Christian Science Monitor – 8/8
    (5) Mark Sussman

    Atlanta Journal-Constitution – 8/11
    (6) D.A. King

    Daily Herald (Ill.) – 8/11
    (7) Ronald R. Kowalski

    The Washington (D.C.) Times – 8/11
    (8) Mark A. Mendlovitz


    Houston Chronicle – 8/4
    (9) Bill Terry

    Orange County (Calif.) Register – 8/5

    Another illegal immigration end run attempted

    U.S. Senator's Feinstein and Boxer are both co-sponsors of legislation currently pending before the Senate to establish a new farm worker program which will legalize the illegal immigrants currently in the United States. This is nothing but another attempt at amnesty. So, to answer both Feinstein and Boxer's questions on the floor of the Senate to the people of the U.S., NO, we do not want another amnesty program to satisfy AgJOBS requirements. And, NO it isn't true that without illegal workers to fill AgJOBS, American's will starve.

    Currently, the U.S. Department of Labor has a program, H-2A. The H-2A temporary agricultural program establishes a means for agricultural employers who anticipate a shortage of domestic workers to bring nonimmigrant foreign workers to the U.S. to perform agricultural labor or services of a temporary or seasonal nature. So, there is no requirement for additional legislation which Feinstein and Boxer are heavily pushing.

    But, wait! It seems there are those Agriculture growers who do not want to use H-2A because it requires them to follow strict regulations regarding working conditions and salaries which they do not want to pay. Feinstein and Boxer stipulate that this will cause prices to go up on produce in the stores. Quite frankly the program they are pushing will only increase the bottom line for the growers. This brings up an interesting point. Isn't it always the Republican's who are always in favor of "big business?" How come these two Democratic Senator's are so adamant about the necessity of this farm workers bill? Could it have something to do with political coffers? Hummm...

    Lets see, at last count there were only 30 co-sponsors to the AfJOBS the Senate (S.340) and 39 in the House (Hr. 371). So why are Senator's Feinstein and Boxer distorting the magnitude of bipartisan support? Let me count the ways...

    Max Harris
    Laguna Hills, Calif.

    The Seattle Times – 8/6 (online only)

    Government recall

    New Haven is circumventing the laws of the U.S. Any city that continues this practice should not receive any federal money. We have to hold all local governments responsible for hiring and helping non-Americans gain illegal access to citizenship.

    Neither of our senators has a good report card when it comes to this issue. Both seem to think the Democratic Party is more important than America. We have to get them to change their minds. Gov. Christine Gregoire is also lax on this subject.

    Somebody, please push the recall button.

    Cliff Borns
    Spokane, Wash.

    The Fredericksburg (Va.) Free Lance-Star – 8/8

    Money is root cause of the 'illegal' pox

    This is in response to Debbie Revely's letter to the editor ("Illegal immigrants do the jobs too many won't do," July 25). She wrote: "Ask your unemployed friends if they would be willing to stand in the hot sun from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. doing farm work or construction work for $7 an hour. They would say no."

    The answer is no. But not for the reason she implies.

    It is "no" because lawful residents cannot afford to work for that low a wage and not because of the job description itself. If we'd also get, with no questions asked, non-taxed cash income, free medical care, and subsidized housing and utilities, the answer would be, "Oh, yes!"

    Regarding those who hire illegal aliens: Why do you think they don't want to pay more for legal employees? You guessed it: money. For every dollar they pay their employees, they pay an additional costly sum to the IRS. And they do not like that.
    In the end, it really is all about the money.

    Marty Lich
    Gypsum, Colo.

    The Christian Science Monitor – 8/8

    US Should Pressure Improvements in Mexican Government

    The August 3 article, "In Central America, child migrants now face perils alone," is a tragic story. Some will blame Guatemala and Mexico for their inability to care efficiently for their people, which is a valid point. But the US must share some blame for our border chaos and lawlessness.

    Guatemala has half the per capita GDP of Mexico, which itself has about a quarter of ours. Our successful system shines like a beacon down through Mexico into Central America. It is a powerful attractant. Guatemala and Mexico apparently have defaulted to governments that are too corrupt or inept for their people to thrive. America has defaulted on the enforcement of its borders, thus raising false hope to others that Uncle Sam can cure their malady.

    The US is like a well-meaning enabler of a drug addict. Better that we prescribe the tough love that is needed. In this case that means no illegal entry here plus using our influence to cajole improved democracy and capitalism there. If we provide funds to these neighbors, we must insist on sound legal and economic practices in return. Meanwhile, we need to manage America in accord with our own laws. In the long run, it's the effective, moral solution.

    Mark Sussman
    Bellevue, Wash.

    Pittsburgh Tribune Review – 8/10

    Hooray for Pa.

    The Trib's article states, "Weeks after a federal judge struck down Hazleton's ordinance on illegal immigration, the state Senate's top Republican on Wednesday announced that he is pushing legislation to prevent illegal aliens from receiving state benefits in Pennsylvania" ("New battleground on illegals: State aid," Aug. 9 and

    The people of Pennsylvania are very fortunate to have legislators like Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati.

    I live in California, ground zero for illegal immigration. According to a recent report by Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, it costs
    Californians $10.5 billion a year to educate, medicate and incarcerate illegal aliens.

    We no longer maintain public structures like highways, bridges and overpasses. Most of our budget goes to social services.
    We have become the welfare state for Mexican citizens illegally in this country.

    Thumbs up to Pennsylvania!

    Haydee Pavia
    Laguna Woods, Calif.

    Atlanta Journal-Constitution – 8/11

    Specter doesn't get it on crisis

    Sen. Arlen Specter is hilarious proof —- again —- of the disconnect on the illegal immigration crisis between the American people and those elected to represent and protect them in Washington. He clearly does not "get it." Americans will never again stand quietly by while politicians reward illegal aliens with amnesty and green cards.

    Specter's clueless admission that taking the millions of illegal aliens out of "fugitive status" must be the price of Congress appropriating the money to begin to secure American borders and the American workplace is astonishing. And totally unacceptable.

    No one thought that President Bush and those in Congress who ask "how high?" when their corporate masters say "jump" would give up on amnesty, but few thought them brazen enough to begin the warm-up process just a month after the American people made their own position so clear.

    That Specter has been sent out to start the amnesty attempt so soon brilliantly illustrates the importance it holds to the Washington elite —- the American people be damned.

    D.A. King
    King is president of the Marietta-based Dustin Inman Society, a non-profit organization opposed to illegal immigration.

    Daily Herald (Ill.) – 8/11

    "Hazleton legal battle is far from ended"

    The legal battle over the Hazleton, Pa., Illegal Immigration Relief Act is far from over.

    Plaintiffs who are in the country illegally were allowed to file anonymous depositions rather than testify.

    A U.S. citizen cannot sue a city and remain anonymous. This is one of many reasons Hazleton will appeal the decision.

    We, the American people, want our cities secured, our borders protected and our citizenship respected.

    When the federal government is unwilling to enforce immigration laws, cities need to be able to take steps to secure citizens from the social, financial and criminal costs of illegal immigration.

    Ronald R. Kowalski
    Carpentersville, Ill.

    The Washington (D.C.) Times – 8/11

    Amnesty by another name

    Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter and Michigan Republican Party Chairman Saul Anuzis display an incredible ignorance of how our immigration system works if they believe that "green card" status doesn't mean a path to citizenship. It most certainly does. And they are obviously buying into President Bush's nonsense argument that amnesty is not "automatic citizenship." Again, anyone with knowledge realizes that even legal immigrants are not granted automatic citizenship before a green card ("Republicans pan Specter immigration alternative," Page 1, Wednesday).

    In fact, amnesty in this context simply means waiving the usual punishment (deportation) and allowing the violator to keep what it is he broke the law to obtain, namely, a job and residency in the U.S. By that definition, Mr. Specter's plan is an amnesty, and would only encourage future immigration lawbreaking.

