Posts

Immigration: The Ultimate Get-out-the-vote Drive

One reason predictions of a Mitt Romney victory in 2012 were inaccurate, say analysts, is that the turnout among certain Democrat constituencies — in particular blacks and Hispanics — was greater than expected. And what a significant factor this is. Whether we call it getting out the vote, having a great “ground game” or just turnout, it can make or break an election.

But while the phrase “getting out the vote” is well understood, there is a lesser known election strategy: getting in the vote. What’s the difference? While the former involves getting as many as possible of the set number of sympathetic potential voters to the polls, getting in the vote is the process by which you increase that number of sympathetic voters. This process is most effectively exercised by Democrats, and it’s done in two ways. One is by indoctrinating people — especially young people — via academia, the media and entertainment. The second way is through immigration.

Why immigration? Because virtually the whole world is, to use our provisional (and lacking) political terminology, to the “left” of America. In addition, indoctrinating a young person is effective, but it’s an expensive process that must continue throughout his formative and teen years. Far easier is to import ready-made leftists. The results are quicker, too: the targeted babe born today won’t be entering the voting booth for 18 years. An immigrant, however, can perhaps be naturalized in just a few years. And politicians are more interested in the next election than in a future election involving the next person to hold their seat.

Moreover, you have to add to this the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965’s creation of a status quo in which 85 percent of our immigrants now hail from the Third World and Asia. This is significant because, like it or not and whatever the causes, there is an ironclad correlation between racial/ethnic identification and voting patterns. The GOP derives 90 percent of its votes from approximately 63 percent of the population: whites. In contrast, there is no major non-white group (note that I’m including Hispanics in this even though most are anthropologically classified as Caucasian) that doesn’t break Democrat by wide margins. Blacks cast approximately 94 percent of their votes for Democrats, while Hispanics and Asians come in at about 75 percent.

So if you’re a Machiavellian leftist who values power above all else, what do you do?

You increase the non-white segment of the population while decreasing the white segment percentagewise — as much and as fast as possible.

Call this demographic warfare. The idea is that if the people won’t change the government to your liking, you change the people.

This places our current border crisis in perspective. It explains why Barack Obama will not enforce immigration law. It explains why we’ve had seven amnesties during the last few decades, all accompanied by unfulfilled promises to secure the border. And it explains why a promoter of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was hard-core leftist Ted Kennedy. Expecting power-hungry Democrats to seal the border and not facilitate the invasion of our nation is like supposing they will cancel their get-out-the-vote drives. Migration — illegal and legal — is one of the main ways in which they grow their constituencies.

Yet while we, again, face a largely statist world, Democrats would still prefer non-white migrants. There could be many reasons for this, but I will mention three. First, many such migrants are especially socialist, which is why south-of-the-border peoples have elected demagogues such as Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales. Second, they’re poor. This means that, unlike some European immigrants, they have no reason to be concerned about higher income tax rates. It also means that in a prosperous land in which they see wealth surrounding them, their socialist tendencies will be stoked all the more. Envy is a dangerous and easily exploited sin, and why shouldn’t they get a piece of that American pie?

Lastly there is the divide-and-conquer factor. Even if European immigrants are left-leaning, they will nonetheless associate with and more quickly assimilate into the more conservative white majority. In contrast, consider Hispanic immigrants. They generally will circulate within a left-leaning group — the wider Hispanic community — which places them in an echo chamber in which their socialist tendencies are reinforced, nurtured and where deviation from them could make one a pariah. It also makes them ripe for racial/ethnic demagoguery. You don’t want to vote like the gringos, do you? And I think here about how Obama told Hispanics in the run-up to the 2010 mid-term elections to “punish” their “enemies.” To whom do you think he was referring?

In fact, assimilation of many of these newcomers isn’t just unlikely, it’s impossible. This is because we have in our midst more than just an ethnic echo chamber — we have a burgeoning nation within our nation.

Consider: approximately 50 percent of our legal immigrants come from Mexico, and 67 percent of American Hispanics have origins in that nation. This translates into a legal and illegal Mexican-heritage population of 20 to 30 million — perhaps 20 percent of Mexico’s population. The consequences of such an unbalanced and suicidal immigration policy are severe, and they were explained well by University of Edinburgh professor Stephen Tierney in his book Multiculturalism and the Canadian Constitution:

In a situation in which immigrants are divided into many different groups originating in distant countries, there is no feasible prospect of any particular immigrant group’s challenging the hegemony of the national language [press one for English, folks?] and institutions. These groups may form an alliance among themselves to fight for better treatment and accommodations, but such an alliance can only be developed within the language and institutions of the host society and, hence, is integrative. In situations in which a single dominant immigrant group originates in a neighbouring country, the dynamics may be very different. The Arabs in Spain, and Mexicans in the United States, do not need allies among other immigrant groups. One could imagine claims for Arabic or Spanish to be declared a second official language, at least in regions where they are concentrated, and these immigrants could seek support from their neighbouring home country for such claims — in effect, establishing a kind of transnational extension of their original homeland in their new neighbouring country of residence.