    The American people made it very clear to our senators that a secure border and interior enforcement is a prerequisite to discussion of any other immigration matters. After two decades of ignoring the problem, Congress owes us at least that much.

    Mark A. Mendlovitz
    Beverly Hills, Calif.


    Houston Chronicle – 8/4

    The emphasis is on illegals

    There is much frustration with the current status of immigration in America, particularly in the Houston area. Most frustrating of all to me is to see our hometown newspaper's misplaced editorial emphasis on the interests of illegal immigrants versus the interests of area residents and those who are here legally.

    There is little doubt that some greedy employers have cheated illegal immigrants on wages. The Chronicle's Aug. 2 editorial "Slave wages / Without workable immigration law, the lawless keep robbing workers" cited 842 complaint cases in 2006. Employers should always pay what they owe to their workers, but were all of these claims verified?

    After all, by coming here and working for untaxed cash or with a fake Social Security number, illegal immigrants have a proven track record of deception and dishonesty, and they have an incentive to exaggerate any underpayment in order to garner sympathy and remuneration.

    Meanwhile, they and their offspring cost Houston area taxpayers millions of dollars every year in social, educational and medical services.

    In financial terms, illegal immigration dwarfs the Enron debacle, but the Chronicle's emphasis is on the equivalent of parking fines.

    Bill Terry
    The Woodlands, Texas


    The letters program - as all the projects of NumbersUSA - relies upon individuals like you, along with grants from private foundations to reach its goal of an environmentally sustainable and economically just America. Would you consider making a donation? Click on: or send your donation to NumbersUSA, 1601 N. Kent St., Suite 1100, Arlington, VA 22209-2105; 1-877-885-7733.

    This may be a good time for you to make sure that you've let us know all of the areas you are interested in. In order to further customize the type of alerts you receive click here

    As a NumbersUSA subscriber, you will receive occasional emails about immigration-related opportunities. If you want to increase or reduce the frequency of these emails, click here and choose from Total Activism, Moderate Activism, or Limited Activism at the bottom of your registration form:

    NumbersUSA - relies upon individuals like you to reach its goal of an environmentally sustainable and economically just America.
    Reply With Quote  

  20. #45  
    RX Local roadreeler57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    You might be an illegal alien if:

    You go to the DMV and there is a long line and you get moved to the front of the line.

    You might be an illegal alien if you crash a party and then decide to never leave and just live there, rent free, for occasionally taking out the trash and other things the members of the family don't want to do.

    You might be an illegal alien if Bush is concerned about the quality of your life.

    You proudly wear your &#226;€œI voted for Loretta Sanchez&#226;€ button.

    Your extended family can throw a reunion party without anyone having to leave their own house.

    You come to the United States so you can get a job at a Mexican restaurant.

    You might be an illegal alien if your Green Card name is &#226;€œFred Smith&#226;€ when your real name is Pablo Garcia.

    You might be an illegal alien if your 67 Chevy pickup truck doubles as an overloaded school bus.

    You might be an illegal alien if you get medical care in the first 30 minutes, instead of the first 30 hours.

    You might be an illegal alien if you get a sudden urge to work in the garden center of Home Depot or Lowes.

    You might be an illegal alien if you're on your 7th DUI and haven't even been to court yet.

    You might be an illegal alien if 30 people are helping out with the rent on a 2 bedroom house.

    You might be an illegal alien if you&#226;€™re paid in cash, pay no taxes and no social security, and have no withholding, can pay all your monthly bills for you and your extended family, enjoy a new truck and free schooling.

    You Might Be an Illegal Alien if you own a Mexican government sanctioned GPS guidance system to help you cross the border.

    You might be an illegal alien if your primary care physician&#226;€™s initials are E.R.

    You might be an illegal alien if the IRS thinks it's too much trouble to ask you to pay taxes.

    You might be an Illegal Alien if you are a drug smuggler that puts U.S. border guards in U.S. jails while winning a large cash settlement in the process.

    You might be an illegal alien if your clothes hamper, your dresser, and your dinner table is the same piece of furniture.

    You Might Be an Illegal Alien if You have decided to name your next son Jorge Boosh.

    You Might Be an Illegal Alien if You think it's funny that you got a job taking food orders from people speaking English.
    Reply With Quote  

  21. #46  
    RX Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Getting Immigration Right

    How conservatives blocked the open-borders establishment

    by John O’Sullivan

    In summer 1991, beginning a long air trip on a National Review Institute delegation to the Far East, I opened a 14,000-word submission to National Review and settled down to read. My mood was a good deal more optimistic than it usually was toward 14,000-word submissions. Its author was a friend and gifted writer, Peter Brimelow, then a senior editor at Forbes, who had long wanted to write this piece. But was the topic “hot” enough to command as much as 20 pages in a national magazine?

    I was soon blown away by one of the most powerful and lively polemics I have ever read. It was comprehensive, too, covering almost every aspect of immigration and its effects in crisp and well-documented sections.

    My traveling companions included Bill and Priscilla Buckley. Bill had given me full editorial control of NR at this point, but you don’t devote a magazine’s entire article section to one piece without informing the proprietor. I gave him the manuscript and told him my intentions. He raised a skeptical eyebrow, but proceeded to read.

    An hour later Bill walked over, full of enthusiasm for the piece. Priscilla confirmed our judgment. Peter’s magnum opus appeared as “Time to Re-Think Immigration” behind a cover of the Statue of Liberty raising her hand not to lift a torch aloft but to forbid entry.

    As xenophobes later explained it, Peter Brimelow, an English immigrant, and National Review, a magazine then edited by an English immigrant, had launched the modern American debate on immigration. But then, as the former occasionally quipped, aren’t immigrants supposed to do the dirty jobs that Americans won’t?

    In fact, this particular immigrant had needed converting. For almost three years, I had argued that immigration was the wrong issue on which to hang the wider cause of protecting America’s national identity against bilingualism, multiculturalism, and postmodern deconstruction (the so-called “National Question”). Just before the 1988 election, I had been astonished at a conservative conference in California when a long burst of applause unexpectedly greeted my mild criticism of the slowly developing spread of biculturalism. Knowing the damage that biculturalism had done to Canada—and sensing from the audience reaction that they were anxious on the same score—I judged that language would be the best horse from that stable. “Official English” enjoyed an 80/20 advantage in opinion polls, it had won the few referenda that the political class had been unable to prevent, and it had none of the “Ellis Island” drawbacks attending the immigration issue—few Americans resented their immigrant grandparents’ having to learn English.

    But I changed my mind under two influences.

    First, I realized that unchecked immigration was fuelling the support for bilingualism and multiculturalism. Not usually directly, as most immigrants intended to learn English and become Americans. Initially, it was Americans who were mainly responsible for cultural balkanization—elite Americans because they believed in a multicultural America and enforced its strictures in both public and private sectors and ordinary Americans because, being tolerant people, they thought it was only reasonable to make the newcomers, once here, feel at home. Immigration made multiculturalism seem reasonable. And the larger the immigrant intake, the more such reforms as bilingual education seemed simply necessary. As well as making these developments seem reasonable, unchecked immigration ensured that a steady supply of new and probably loyal recruits for the new politics of multiculturalism would keep coming.

    Even establishment Republicans, who didn’t notice much, noticed this. By the early 1990s, the GOP was backing away from its earlier sympathy for official English and even from its longer opposition to racial preferences. State parties and governors now began to oppose referenda that would go on to overturn preferences or bilingual education by large majorities. They were responding to what they saw as the political market of the future.

    My second reason for second thoughts was economic. Both Brimelow and, through him, George Borjas, a respected economist specializing in immigration (and a Cuban immigrant himself), had drawn my attention to the economic effects of immigration. Its impact on native-born Americans as a whole was modest, and it actually imposed serious economic costs on the low-paid. So there was a strong case against unchecked immigration on both cultural and economic grounds. I gradually swung round to regarding immigration as the primary “National Question” and read Brimelow’s article from that sympathetic standpoint.

    The piece created a mini-sensation in the world of intellectual conservatism. But it was largely a favorable one. Even those conservatives who dissented from its restrictionist conclusions, such as historian Gertrude Himmelfarb, conceded that it had mounted a powerful case. It made waves outside conservatism, too. Random House—a mainstream publisher but one then headed by another English immigrant, Harry Evans, a journalist to his fingertips who preferred controversy to pieties—commissioned a book based on it. But reviews for the book on publication in 1995 were far harsher than reactions to the article. There were exceptions: Nathan Glazer, for instance, from a neoconservative standpoint, recognized generously that Alien Nation was a strong and original contribution to immigration literature. In general, however, neoconservatives, libertarians, and establishment Republicans were hostile; liberals were poisonous; conservatives were divided.

    What caused this change was that conservative immigration reform had become a political possibility. In retrospect, the years from 1995 to 1997 were the false dawn of immigration reform. Such episodes are natural in the evolution of political controversy. A new issue crystallizing popular discontents emerges. For a while it sweeps all before it. Then its opponents rally and block its advance. But if the sentiments it musters are deep-seated, it re-emerges. Goldwater and Nixon were in very different ways false dawns of the Reagan revolution; ditto Edward Heath and Thatcherism in Britain. With a serious political conflict now in the offing, even conservative supporters of the immigration status quo took off the gloves. Things went as follows:

    1. On April 19, 1995, Alien Nation was published and Timothy McVeigh blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. That was the kind of timing all authors fear. McVeigh sucked up all available political publicity for several weeks, and, understandably enough, halted the book’s rise on the bestseller lists. McVeigh also had a more damaging effect on the immigration debate: he became the poster boy for a dark vision of America in which the villains were not any kind of aliens but “Us.” To be concerned about immigration, especially to write of an alien nation, suddenly seemed sinister to the media. But …

    2. In June 1995, the bipartisan Jordan Commission, appointed by Congress and headed by the respected former congresswoman Barbara Jordan, issued one of its several reports recommending reforms of the U.S. immigration system, including a reduction in legal numbers by about one-third (to 550,000 legal visas annually), changes in provisions for “family re-unification” to prevent chain migration, improved border security, employer sanctions, and easier procedures for deportation. (The year before, in the November 1994 elections, not only had Gov. Pete Wilson won a hotly contested re-election in California on a program that included calls for better control of immigration, but also Proposition 187, which barred illegal immigrants from using non-emergency public services, had passed with a comfortable majority.) The wind was behind the sails of immigration reform. Jordan was warmly received when she outlined her committee’s proposals to Congress. And …

    3. On June 8, 1995, President Clinton announced that the Jordan proposals were “consistent with my own views” and a “road map for the Congress to consider.” Since Congress had become Republican the previous year and the House was even then pushing through a “conservative revolution,” passing a satisfactory immigration bill should have been a no-brainer. Alas ...

    4. In January 1996, Barbara Jordan succumbed to cancer. Her death removed a strong and respected voice for immigration reform—and one hard to accuse of racism. Next …

    5. Clinton who had been proclaiming his fidelity to the Jordan proposals as late as February 1996, suddenly reversed course. In March, the administration told Congress that it opposed changes in legal immigration, especially the proposed reduction in family members allowed to join relatives in America. Why? According to a 1997 article in the Boston Globe, Democratic National Committee vice chairman and fundraiser John Huang urged Clinton to reverse his endorsement of the Jordan Commission proposal to disallow automatic entry for adult siblings of U.S. citizens. Many Asian immigrants sponsor their adult brothers and sisters once they become citizens. And Clinton was at that time hoovering up campaign contributions from Asians, Asian-Americans, and—a novel touch—even Asian intelligence agencies. Furthermore…

    6. In congressional debate throughout 1996, the immigration-reform bill was stripped of its major provisions by a coalition of the White House, the majority of Democrats, and a minority of Republicans. (Sound familiar?) And with the 1996 campaign in full swing, the Clinton administration’s interest in it switched to the question of how many immigrants could vote. All of them, decided Al Gore, who placed his people in the Citizenship USA program to ensure a massive citizen enrollment. An estimated 18,000 criminals were duly granted citizenship in time to vote. Gore’s intervention eventually became a scandal, but only after the election had changed many things. Among them…

    7. In January 1997, Sen. Spencer Abraham—a leader of those Republican senators who favored more or less open immigration—replaced moderate restrictionist Alan Simpson as the chair of the Senate immigration subcommittee. In February, he visited Silicon Valley to reassure the assembled whiz kids that there would be no further restrictions on legal immigration on his watch. Suddenly, however …

    8. In summer 1997, there was a brief rallying of reformers when the National Academy of Sciences released a report on immigration that confirmed all the main economic conclusions of Borjas and Brimelow. No great economic gains were claimed for it, and large fiscal costs were cited. This was such a defeat for the immiphiliacs that the New York Times was compelled to report it under the misleading headline: “ACADEMY’S REPORT SAYS IMMIGRATION BENEFITS THE U.S.—no huge costs are cited.” Yet even though the report was an important victory for immigration reformers, undermining the intellectual self-satisfaction of their opponents, it came too late. Other matters were gripping the political imagination in the Age of Clinton. And on Aug. 22, 1997, in his “Potomac Watch” column in the Wall Street Journal, Paul Gigot assessed the final result with complacent assurance: “… the crusade by a few columnists and British expatriates to turn the GOP into an anti-immigrant party seems to have failed. Immigrant-bashing has proven to be lousy American politics. When even California conservatives admit this, the debate should be over.”

    Gigot was expressing what was by then the bipartisan elite orthodoxy on immigration. Whereas the various elites that make up the establishment had been divided about immigration—and so open to argument and debate—as late as 1995, they had coalesced around strong support for it by the middle of 1997. A number of social trends, some of which are evident in the above list of events—the need of some corporations and Republican donors for cheap labor, the need of Democrats for cheap votes, the need of labor unions for new recruits, the need of churches and charities for new cases, the need of the media for new narratives of American bigotry, and the continued advance of “victimhood” and “diversity” as concepts explaining American history and society—came together and hardened into a new orthodoxy. It remained the bipartisan elite orthodoxy for the next—well, until last month.

    But this was an orthodoxy with weak foundations. It represented the political interests of Democrats much more faithfully than those of Republicans, even if the latter were slow to realize the fact. It ran counter to the instincts of the voters, even if they, too, were slow to realize the fact. And it was chock full of discrepancies, contradictions, fallacies, and simple errors. Consider some of its articles of faith:

    Immigrants are necessary to service our growing economy and especially to bail out the Social Security system. Japan enjoyed one of the highest economic growth rates in the world for 35 years with no immigration whatsoever. Since the existence of a thing is absolute proof of its possibility (as Bertrand Russell once pointed out), this demonstrates that a growing economy is possible without immigration. The trick is achieved by a combination of investment and innovation. Current immigration policy—with its emphasis on bringing in unskilled workers and relatives of recent immigrants—discourages both. It distorts as much as it feeds the economy. It ensures that America is a more unskilled and less automated economy, and a more stratified society, than would be the case with lower levels and different types of immigration. As for Social Security, that argument is a Ponzi scheme and, like all such schemes, would require an ever-expanding arrival of new contributors. After a few generations, this ingenious fiscal policy would run out of human immigrants and the U.S. would have to import aliens from outer space to continue financing its vast entitlement programs now accommodating most of the world.