So liberals are seeking to overwhelm what they call white America through demographic change. In the name of power, of a get-in-the-vote drive, they happily commit cultural genocide, the fear of which, Professor Tierney goes on to write, “is often compounded in situations where the immigrant group has historic claims against the receiving country. … For example, in the Mexican-United States case….”

This is why our handwringing over the current border crisis is a little ironic. Yes, the situation is outrageous, but taking exception to illegal migration while blithely accepting our legal-immigration regime is like thinking that government death squads are preferable to roving gangs of murderous miscreants. Demographically, politically and culturally the two types of migration have precisely the same effect. All the illegal variety does is accelerate the process, giving the left more votes now and authentic Americanism a quicker, and perhaps more merciful, death.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is of President Johnson signing the Hart-Celler Immigration and Nationalization Act of 1965 bill taken by Yoichi Okamoto, White House Photo Office.

Senate Democrats playing disgusting political game with Israel’s security

Call me whatever you want and personally attack me as you like for saying this, but Senate Democrats are playing a disgusting game with the security of Israel for political purposes.

The U.S .Defense Department has asked for emergency funding of $225 million in support of Israel’s Iron Dome protective weapon system that has had over a 90 percent success rate in shooting down incoming Hamas rockets. In the Democrat-controlled Senate, instead of allowing this as a stand-alone appropriations measure, they seek to tie this with funding support of President Obama’s request in the current illegal immigration border crisis. Funny — I didn’t see any caveats when the Secretary of State gave Hamas, a terrorist organization, $47 million in U.S. taxpayer dollars.

Who do you think the American people would rather see their taxpayer dollars support — more mock illegal immigrant courts, an Islamic terror group, or our ally in the Middle East facing an onslaught of incoming rockets?

This is the devious way funding is manipulated on Capitol Hill — and I don’t consent to either side doing this practice, so spare me the partisan diatribe. This is blatantly wrong and demonstrates to Prime Minister Netanyahu that for Democrats it’s not about doing what’s right, it’s about their immigration agenda.

And for you anti-big bank/government bank supporters, Democrats are also looking at linking support for the Export-Import (Ex-Im) Bank to the illegal immigration funding measure. So you progressive socialist, Occupy Wall Street types, you can see your beloved Democrats will sell out their principles — if they had any — for anything.

And if you want to check, I voted against the renewal of the Ex-Im Bank as it is not the business of the federal government and skews the free market economy.

But just remember, as Israel fires Iron Dome missiles, their supply dwindles. It is a race to conduct a ground operation, Operation Protective Edge, that eliminated Hamas rocket firing points and capability, as well as destroying the Hamas ammunition stockpile, which is funded by Qatar and Iran. And did I mention, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon flew to Israel aboard a flight paid for by the Qataris?

Senate Democrats are playing a very horrible game with the survival of a nation, Israel. Call your Senators and tell them to have a single vote on the emergency funding for Iron Dome. If you choose not to, then we know on whose side you stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenBWest.com.

The Nexus of Illegal Drugs and Illegal Immigration

All manner of reasons are being offered to explain the influx of thousands of illegal aliens, not the least of which is President Obama’s open invitation to Latin Americans to come here with the promise of becoming citizens at some point. By overloading the southern border, this has opened the doors to criminals and potential terrorists as well.

In March, the Huffington Post took note of the other far lesser known or discussed reason our southern border is so porous. “Americans Spent About A Trillion Dollars on Illegal Drugs in the Last Decade.” With that kind of money awaiting them, you can be sure that the drug cartels are going to make every effort to satisfy the market.

The article was about a Rand Corporation report by its Drug Policy Research Center as requested by the Office of National Drug Control Policy that tracked total expenditures, consumption, and number of users of marijuana, cocaine (including crack), heroin and methamphetamine. The decade tracked was 2000 to 2010.