    It is essential to legalize illegals and to liberalize legal immigration to win over the growing Hispanic vote. This began a series of arguments addressed to nervous Republicans. It was easily demolished. Since Hispanics currently vote Democrat by roughly a two-to-one margin, admitting more Hispanic immigrants to residence and citizenship would add millions more votes overall to the Democrat column. Hispanics already here favor less restrictive immigration only marginally more than other Americans, and those Hispanics who lean Republican tend to favor more restrictive immigration. Republicans, though, were determined to look on the bright side.

    Remember how Gov. Pete Wilson destroyed the Californian GOP by opposing immigration. This argument—to which Gigot refers—is a brilliant device to transform a weakness of the orthodoxy into its strongest point. The weakness in question is that the electoral decline of the California GOP can be plainly traced to demographic change driven by immigration. It is therefore a warning of how unchecked immigration could make the national GOP a minority party. What the Gigot argument does is redirect responsibility for the party’s decline to Wilson’s successful 1994 re-election campaign in which he campaigned for better federal control of immigration. Unfortunately for this claim, Wilson came from behind to win a near-landslide victory in part on this issue. (Proposition 187 also passed handsomely.) It was subsequent Republican candidates who lost heavily—but they had quietly disavowed Wilson and avoided immigration as an issue. To blame Wilson for their defeats is to indulge in magical thinking. That many Republicans did just that testifies to the power of orthodoxy in politics.

    Despite its difficulties, George W. Bush embraced this orthodoxy both as a candidate and as president. Indeed, he was more open and went further than most Republicans. For instance, he made it clear that he admired the enterprise of most illegal immigrants and would try to help their families join them in the United States. Most Americans paid little attention to these declarations since other issues were more prominent. Democrats agreed with the president, and the media covered them both favorably and on the inside pages, if at all. In other words, the elite orthodoxy had the effect of ensuring that immigration, illegal and legal, never became a political issue from 1997 to about 2006. Bush’s two elections seemed to confirm it.

    Why did this apparent national consensus break down so spectacularly in 2006 and 2007? There are three explanations. Not surprisingly, the elite explanation is the least plausible: namely, that our system is broken. If our system had been less partisan, the argument goes, it would have passed a necessary measure that most Americans wanted. This is the opposite of the truth. In reality, a bipartisan elite tried to force a measure that most Americans opposed into law but were defeated by senators who heeded strong and widespread protests. In sum: our system worked.

    The second explanation, advanced by Brimelow, is that ordinary Americans—in particular, grassroots Republicans—have been staging more and more rebellions against the elite consensus: the near-defeat of Utah Republican immiphiliac Chris Cannon in a primary; the clear victory of immigration reformer Brian Bilbray over a pro-immigration Democrat in the hard environment of Duke Cunningham’s former district; the astounding defeat of Republican football hero Tom Osborne for the Nebraska governorship solely over his support for in-state college tuition for illegal immigrants; the replacement of the mayor and five councilors in Herndon, Virginia by rebels running against their sponsorship of an official day-laborer site for illegals; the calls by state GOP conventions in Washington and Texas (yes, Texas!) for the removal of automatic citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants; etc., etc.

    These rebellions have alerted Republicans in Congress to both the risks of ignoring popular sentiments and the potential rewards of listening to the voters. Hence, in the debates of 2006 and 2007, two-thirds or more of the Republicans in the Senate and a larger percentage of House members rejected the so-called bipartisan bills. Even before Congress showed its hand, the wider conservative intellectual community had been gradually shifting away from elite orthodoxy. In the most recent debate, a list of conservative intellectuals who opposed it on principle included Thomas Sowell, Roger Kimball, and Robert Bork.

    They, too, had been liberated—in part by the insurgencies Brimelow lists, in part by the most distinguished intellectual rebellion on these issues in recent years. This was Samuel Huntington’s book, Who Are We? exploring the deconstruction of American identity by bilingualism, multiculturalism, and mass immigration. There was an attempt by various academic and multicultural bully-boys to crush Huntington and his thesis with the usual slurs of racism and nativism. But this failed when a list of undeniably distinguished scholars rode gallantly (since some disagreed with him) to his defense. Following that, the topics raised by Huntington became respectable and common fare for such outlets as City Journal and even The Weekly Standard. [A personal note may be in order here: I do not include National Review in this company since the magazine has been strongly in favor of conservative immigration reform since 1992. Contrary to some mythology on this topic, I remain on the magazine’s masthead, I write regularly for it (on immigration among other topics), and I am perfectly content with how it has handled immigration since 1997. In particular, both the magazine and the website played an indispensable role in the defeat of the 2006 and 2007 immigration bills.]

    Brimelow’s thesis of a spreading popular rebellion is accordingly an important part of the truth. But does it account for the scale of the defeat suffered by Bush and the bipartisan establishment? Surely we might still be living under a national consensus for doing nothing about immigration if some third factor had not intervened? So what is the X-factor?

    According to Steve Sailer’s explanation, George W. Bush is the X-factor. He brought about the collapse of the elite consensus on immigration because he insisted on repeatedly raising the subject. Suppose he had simply kept quiet. Simply ignoring illegal immigration inter alia would have enabled Republican donors to continue getting cheap labor while denying Democrats the prospect of cheap votes. Most presidents, especially if they were embroiled in a war crisis, would have acted on that cynical logic. But Bush believes that he has both a moral duty and good economic reasons to reform immigration along the “comprehensive” lines of the proposed bill. And by getting together with the Democrats on two occasions to pass such a bill, he maximized the rebellion of Middle America against both it and him.

    Most conservative voters were reluctant to believe that a president they liked could possibly support a policy they detested. His expressions of support for legalizing illegals initially confused them. But the more he embraced amnesty, the more he persuaded supporters he was serious, and the more they abandoned him. Bush’s ratings fall in lockstep with his advocacy of liberal immigration reform with almost uncanny timing. Republicans could now look at the actual bill more critically.

    That was dangerous. Because the Bush-Kennedy bill was written largely by Democrats and immigration lawyers, it was riddled with items that Republicans disliked. So it was not difficult for researchers, such as Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, to show that granting 12 or more million low-paid people the right to welfare benefits would impose vast costs on U.S. taxpayers. To get such a costly measure through, advocates had to create a sense of crisis about the existing situation of 12 million illegals. But those shouting “crisis” were in charge of immigration control while the number of illegals doubled. They had gone from complacency to panic in a single bound. It did not increase confidence in their advice. At the same time, the sense of crisis they created gave greater credibility to such alternative “enforcement first” measures as protecting border security, employer sanctions, and making deportation easier.

    Advocates of the legislation as different as Sen. John McCain and think-tanker Tamar Jacoby were now trapped in a logical dilemma. On the one hand, they had to dismiss these alternatives to the bill as either unrealistic or barbaric; on the other, they had to assure doubters that these same measures in the bill would work fine and acceptably once the bill had been passed. By the end of the debates, the establishment experts were looking as confused and self-contradictory as the Bush-Kennedy bill itself. It was the leaders of the opposition—Senators Sessions and DeMint in particular—who seemed in command of the facts as well as the situation.

    The legislation might still have survived if we had been living in the world of 1997. By 2006, however, the alternative media of talk radio and bloggers had been flourishing for several years. These broke stories, analyzed legislative contradictions, corrected erroneous media accounts, aroused opponents nationally, and in general organized opposition to the bill. Taken together, new media as politically different as Rush Limbaugh, Mickey Kaus, and NRO stalled the rapid progress that was essential for the bill’s passage. They revealed its defects. And they established that the bill’s bipartisanship was a fraud since the overwhelming majority of the GOP outside the Senate opposed it.

    That peeled off a final layer of the bill’s conservative support. Bill Kristol, representing many neoconservatives disposed to favor the bill, came out against it. He did so in part because it had serious drafting defects but, more importantly, because it was creating a bitter gulf between rank-and-file Republicans and the party leadership. That in turn was imperiling Republican objectives in other areas, notably Iraq.