Despite federal spending between $40 and $50 billion to fight the war on drugs, “American spending levels on illegal drugs stayed more or less the same.” RAND drew some of its data from the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring program, but it is no longer funded by the federal government which, one must assume, leaves it unable to know if the market for illegal drugs has expanded, shrunk or stayed the same.

criminal-immigrants

Criminal illegals.

The news about the illegal immigration from Latin American nations has a side to it that has not received much news coverage. It has to do with the views of four-star Marine Corps General John Kelly who heads the U.S. Military’s Southern Command. In a July 8 essay in the Military Times, “Central America Drug War a Dire Threat to U.S. National Security”, Gen. Kelly noted how the drug cartels have overwhelmed the governments of Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala, rendering any opposition to them too great a threat.

“Due to the insatiable U.S. demand for drugs, particularly cocaine, heroin and now methamphetamines, all produced in Latin American and smuggled into the U.S.” said Gen. Kelly, they have been left “near broken societies” in which the rule of law has been destroyed. How bad is it? According to the Migration Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., applications for asylum in neighboring countries—mostly Mexico and Costa Rica—are up 712%,

Cutting off aid to these countries as has been suggested by some will turn them into entities that are little more than names on a map and increase the distress of their law-abiding populations. Indeed, because so many of them have already come to the U.S., the children arriving here have families waiting for them. Seventy-three percent of the 47,017 minors apprehended at the border were from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. They will stay here to be processed by a system that has not deterred the estimated eleven million illegal aliens already living here.

Cartel-Smuggling-Routes

For a larger view click on the map.

According to Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N), Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, despite the illegal immigration crisis the U.S. has encountered, Gen. Kelly’s U.S. Southern Command is “only sourced (financed) at five percent of the capacity it needs.” Reducing the funding to the U.S. military has been a priority of the Obama agenda.

Allen West, a former Lt. Colonel and member of the House of Representatives, writing on his July 8 blog, said, “We know Obama has a penchant for turning generals who don’t toe his line and agenda points—like former CENTCOM Commander Marine Corps General Mattis—into civilians, I certainly hope we don’t see another truth-telling general, a commander, called on the carpet by Obama’s lapdog Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel—or worse, getting a call from the Capo di tutti Capi Valerie Jarrett.

The Center for Immigration Studies reports that “a significant majority of children coming across are not unaccompanied alien children according to the definition found in federal law.” As noted above they have family here in the U.S. Moreover, “there is little evidence to suggest that the recent arrivals are victims of trafficking which involves coercion.” Their families have paid smugglers to bring them to the U.S.”

While we read and hear references to those who smuggle immigrants to the U.S. border, known as “coyotes”, an Associated Press report noted a 2010 U.N. study that estimated this “service” generated $6.6. billion for the smugglers as the migrants pay anywhere from $4,000 to $10,000 each for the journey across thousands of miles “in the care of smuggling networks that in turn pay off government officials, gangs operating on trains and drug cartels controlling the routes north.”

The appetite for illegal drugs that has been a part of life in the U.S. for many citizens has contributed to the illegal alien flow from the Latin American nations whose governments have been undermined by the drug cartels. It’s a vicious circle that is not likely to be broken any time soon, if ever.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

What is Obama hiding in those immigrant camps?

I know I’m not the only one bothered by the nagging question that must be asked and answered: “what is going on at these holding facilities for these illegal immigrants?”

I refuse to refer to these areas as “refugee camps” which is of course being bantered about at the United Nations. It all comes back to another of Obama’s lies: to be the most transparent administration in America’s history.

An editorial in the Washington Times says, “President Obama’s ultimate weakness may be that he believes his own blarney. A year ago, Mr. Obama boasted in a “fireside” Web chat that his “is the most transparent administration in history.” There was not the slightest hint of irony. He may actually believe it. But three-dozen organizations representing newspapermen and other journalists, mostly liberals, beg to differ. In a testy letter to the president on Tuesday, the group decried the “slick non-answers” and cold shoulders they’re getting from Mr. Obama’s representatives, who have restricted access to any information they consider embarrassing to the administration. “The stifling of free expression,” the signers said, “is happening despite your pledge on your first day in office to bring ‘a new era of openness’ to federal government — and the subsequent executive orders and directives which were supposed to bring such openness about.”

And right now the issue of Obama’s transparency is being challenged once again. Yesterday the president said the reason he didn’t tour the Texas border is because he’s not interested in “photo ops” – REALLY?

If there’s one thing Obama has been successful in doing, it’s conducting countless White House photo ops — like the whole doctors in white robes gimmick in the Rose Garden or how about the infamous “beer summit?” And don’t forget that Rose Garden blow-up with the parents of Bowe Bergdahl — hey, he’s in Texas too.