    The bill failed, and it is unlikely to be revived until after the 2008 election. Some brand of immigration reform, however, there will have to be eventually. McCain in defeat gibed that opponents of the bill were purely negative and had no “solution” of their own. No shame attaches, of course, to being negative if the proposal under consideration will make matters worse, as McCain’s policy would have done. Yet as it happens, there are many sensible conservative proposals on the table. My own would be to revive those in the Jordan Commission of 1995. They are not ideal, but they are a sensible improvement on the status quo.

    Until the battle recommences, however, if any indignant xenophobe is thinking of writing an expos&#233; of this conspiracy of English immigrants to impose an “un-American” system of immigration law on the American people, Steve Sailer has already come up with the perfect title: “The Protocols of the Elders of Albion.”
    Reply With Quote  

  22. #47  
    RX Local roadreeler57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    <TABLE height=35 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=2></TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=3>
    Click here to display images in this message or edit your settings for all messages.
    External Images and objects in this message have been blocked. What's this?

    </TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=3></TD></TR><TR><TD class=com_font_3 vAlign=top colSpan=3><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=7> </TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD width=7> </TD><TD><TABLE><TBODY><TR><TD bgColor=#ffffff leftmargin="0" topmargin="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0"><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=650 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD rowSpan=3> </TD><TD class=t1fromdatetext>From: Dave Gorak </TD></TR><TR><TD class=t1fromdatetext>Date: Aug. 22, 2007 8:30 p.m. </TD></TR><TR><TD class=t1fromdatetext> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=t1redunderbigheader>LETTER SUCCESSES – Week ended Aug. 18 </TD></TR><TR><TD class=t1thinwhitespace> </TD></TR><TR><TD class=t1letterblock vAlign=top align=left>DO NOT REPLY TO THIS E-MAIL. PLEASE SEND ALL PUBLISHED LETTERS AND QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE LETTER-WRITING PROGRAM TO:

    Dave Gorak


    --Following is the published letters report for the period Aug. 12-18

    --BUT FIRST: When changing your e-mail address, please send it to me with your name. The automatic notifications sent by servers omit names.

    Terry Gavin in Illinois says the July Fourth holiday was very special this year in the wake of the Senate amnesty bill’s defeat; Californian Leon Lim praises the feds for getting serious about enforcement; Utah writer Gaylan Stewart says we already have a guest worker program (H-2A visas) available to growers; Virginian Allison Carman Kipp says we must stop offering encouragement and support to illegals; and Hoosier Barry Wiggins puts in a nice plug for Attrition Through Enforcement.

    --As always, this memo is intended for participants in this program, plus a few friends, and not for wide distribution. Editors tend not to publish letters they suspect are part of an organized letter-writing campaign. So, please refrain from cc:ing us on your letters-to-the-editor and from talking about the program in public forums.

    --And please remember to include the full name of the paper that ran your letter and the date.

    -- NumbersUSA forwards these letters to you so you can share in the success of the program and see the published efforts of our writers. As a reminder, however, the letters are personal and do not necessarily represent NumbersUSA positions.

    RECOMMENDED WRITING STYLE: We recognize that each of you has the ability to make your own decisions about how to write your letters. NumbersUSA's opinion is that letters are more likely to be published and more likely to help our cause of dramatic immigration reductions if they are written in a temperate, self-controlled way that avoids name-calling and arguments based on race, religion or national origin. A strong use of a few facts, voting records, concise analysis and sometimes humor seems the best way to advance our arguments. We encourage specific criticism of open-border politicians and others, but caution against "in your face" rhetoric. Firm but civil argument tends to get the best results. You, of course, are free to disagree. We applaud all published letters that advocate for our immigration-reduction goals, but we may not disseminate those that move outside the tone that we encourage, a tone that many newspapers include in their own letters to the editor guidelines.

    -- Thank you all!


    The Courier News (Ill.) – 8/12
    (1) Terry Gavin

    Mansfield (Ohio) News-Journal – 8/12
    (2) (3) Jacqueline I. Ruhl

    Ventura County (Calif.) - 8/13
    (4) Leon Lim

    The Salt Lake Tribune – 8/13
    (5) Gayland Stewart

    The Examiner (Washington, D.C.) – 8/14
    (6) Al Eisner

    Greenville (S.C.) News – 8/14
    (7) Ruth Pollard

    Rocky Mountain News – 8/14 (Online only)
    (8) Scott J. Sedei

    Wichita (Kan.) Eagle – 8/15
    (9) Mark Aberle

    The Times Examiner (S.C.)- 8/15
    (10) (11) James Aldridge

    Get educated about BOCS resolution
    (12) Allison Carman Kipp

    News-Sentinel (Ind.) - 8/17
    (13) Barry Wiggins

    Ashbury Park (N.J.) Press – 8/18
    (14) Eugene Cutolo

    The Courier News (Ill.) – 8/12

    "Defeat of immigration bill cause for celebration"

    As we celebrated the Fourth of July, America's birthday, last month, we also celebrated a great day for America: Amnesty for millions of illegals was defeated in Washington, D.C.!

    Vast numbers of our citizens -- nearly 80 percent, according to national polls -- were able to defeat the push for amnesty by the elites who are out of touch with everyday Americans.

    Republicans, Democrats and independents joined together to turn back the tide of those in our government who refuse to listen to us, the people. All demographics, including legal immigrants, rejected a bill that would have led to 40 million to 50 million more illegals being allowed into our country over the next 10 years.

    It would sure be great if we American citizens could pull together on the other important issues of our time, like Islamic terrorists who wish to kill every American who disagrees with their religious views.

    Though there is much to celebrate in this victory for America's future, sadly we here in Illinois are stuck with two senators, Durbin and Obama, who voted with Ted Kennedy for amnesty for illegals. I not only called Senators Durbin and Obama but faxed and e-mailed, with no response at all. Hopefully, others like me here noticed their lack of interest in representing us honestly and they will be replaced by people who want to represent Illinois' people and the best interests of the vast majority of our state.

    Terry Gavin
    Elgin, Ill.

    (2) (3)
    Mansfield (Ohio) News-Journal – 8/12

    Support Hillary if you want further harm done to America

    Americans want straight talk from presidential candidates about domestic issues. Straight talk is Hillary Clinton's forte, but instead of supporting American workers, she promises amnesty for illegal immigrants and all the trimmings on the tree when she is elected. She and Barack Obama recently labeled those who don't support amnesty as racist.

    Never mind that her position is in direct opposition to the views of the majority of citizens she aspires to lead: Americans concerned about overpopulation and its effects on our entitlement programs, schools and environment. She is corporate America's doll; bought with corporate funding.

    Never mind the consequences of adopting millions of uneducated and unskilled souls who will never rise from their situation to claim the American dream, forever destined to be slaves to greedy businesses who want them for their cheap labor.

    Hillary, Bill and the Bushes approve of NAFTA and the job losses it causes American workers. They are members of the so-called Trilateral Commission, a group of elite who have been cooking up the Security and Prosperity Partnership and North American Union since 1973. They will soon claim their pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. And they don't believe it's any of your business.

    On Aug. 20-21, leaders of Canada, Mexico and the U.S. will meet in Montebelle, Canada with corporate interests from all three nations and China to discuss the final stages in erasing our borders, dissolving this nation, building a NAFTA Super Highway and replacing the American dollar with the Amero.

    Our infrastructure is crumbling. But $2.5 million in US tax money appropriated the US Department of Transportation for our highways was used instead to plan the NAFTA Highway. China is building a super seaport in Mexico and needs this highway to circumvent our ports manned by unionized stevedores, to transport its tainted food and wares into this nation and Canada. Now Bush says he'll veto any Congressional effort to make China clean up its act. If you approve of Bush's policies and want more, be sure to vote for Hillary.