But not these photo ops. Why? What is he trying to hide?

The Washington Times says “due to incessant pressure the administration has changed its position but with caveats, the administration reluctantly said it would allow press and congressional visits, but no photographs or video permitted, not even cellphone cameras. Interviews with the illegal aliens, custodians or doctors treating the new arrivals are prohibited.”

This cloak and dagger atmosphere is quite troubling as it violates the fundamental premise of our First Amendment – something about which the Obama administration seems quite hostile. Isn’t it perplexing that President Obama had time to throw down beers and shoot pool with Colorado Governor Hickenlooper and fist bump a bronze gorilla — but has no time to visit these illegal immigrant holding areas or even the southern border?

Obama has all the time in the world for Democrat fundraisers but no time for Marine Sergeant Andrew Tahmooressi, who was refused release just last night in Mexico. Maybe a quick trip to Mexico and cancellation of the fundraiser in Austin, Texas would be warranted. But that would be the actions of a leader, not a charlatan, an impostor, Barack Hussein Obama.

What do you think the government is hiding? Take our one question poll and let me know your thoughts.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenBWest.com.

Immigrant camp worker: People won’t believe what is going on in America

Obama has stated he will use his executive authority to “fix” the immigration problem in America. In fact he recently stated these illegal immigrant kids who have flooded across our southern border must go back home. We shall wait and see if rhetoric meets action.

In the meantime, we could be facing a serious health crisis at the immigrant border camps. It’s so bad, staff have been threatened with arrest if they reveal the truth.

kid-300x180According to a report by Todd Starnes at FoxNews.com, “A government-contracted security force threatened to arrest doctors and nurses if they divulged any information about the contagion threat at a refugee camp housing illegal alien children at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio.”

Starnes says, “In spite of the threat, several former camp workers broke their confidentiality agreements and shared exclusive details with me about the dangerous conditions at the camp. They said taxpayers deserve to know about the contagious diseases and the risks the children pose to Americans.”

The fact that we have a situation where Americans are being threatened for telling the truth is in itself disturbing — but is sadly reflective of the progressive socialist, Chicago way of political thuggery, intimidation and coercion.

“There were several of us who wanted to talk about the camps, but the agents made it clear we would be arrested,” a psychiatric counselor told Starnes. “We were under orders not to say anything.” Starnes reports that the sources said workers were guarded by a security force from the Baptist Family & Children’s Services, which the Department of Health and Human Services hired to run the Lackland Camp.

At the immigrant camp, Starnes say “workers were stripped of their cellphones and other communication devices. Anyone caught with a phone was immediately fired. “Everyone was paranoid,” a worker said. “The children had more rights than the workers.” She said children in the camp had measles, scabies, chicken pox and strep throat as well as mental and emotional issues. “It was not a good atmosphere in terms of health,” she said. “I would be talking to children and lice would just be climbing down their hair. You could see the bugs crawling through their hair,” she said. “After we would rinse out their hair, the sink would be loaded with black bugs.”

Of course all of this may seem inconsequential to some folks — like Nancy Pelosi who said there’s not a crisis but an opportunity in all of this. However, we do know our federal government and its Department of Homeland Security has been transporting these illegal immigrants across the country in commercial buses and airplanes. The question is, were the aliens transported before or after delousing, and will the buses and planes now be used to transport the general American public?

Starnes says, “a former nurse at the camp addressed how she was horrified by what she saw. “We have so many kids coming in that there was no way to control all of the sickness – all this stuff coming into the country,” she said. “We were very concerned at one point about strep going around the base.” Both the counselor and the nurse said their superiors tried to cover up the extent of the illnesses. “When they found out the kids had scabies, the charge nurse was adamant – ‘Don’t mention that. Don’t say scabies,’” the nurse recounted. “But everybody knew they had scabies. Some of the workers were very concerned about touching things and picking things up. They asked if they should be concerned, but they were told don’t worry about it.”

The counselor, who wishes to remain anonymous, told Starnes she kept a detailed journal about what happened during her tenure at the facility. “When people read that journal they are going to be astonished,” she said. ‘I don’t think they will believe what is going on in America.”

The counselor received a call from federal agents demanding that she return to the military base and hand over her journal but she refused.

So what happened to the “most transparent administration?” The last thing we need in America is a health crisis, a sort of biological assault on the country.

However, in the world of liberal progressives, the ends justify the means. Apparently, the goal of fundamentally transforming America must happen “by any means necessary.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenBWest.com.