    Jacqueline I. Ruhl
    Fredericktown, Ohio

    (This letter also published in the weekly Mt. Gilead (Ohio) Sentinel – 8/13-8/17).

    Ventura County (Calif.) - 8/13

    Re: Your Aug 6, article, "Tough immigration rules worry growers"

    Rob Roy, president of the Ventura County Agricultural Association, said "that the new rules the Bush administration will soon impose to crack down on illegal immigrants will be very difficult for agriculture."

    What does this mean? The rest of us also wish we could selectively follow rules and laws we like. For example, paying taxes is very difficult for most of us and will act — using his words — as a "noose around our family's neck." What does he propose we do?

    The Social Security Administration has sent "no-match Social Security number" letters to employees and their employers since 2002 to verify employees' legal status. Employers obviously are prohibited from hiring illegal workers. Since it is difficult for employers to enforce this law, they choose to ignore them for 15 years. What does Roy think will happen to us if we do not pay taxes for 15 years?

    Kudos to Russ Knocke, Homeland Security Department spokesman, who said: "The department is going to be tough and aggressive in the enforcement of the law. You are going to see more work-site cases, and no more excuses." Knocke is doing his job. Can we count on the agricultural industry to do the same?

    Leon Lim
    Camarillo, Calif.

    The Salt Lake Tribune – 8/13

    Spin for cheap labor

    "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!" cry the cheap labor employers and other enablers of illegal aliens.

    "Who will harvest U.S. crops?" asks The Tribune (Our View, Aug. 10). I wonder how those crops were harvested decades ago, before there were 12-20 million illegal immigrants in the United States? This is even more questionable since there is less land in agricultural production along with significant mechanization, making fewer laborers needed today.

    There is already an agricultural visa program in place. Could it be that agricultural work is even beneath the dignity of most illegal aliens who prefer to work as domestics, in construction and at processing plants, depressing wages for working poor U.S. citizens?

    It is likely that cheap labor supporters don't really need to worry. This sounds like just more spin from Homeland Security. We will have to wait and see if there is long-term action.

    Gaylan Stewart
    Spanish Fork, Utah

    The Examiner (Washington, D.C.) – 8/14

    No public services for illegal immigrants

    I am extremely disappointed that Montgomery County leadership decided not to follow Loudoun and Prince William counties in their lead to deny public services to illegal immigrants. I resent the fact that tax payers’ money — taxes I and my family pay to Montgomery County — is now being used to provide public services to law breakers, criminals or Illegal immigrants who broke into our country for their own economic gains and greed.

    Illegal immigrants do not contribute to the county in any way and continue to be a burden and nuisance on law abiding citizens in this county. So far, these illegal immigrants have caused overcrowding in residential neighborhoods and become a public and general nuisance. They have over taxed the school system and medical care system, as well as the public service law enforcement system. They have a day labor center that should never have been approved to operate here.

    I urge the leadership and council to put this issue on the ballot for the citizens of Montgomery County to decide whether these illegal immigrants should get any public services at all. I sa no public services should be provided ever to any illegal immigrants, as they do not deserve it and have not earned it.

    Al Eisner
    Wheaton, Md.

    Greenville (S.C.) News – 8/14

    Local police should tackle immigration

    Illegal immigration is a growing problem in our state. Over the past few weeks we have been hearing stories of the increase in gang activity in our area -- and certainly a part of that comes from illegal immigration.

    Since our federal government has shown that they have no interest in securing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws, it has become more important that our local law enforcement agencies take a more active role. This is especially important in light of the fact that illegal aliens outnumber federal immigration agents by approximately 5,000 to one.

    More than 600,000 state and local law enforcement officers already come into contact with illegal aliens every day across our country. I believe the vast majority of these officers believe deeply in the rule of law and want to help protect the security of our country. However, many are unsure of their authority or have been told not to do anything by their leadership. This must be changed.

    It is the responsibility of every law enforcement officer in this country to uphold the laws of our land. One way that their authority to do so can be clarified is through a program called 287(g). This program provides training by Immigration and Customs Enforcement for local law enforcement personnel who then can act with the immigration authorities to identify and deport criminal aliens. Every law enforcement office in this country should be taking advantage of this program.

    The Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Department in Charlotte is using this program with success, there is a push in Georgia to get their law enforcement into the program, and we in South Carolina should be contacting our local mayors, sheriffs and police to encourage them to participate. Our question should be, if you are not participating, why not?

    Ruth Pollard
    Greenville, S.C.

    Rocky Mountain News – 8/14 (Online only)

    Tom Tancredo’s amnesty-free bill

    Re: Tancredo outlines his amnesty-free immigration proposal, by Chris
    Barge, July 11, 2007.

    I applaud Tom Tancredo for introducing an “amnesty-free immigration proposal.” Since the bill drew “immediate fire from the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition”, it must be good! They claim “Congressman Tancredo’s proposal is unjust, unrealistic and completely out of touch with the American people.” Which American people would those be? Certainly not the majority that flooded their Senators’ offices withangry telephone calls, faxes and visits to defeat a bill that would have granted amnesty to the 20 million-plus illegals squatting in the United States. Mr. Tancredo is one of the few politicians who is in touch with the American people. He has consistently put Americans first. Kennedy, McCain and Bush have sold us out to big business interests that bemoan the loss of a cheap labor source. And Ken Salazar consistently votes in favor of the illegals and completely ignores his Colorado constituents.

    The Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition stated, “It is sad and tragic that Mr. Tancredo continues to play the politics of fear and hate, rejecting the values of family unity, civil liberties and diversity that are the cornerstone of our democracy.” I am one of the thousands of Americans who has been a victim of crimes committed by illegals. Why are our rights as American citizens swept aside, while illegals are judged by a separate set of rules and laws that pander to their “civil liberties and diversity?” Rules and laws that don't hold them accountable for crimes an American citizen would be imprisoned for.

    The Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition does not support immigrants, they support criminal trespassers. Illegals and the groups that support them blur the immigration issue by leaving out the key word, “illegal.” They use trigger words such as “fear”, “hate” and “racist” to blur the fact illegals entered the United States illegally and continue to break our laws to remain here. The majority of senators who opposed the Kennedy/McCain bill said it “lacked enforcement.” I don't think that will be an issue with Mr. Tancredo’s bill. Thank you Tom!

    Scott J. Sedei
    Longmont, Colo.

    Wichita (Kan.) Eagle – 8/15

    Secure borders

    The article "Mexican shelters are filling with southbound migrants" (Aug. 12 Eagle) was a vindication of what I and many have known all along: If the government takes sincere effort to secure the border, requires employers to verify identification and Social Security numbers, effectively punishes both illegal aliens and employers for breaking the law, and extends no entitlement benefits to illegals, then the magnet drawing the illegals will weaken and the flow will end for the most part.

    It is obvious that to support segments of the U.S. economy, some mechanism to supply low-cost labor is vital. But it needs to be accomplished through legal pathways that ensure the safety of the U.S. citizen, as well as the migrant worker, and include the additional taxation of funds leaving the United States. To pay voluntary legal foreign workers based on the individual work situation, other than a "one-size-fits-all" minimum wage, is not racist or unfair when they have chosen to come to the United States to work because it is better than what they can do at home.

    That may sound unfair to some, but for the continued strength of our economy and security of the United States, this is necessary for our survival. We should not apologize or back away from enforcement of our immigration laws.

    Mark Aberle
    Wichita, Kan.

    (10) (11)
    The Times Examiner (S.C.)- 8/15

    Our Judges and many of our elected officials are lawyers, 'officers- of-the-court', who often go with 'which-everway' they perceive the- wind to be blowing. And, this is precisely why our country is in near moral collapse and citizens all over America perceive our legal system as broken.