Senator Rand Paul: With Utmost Respect, You’re Wrong About This

Perhaps it is due to me being a PK (preacher’s kid) with fond childhood memories of adoringly watching my dad preach well prepared sermons at the Holy Temple Church of Truth storefront in a Baltimore ghetto, the Bible remains my ultimate reference source for wisdom and leadership.

Moses who led the Israelite people out of slavery is an excellent example of what to do and what not to do as a leader. His decisions were rooted in obedience to God’s instructions which proved to be most beneficial to his flock. Moses ignored vehement critics and even them threatening to stone him to death. He did the right thing even when it did not jive with popular opinion. That is leadership folks.

On one occasion, due to pressure from his people, Moses disobeyed God and took matters into his own hands. God’s punishment was harsh. God told Moses he would not be permitted to bring his people into the Promised Land. Leaders do not surrender, making decisions which they know to be wrong to appease bullies, manipulators and the ignorant.

A case in point is Senator Rand Paul. Sen. Paul is out there saying that the GOP should back away from requiring a photo ID to vote.

Common sense tells us that requiring a photo ID to vote is a reasonable logical way to prevent voter fraud. Since a photo ID is required to complete a plethora of transactions, what is the big deal? Thus, it is absurd to call the photo ID requirement to vote racist.

In essence, Sen Paul is surrendering to the mainstream media supported Democrat absurd lie that requiring a photo ID to vote is racist. During a radio interview Senator Paul said that the GOP should not push something that is “offensive” to a group of people.

Senator Paul with all due respect, and I truly do respect and like you, I find your pandering to my fellow blacks disappointing.

Since Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 War on Poverty, the Democratic party has implemented programs and lowered standards which have wrecked havoc on black families; treating us as inferiors in need of special concessions and endless government handouts to survive. Sen Paul, the last thing we Americans who happen to be black need is for the GOP to embrace the Left’s paradigm that we are lesser Americans. Do not expect too much of us poor black folks because we “be” special.

Okay, I get it and wholeheartedly agree that the GOP should reach-out to black America. Frankly, the GOP is a little late to the dance. For years, I have been pestering the GOP to reach-out to the black community with “Reach Your Dreams” tours.

My concept is simple. The tour would feature great music. I know awesome conservative rappers and dancers who could capture the ears of the young and hip seniors. Imagine successful minority speakers like Herman Cain, Katrina Pierson and others on stage sharing how they achieved their American Dreams via education, hard work and right choices (conservative principles). The GOP defeatist response has been, “Why bother? The Democrats will get 95% of the black vote no matter what we do.”

Apparently, that opinion has changed and the GOP is wisely pursuing black voters. But for crying out loud, offering a liberal Democrat-Lite agenda and treating blacks like inferiors too stupid to find their way to the DMV is not the way.

Sen Paul rather than surrendering to the Democrats’ and MSM’s spin that requiring a photo ID to vote is racist, show real “presidential candidate” leadership. Turn the table on the Dems. Tell black voters that the Democrats are insulting their intelligence. The Democrats talk down, expect less and treat them like lesser Americans.

When these supposed advocates of black empowerment (NAACP, Congressional Black Caucus, Obama Administration and the MSM), say requiring a photo ID to vote disenfranchises blacks, it is a major “dis”. Black America should be outraged. With friends who think so little of us blacks, we do not need enemies.

I am not just picking on Senator Paul. I am simply saying voters are discouraged and frustrated with soulless politicians/candidates whose every decision is a political calculation and an attempt to win votes at any and all cost. It is not unreasonable for voters to expect political leaders with character and backbone who simply desire to serve and do the right thing for their constituents and America.

Steve Lonegan running for U.S. Congress in New Jersey and South Carolina U.S. Congressman Trey Gowdy are two guys that fit the bill. I love these guys. Neither give a hoot about being politically correct. Both are fearless fighters for truth, justice and defending our liberty and freedom. That’s what I’m talkin’ about.

I have not selected my preferred 2016 GOP presidential nominee. I want someone trustworthy who will always do what is honorable, righteous and best for my country; no divisive pandering or special concessions to groups to win votes. Please, we have had enough of that low rent politicking in government.

Nor, will I support a GOP candidate who sticks their finger in the air to see which direction the MSM endorsed and consultant’s political wind is blowing and designs their platform accordingly. Stop insulting our intelligence and morality by continuously advocating lowered intellectual and moral standards and calling it outreach and creating a “big tent”.

We are Americans, products of a remarkably successful unique experiment. GOP, deal with us accordingly with respect; not like the Democrats who treat Americans, particularly minorities, like incapable inferior entitlement junkies in need of government managing every aspect of our lives.

We need a conservative leader who will grab the steering wheel and reverse the direction of our country away from Obama’s Government Controlled Welfareville. A true conservative will drive us back toward our Founding Fathers’ Promised Land of liberty and freedom where Americans are encouraged to be all they can be.

Sen Paul, America needs leadership, not surrender and pandering.

Why the United States should adopt Mexico’s Immigration Laws

Members of Congress are harming our society by overwhelming us with legal and illegal aliens. Perhaps they should consider adopting Mexico’s immigration laws? Since the majority here are Mexicans they should understand and appreciate being judged under Mexican rules.

Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:

Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.”

Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents.

Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.”

The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.”

Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:

  1. Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants.
  2. A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity.
  3. A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number.
  4. Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be Imprisoned. Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned.
  5. Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different is subject to fine and imprisonment.
  6. Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as Felons. Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished.
  7. Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years.
  8. Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison . Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico — such as working with out a permit — can also be imprisoned.

Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population States…”A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.”

Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. Foreigners who have contempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported.

Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals .Under the law, A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison.

GOP Walks into U-shape Ambush RE: Immigration

Recently we reported that the House GOP, especially Speaker Boehner, was looking at a means to advance the idea of “comprehensive” immigration reform.

President Obama threw down a gauntlet during his State of the Union address, (which very few watched, by the way). The House GOP is currently at a retreat conference in Baltimore (some might say their at a retreat both literally and figuratively) and they may well be crafting a strategy at this session.

Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol writes in his blog,

The Wall Street Journal reports that some House Republican leaders are looking to give illegal immigrants legal status right away, with the chance for a green card—and citizenship—down the line….First, illegal immigrants would be offered a “probationary” status, allowing them to work while the government tightened border security and interior enforcement. Officials have explained that this would allow people to work legally while they wait for permanent legal status. (Officials have explained that this group could revert to illegal status if enforcement benchmarks are not met.)

Mr. Kristol (and I) challenge that parenthetical statement. Kristol says,

Is it plausible, and would it even be fair, to force legalized working immigrants to “revert” to illegal status just because some bureaucrats haven’t met certain arbitrary benchmarks? The forced “reversion” would never happen, and it shouldn’t.

I’m constantly amazed how so much legislation is written in double-speak to appease and assuage some concerns while enabling the true goals to be met. “Comprehensive” legislation equals lots of pages of legislation with caveats buried deep inside and no one reads but everyone votes for.

Even Pat Buchanan warns about the prudence of this legislative shift in a National Review article where he says

An imminent Republican debate over immigration will play into the hands of the Democratic party. With the widespread unpopularity of Obamacare, Republicans should instead focus on the embattled health-care law ahead of the 2014 midterm election. By pivoting to the issue of immigration, Republicans are walking right into the trap.

Buchanan surmises that the “Chamber of Commerce and the big-business folks want the immigration deal solved.”

And therein lies the u-shaped ambush awaiting the House GOP and Speaker Boehner if they fall on this grenade. First of all, at a time when Americans are suffering from high levels of unemployment, they should not be adding illegals into the job market until we can rectify the situation for Americans.

The Democrats will certainly blame the Republicans for exacerbating the jobless situation for Americans and castigate the GOP as the party of big business and corporations who want cheap labor.

Second, why would Speaker Boehner do anything that feeds more members into the liberal progressive welfare nanny-state? Who does the Speaker believe these new legal-status individuals will support? Ya think we have voter fraud issues now?

Lastly, why would the GOP want to discourage its base, which enabled them to have a House majority in 2010?

This issue combined with the insidious government education initiative “common core” will result in many conservatives basically saying, “you’re on your own” and this will add fire to the direction and policy of the Republican Party.

My advice to Republicans? You cannot win by being a lesser version of the liberals. If you cannot articulate a clear delineation based upon a policy agenda that promotes the advancement of the individual American, you will lose.

Focus on healthcare solutions, policies that get Americans back to work, get behind our veterans and their concerns, and present a vision for our national security — and communicate that as a unified body.

Even Harry Reid wised up and is denying President Obama fast track trade authority and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Make the connection with the American people, because right now, President Obama and the progressive socialists have lost credibility with Americans.

What do you think, should the House GOP cave in and advance some type of comprehensive resolution to illegal immigration? I think I know the answer…

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenBWest.com.