    Clemson city Attorney, Kay Barrett who is suffering from the disease of political correctness, recently sided with activist U.S. District judge, James Munley, who ruled that little Hazelton, PA, had no right to protect its citizens from an illegal alien invasion. The city had passed two ordinances barring the hiring or housing of illegal aliens because of increased crime and drain on city services. But, Clinton appointee, judge Munley, ruled that Hazelton's ordinances were unconstitutional even though Article IV, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution requires the federal government "to protect each of the states from invasion,"and, not just military invasions.

    Activist Judge Munley 'leaped-aplenty' in ruling that Hazelton's ordinances violated the U.S. Constitution's supremacy clause,supposedly, because only the Federal government can enforce laws that it is charged with doing.-- even though the Federalgovernment, like its predecessors for decades, has done almost nothing to enforce our immigration laws. Ms. Barrett, not only'leaps-aplenty' also but, expands the Judge's ruling when she tells the Anderson Independent-Mail that Hazelton's ordinances violated 'the contract cause', the First, Fourth, 14th Amendment, and individual rights.-- And, said, "passing such an ordinance was divisive and promoted hatred and strife."

    However, Ms. 'political correctness' doesn't seem to realize that divisiveness, hatred, and strife will be promoted only when we lemmings allow 'activist' judges to create 'rights' for lawbreakers and allow 'officers-of-the-court,' such as herself, to remain in office who are supposed to be enforcing our laws, but are aiding and abetting criminals. And, we citizens sure as hell better keep our guns because we're going to need them to protect ourselves from the political correct ethnic panders that we elect and appoint to office who only pretend to enforce our laws and represent us.

    James Aldridge
    Anderson, S.C.

    (A modified version of this letter published Aug. 18 in the Anderson (S.C.) Independent-Mail.)

    Get educated about BOCS resolution

    Potomac News (Va.) – 8/16

    I am writing in response to Pamela Harms Letter to the Editor entitled "Intolerance is leading the county astray." Pamela Harms and all other pro-illegal supporters, please visit, where you will learn that on July 25, Congress passed an amendment "aim<ING> to eliminate what are commonly referred to as "sanctuary policies" in local municipalities, whereby law enforcement officials are barred from asking suspects about their immigration status or reporting them to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

    The amendment will ensure that existing law is enforced uniformly across the country by withholding federal funding for cities that choose to violate section 642(a) of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA)."

    Congresswoman Drake also states, "sanctuary cities undermine these partnerships by willfully and selectively choosing to disregard federal laws that are already on the books."

    The resolution passed ensures enforcement of existing federal laws,
    which is what Congress wants (our federal officials).

    I am tired of hearing that the board, Help Save Manassas, and citizens who support the board's resolution are racist, xenophobic, nativist, violators of civil rights, etc... There are no legal arguments to support illegal immigrants being in our country. What part of illegal don't you understand?

    To PRLDEF, MALDEF, the ACLU, the NAACP, the Virginia Muslim Action Committee, the Washington Lawyers Conference, the Central American Resource Center, the Virginia Council on Human Rights, the Council on American Islamic Relations, the Virginia Human Rights Commission, the Muslim Association of Virginia, the Woodbridge Workers Committee, and all other pro-illegal supporters, advocacy groups, and religious groups, I invite you to spend your time and resources more wisely by doing two things:

    1. Help the illegal immigrants to return to their homelands and immigrate to the U.S. in accordance with our immigration laws, and ...

    2. Travel to their countries of origin and help them repatriate, and assist the local citizens in effecting positive changes in their own countries.
    By encouraging illegals to remain here illegally, you are supporting their lawlessness.

    Allison Carman Kipp
    Manassas, Va.

    News-Sentinel (Ind.) - 8/17

    Column ignored illegal alien's victims

    Kevin Leininger's Aug. 3, column about Juan, an illegal alien living in Fort Wayne, completely ignores Juan's victims.

    First, Juan victimized the property owners along the border on whose land he trespassed. Property owners on our border with Mexico are being terrorized by illegal aliens and coyotes, like the one employed by Juan who, every day, trespass, steal from homes, kill livestock, litter, relieve themselves and trample fragile ecosystems.

    Second, illegal aliens like Juan endanger the lives of the men and women who serve in our Border Patrol by leading them on dangerous chases and, in some cases, targeting them with deadly weapons.

    Third, Juan and illegal aliens like him drive down wages and take jobs from just those Americans who are most vulnerable and closest to poverty. When the supply of labor is increased, wages are reduced and jobs are more scarce. How many American factory and restaurant employees make less money because they have to compete with Juan and illegal aliens like him who are willing to work “off the books”? How many Americans aren't working because of unfair competition from Juan and other illegal aliens like him?

    Fourth, Juan and illegal aliens like him steal money out of the pockets of every tax-paying American. Far from, as Leininger claimed, “paying taxes for services they cannot always receive,” illegal aliens like Juan impose a net burden on American taxpayers, in effect stealing money from every taxpayer. A June 26 report by the Heritage Foundation found that low-skill illegal aliens like Juan “receive, on average, three dollars in government benefits and services for each dollar of taxes they pay. This imbalance imposes a net cost of $89 billion per year on U.S. taxpayers.” $89 billion a year would pay for the maintenance of a lot of bridges and roads!

    Finally, Leininger either didn't do much research or chose to suppress some of his findings, because he wrongly states that the only alternative to granting amnesty to criminals like Juan is mass deportation. The humane solution to our illegal alien problem is simple: secure the border with Mexico and start to enforce our employment and immigration laws. As Juan and illegal aliens like him are unable to find jobs and unable to access the American welfare system, most will voluntarily return to their home countries. The few who remain will be in numbers low enough for orderly deportation. For more information on the “Attrition through Enforcement” plan, please see

    Barry Wiggins
    New Haven, Ind.

    Ashbury Park (N.J.) Press – 8/18

    Slayings show leaders' failures

    The murder of three students from Newark is a tragedy that was preventable. One of the suspects, an illegal immigrant from Peru, had been indicted on numerous charges including the rape of a 5-year-old girl.

    President Bush's failure to secure our borders make it possible for an endless stream of illegals to cross our borders. He must bear the blame for the loss of these young lives.

    Gov. Corzine is no less blameworthy. His nonenforcement policy has allowed criminal immigrants to roam our streets. New Jersey is one of only nine states that hasn't taken extra steps to combat illegal immigration. The state's attorney general has asked immigration officials not to make agreements with New Jersey law enforcement agencies that would give them the authority to identify, detain and process immigration offenders.

    The plan to assist illegal aliens and to prepare them for a path to legalization are a violation of federal law. We are all poorly served by Corzine's failure to uphold immigration law, and most horribly three innocent young men are gone and their families grieve.
    Thankfully, Bush's term in office soon will end. Let's make Corzine's stay equally brief.

    Eugene Cutolo
    Colt’s Neck, N.J.


    The letters program - as all the projects of NumbersUSA - relies upon individuals like you, along with grants from private foundations to reach its goal of an environmentally sustainable and economically just America. Would you consider making a donation? Click on: or send your donation to NumbersUSA, 1601 N. Kent St., Suite 1100, Arlington, VA 22209-2105; 1-877-885-7733.

    </TD></TR><TR><TD class=t1redoversmallheader vAlign=top align=left></TD></TR><TR><TD class=t1redundersmallfooter vAlign=top align=left colSpan=2>This may be a good time for you to make sure that you've let us know all of the areas you are interested in. In order to further customize the type of alerts you receive click here
    As a NumbersUSA subscriber, you will receive occasional emails about immigration-related opportunities. If you want to increase or reduce the frequency of these emails, click here and choose from Total Activism, Moderate Activism, or Limited Activism at the bottom of your registration form:

    NumbersUSA - relies upon individuals like you to reach its goal of an environmentally sustainable and economically just America.
    Reply With Quote  

  23. #48  
    RX Local roadreeler57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    The three amigos, erasing borders?
    The Washington Times : August 21 , 2007 -- by Wesley Pruden

    Click here to learn more about national sovereignty issues. Some of the folks who gave President Bush a country lickin' on his immigration "reform" are spoiling for another round with him. The reason why is on display at the "Three Amigos" summit in Canada.