RELATED COLUMNS: 

Rubio Continues Pulling Back On His Immigration Reform Position

Boehner and the Republican Scarlet Letter: “A” is for Amnesty

Rubio Continues Pulling Back On His Immigration Reform Position

One of the authors of the controversial Senate immigration reform bill, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, spoke to the Shark Tank and other reporters at the Capitol about the upcoming House immigration reform debate, where he believed that a set of principles that would be widely supported will probably come out of the House of Representatives.

Rubio’s ears were ringing as earlier in the day, Speaker John Boehner told reporters during a press conference at RNC headquarters, that a set of immigration principles would be discussed at the upcoming Republican congressional retreat. Rubio stated that the American people lacked confidence in the Obama administration, which is pushing blanket legalization in the immigration reform debate, to enforce any and all immigration enforcement measures.

Rubio was pummeled by grassroots activists for his change of position on immigration reform, when he co sponsored the Senate immigration bill, but now seems to be backing away from his own bill.

It’s still an Issue that needs to be solve, I think the better way to solve it at this point, given the lack of confidence people have in the federal government, is to do it in a way that will gain people’s confidence, and that is why I think a sequential approach is the better approach- it was originally what I had advocated for, it’s not the direction the Senate headed, but in essence, it sounds like that’s the direction everyone wants to head now.

Rubio added that if there was another debate on this issue, he would engage and “give ideas about how to move forward.”

My observation on it now is, that this is not a process today that’s conducive to some big piece of legislation, lack of confidence people have in the federal government has only eroded in the past 12 months, I think it will continue to erode.

And then he added:

The observation that I have made, which I made a couple months ago, and now everyone is agreeing with, is that this is an issue that needs to be handled sequentially, given the mood and sentiment around here and the lack of trust people have. That’s the only observation I couple months ago is that some central piece of legislation, one big piece of legislation just isn’t going to pass.

When questioned if  his bill was “one big bill,” Rubio responded:

That was the direction the senate went, but if you back and read what I wrote in the WSJ last year, up to the time that debate began , I argued that a better approach , there is a difference between what you do and how you do it, those are two separate issues, and from a procedural standpoint  my argument was, that if we could begin to do this in a way that was sequence so that people can gain confidence and momentum behind the idea I thought that that was a more realistic approach.

Rubio then reiterated  that “the Senate decided” to go in the “big piece”of legislation direction.

Now the Senate decided to do it in one big piece of legislation, I didn’t think that was the best approach, But I chose to get involved with it because I wanted to influence, and hopefully make something positive happen. By nature, if I see a problem, I try to solve it.

EDITORS NOTE: This column and photo originally appeared on The Shark Tank. 

Have you noticed Rubio is not talking amnesty during the August recess?

WDW – FL gets daily press releases from the office of Florida Senator Marco Rubio. During the August recess to date there is one topic he is not talking about – amnesty. It appears Rubio is not hosting any town hall meetings. Rather he is giving speeches to select friendly groups, such as Chambers of Commerce. The Chamber supports amnesty because it provides its membership with cheap labor.

If he did hold a town hall meeting he might get an ear full like what happened in Sarasota, FL, where at a presentation by Dennis Michael Lynch on amnesty just the mention of Rubio’s name drew loud boos.

Rubio wants to talk about Apalachicola Bay (oysters), defunding the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), Washington misspending (which will increase if  the amnesty bill passes), the UN nominee Samantha Power and a liberal activist court.

Where is anything on amnesty? Nada, nothing, total silence.

Sarah Carter from The Blaze reports, “Cochise County [Arizona] Sheriff Mark Dannels doesn’t mince words. He’s angry that local law enforcement and the citizens who call the Southwest border home have been left out of the decision making process when it comes to security and immigration reform … ‘Look at (Sen. Marco) Rubio out of Florida — have you been down here, Rubio?’ he said, noting that drug cartels had just replaced a radio relay station on the mountain that the sheriff’s team had taken down less than three weeks earlier.”

“I say to myself, ‘Rubio, you’re making decisions for me, for my state, for my county, my city when you haven’t even been here – what an insult,  what do you know about our border?  You know nothing about our border. Yet you’re making those decisions without even speaking to us,’” wrote Carter.

Rubio’s office did not return phone calls seeking comment.

Maybe this is a topic that Rubio wants to ignore but AZ Sheriff Dannels and the people do not.

Here is a list of releases dated August 13, 2013:

For a complete list of Rubio press releases for August 2013 go here.

For Rubio perhaps silence is golden on amnesty?

Has Rubio read his own immigration bill?

The Weekly Standard reports that at least five S. 744 supporters do not know what is in the bill. When asked about a provision that would give employers a $3,000 incentive to hire amnestied aliens over citizens and permanent legal residents:

Sen. Baucus said: “I don’t know if that’s been solved.”

Sen. Casey: “I just haven’t read it that closely to know.”

Sen. Blumenthal: “that’s a good question. I’d have to check.”

Sen. Carper: “I don’t have the time to drill down on it right now”

Sen. Boxer: “I think if you work for an employer who offers health care, you will get the health care you want.”

Sen. McCain’s and Rubio’s offices didn’t respond.

John Carney of CNBC writes that the Congressional Budget Office says S. 744 would create “another decade of pain” for American workers. But that doesn’t seem to trouble very many Members of the United States Senate.

Instead of discussing the higher unemployment and lower wages S. 744 would mean for American workers, the Gang is “in full horse-trading mode” according to Politico, which also reports (subscribers only) that the entire process has been “mostly via back channels and insider negotiations, with deals reached privately to lock up senators’ votes — rather than amendments adopted publicly on the Senate floor.”

Erick Erickson of Red State has a list of quotes from amnesty supporters back when they were running for office — and againstamnesty.

And Sen. Rubio (among those quoted by Erickson above) reiterated his belief that the Senate needs to convince the American public to trust it on immigration.

Sen. Paul, on the other hand, wrote “Washington parlor tricks disguised as reform will not fool the American people.”

VIDEO: Sen. Ted Cruz Speaks Against Corker-Hoeven Amendment to the Immigration Bill:

Book Review: Crime and Incompetence – Guide to America’s Immigration Crisis

An explosive and unvarnished look at America’s immigration problem. Crime & Incompetence: Guide to America’s Immigration Crisis takes the reader into a world of crime, corruption, and incompetence that politicians and faceless bureaucrats do not want you to know exists.

Investigative journalist Marinka Peschmann’s eye-opening book exposes the dark side of the broken immigration system. Bribery—cash, gifts, or sex—is but one criminal element at the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

“After reading Crime & Incompetence, Americans will learn how, under the watch of both Republican and Democratic administrations, the USCIS grew into a dysfunctional bureaucracy that substantially contributed to the current illegal alien/undocumented worker crisis; yet somehow, magically, is expected to process a “bipartisan” path to citizenship (a.k.a. amnesty) for roughly 11+ million illegal immigrants,” writes Peschmann.

Peschmann asks, “How can a broken system process millions of illegal immigrants when it can’t process legal immigrants properly? It cannot. As you will see, comprehensive immigration reform is not about compassion—it is a vote-grab at the expense of Americans and lawful immigrants.”

Dare to see big government at its worst. See what legal immigrants have known all along—how devastating life can be at the mercy of unelected bureaucrats while stuck in a broken state-run agency. This could be your future in Obama’s America. Heed Peschmann’s documented warning: should any type of amnesty become law, America will be fundamentally transformed into a one-party nation.

This is a must read for anyone who cares about America’s future.

ABOUT MARINKA PESCHMANN

Marinka, the author of The Whistleblower: How the Clinton White House Stayed in Power to Reemerge in the Obama White House and on the World Stage (One Rock Ink), and Following Orders: The Death of Vince Foster, Clinton White House Lawyer (One Rock Ink), is a freelance journalist. She has collaborated, ghostwritten, and contributed to books and stories from showbiz and celebrities to true crime, politics, and the United Nations.

After freelancing behind the scenes in both the mainstream press and the new media, it was time to step forward. For more information please visit: MarinkaPeschmann.com.

Center for Immigration Studies calls Rubio’s amnesty ad “deceptive” (Video)

Jon Feere, the Legal Policy Analyst at the Center for Immigration Studies, reviews an ad released by the “Gang of Eight” featuring Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL). The ad is playing nationwide, including in Florida.

Feere states, “The minute-long advertisement calls the proposal ‘conservative immigration reform’ and attempts to make amnesty appealing to Republican voters. Partisan politics aside, the amnesty ad is misleading on a number of counts…”

The ad was produced by Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg who created FWD.us, an advocacy group aimed at promoting amnesty. One of the group’s offshoots is “Americans for a Conservative Direction“, which is cited at the end of the ad.

Americans for a Conservative Direction’s board members include: Haley Barbour: former Governor Haley Barbour served as the 62nd governor of Mississippi from 2004 to 2012 and served as Chairman of the Republican National Committee in the mid ’90