    Mr. Bush and President Felipe Calderon of Mexico are guests of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper for another workout of a vaguely described scheme called the Security and Prosperity Partnership, which the White House says is nothing more than three amigos getting together to swap yarns, pull a cork and talk about NAFTA writ large. But a remarkably diverse group of skeptics, including congressmen of both parties, critics of unrestrained global trade, conservative activists and left-wing academics and trade unionists, say it's free trade run amok.

    The mysterious partnership is known only to the few by the acronym SPP. Most of the reporters at the Canadian summit can barely hide their languor, treating SPP as just another boring economic story White House reporters can't be expected to understand. The Associated Press describes SPP merely as "a way for the nations to team up on health, security and commerce."

    Twenty-one Republicans and one Democrat have written to President Bush to tell him of "serious and growing concerns" in Congress about the "so-called" Security and Prosperity Partnership, and the House has adopted legislation barring U.S. transportation officials from even participating in meetings of the partnership.

    The congressmen mostly seem miffed that the White House is undertaking far-reaching agreements with Canada and Mexico without telling them about it. The conservative skeptics say these agreements chip away national sovereignty -- that the aim is to establish a North American Union, like the European Union, with unelected bureaucrats empowered to form a super-government to dispossess everyone but the elites. The liberal skeptics argue that "the super-government" would be a tool of the multinational corporations, eager to drive down wages and make wetbacks of everyone without a corporation big enough to plunder cheap labor.

    The Mexican government, eager to export penniless Mexicans, is the most enthusiastic about the partnership and the billions of expected yankee dollars. Just two days after his election in 2000, Vicente Fox talked of his vision of a North American common market, a customs union, a common tariff, joint monetary policy and the "free flow of labor" across borders. It's difficult to imagine what Mr. Fox calls a "free flow" of labor if what we've had for decades hasn't satisfied him.

    A few months later, Mr. Fox showed up in Washington with an even bigger begging bowl, challenging Mr. Bush to develop a plan to legalize "all Mexicans in the United States" by the end of the year. George W. certainly tried. He's still nursing the bruises.

    The White House felt it necessary to dispatch an unnamed senior official as the Canadian summit opened to describe as "silly" the notion of a North American Union, or a common currency. But there's always somebody, senior official or not, who doesn't get the word. Promoters of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, chief among them Robert Pastor, a professor who worked in the Carter administration and has advised Democratic presidential candidates since, have already named the currency -- the "amero" -- they expect to one day find in the well-picked pockets of Americans.

    When George W. entertained the leaders of Mexico and Canada in Texas two years ago to introduce the Partnership, three amigos sat before a large stylized map of North America with the borders of the three countries curiously made indistinct. In testimony to Congress in 2005, Prof. Pastor said he envisioned a "new" North America: "Instead of stopping North Americans on the borders, we ought to provide them with a secure biometric Border Pass that would ease transit across the border like an E-Z pass permits our cars to speed through tollbooths." But selling this one won't be E-Z.
    Reply With Quote  

  24. #49  
    RX Local roadreeler57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Reply With Quote  

  25. #50  
    RX Local roadreeler57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    She's right on the money...again.

    1 Down, 31,999,999 to Go
    by Ann Coulter

    Posted: 08/22/2007

    Mickey Kaus has raised the intriguing possibility that, since Bush's amnesty plan went down to humiliating defeat once Americans got wind of what the elites had planned for us, the Bush administration might respond by intentionally targeting highly sympathetic illegal aliens for deportation "in as clumsy, heartless and lawsuit-inspiring a fashion as possible, in order to create the maximum number of negative headlines."

    Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff described anti-amnesty Americans as being satisfied with nothing less than "the death penalty" for illegal aliens and recently warned of "some unhappy consequences" unless illegal aliens were granted amnesty. Yes, that Michael Chertoff -- the guy in charge of keeping us safe from foreign invasions.

    So it was curious when we were treated this week to a weeping Mexican woman on TV, claiming the U.S. government was tearing her from her infant son and saying she knew the American people would be outraged if she were deported. (I note that her message might have been more effective in English.)

    Admittedly, I'd just as soon have Homeland Security focusing on illegal immigrants like the one who shot four promising college kids execution style in Newark, killing three of them, possibly after sexually molesting two of them. Heck, I wouldn't have minded if they had deported Jose Carranza even before his girlfriend accused him of raping her 5-year-old daughter.

    Or Ruben Hernandez-Juarez, an illegal alien charged with sexually molesting a 6-year-old boy in Martin County, Fla.

    Or Alejandro Bautista, an illegal alien in Cook County, Ill., who was convicted for sexually molesting two teenaged boys.

    Or Alejandro Xuya-Sian, the illegal alien who hit a pedestrian with his car in New York and dragged him for nearly a mile before dislodging the victim from his car, throwing him aside and driving off again. (Even more disturbing: Xuya-Sian may not have been wearing his seat belt at the time.)

    Or illegal alien Alberto Barajas-Enriquez, who is charged with beating his Michigan neighbor to death with a golf club because the neighbor complained about the constant barking of Enriquez's dog. Asked by police how many times he struck his victim with the golf club, Enriquez said, "Let's see ... five, six ... uh, put me down for a seven."

    Or Lucio Sanchez-Martinez, the illegal alien in Ohio charged with sexually molesting a sleeping 8-year-old girl.

    For simplicity, I have limited my enumeration of illegal aliens I would like deported to those who were charged or convicted of heinous crimes last week. For illegal aliens charged with child molestation, I had to limit it to two days last week.

    Still, if Elvira Arellano is the best they've got to change public opinion on deporting illegal aliens, don't expect public opinion to change anytime soon.

    Arellano has already snuck into the country illegally twice (that we know of). After being deported in 1999 -- under an administration that, astonishingly, was more serious about enforcing immigration law than the current one -- she illegally ran across the border again a few days later.

    Only after 9/11 was she arrested again and convicted for using a stolen Social Security number to get a job as a cleaning woman at an airport. In lieu of jail time, Arellano was to be deported. Instead she took refuge in a left-wing "church" and began to bellyache about being thrown out again.

    Despite living in this country illegally for a decade, Arellano hasn't mastered the most rudimentary English. She doesn't want to assimilate and become a "Mexican-American." She wants to be a Mexican-Mexican living in and off America.

    So far, the only thing Arellano has contributed to America is one illegitimate child.

    Arellano is part of the advance wave of left-wing, Third World colonization of America. Democrats claim there are "two Americas." If they have their way, there will be two Latin Americas.

    Liberals know they're losing the demographic war. Christians have lots of children and adopt lots of children; liberals abort children and encourage the gay lifestyle in anyone with a flair for color.

    They can't keep up.

    Population expert Nick Eberstadt recently speculated in The Washington Post that a principal reason for America's high fertility rate compared to Europe's is its religiosity. Well, that leaves liberals out.

    The Democratic Party is in the fight of its life against a conservative demographic trend. Its only hope is to gerrymander America to make the poorest half of Mexico a state. Only a massive influx of criminals, wards of the state and rioters can save them.

    This is why Democrats are obsessed with giving two groups the right to vote: illegal aliens and felons. With Arellano, they get two for the price of one. To liberals, building a wall across the Mexican border is a violation of the Voting Rights Act.

    Democrats are counting on illegal immigrants to be the future of their party, their border guards for the new socialist state. At least liberals have a clear mission and know what they're fighting for. Their plan is to destroy America.

    Karl Rove's only response is: "I don't want my 17-year-old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas."

    Arellano can go, and take her kid with her.
    Reply With Quote  

Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts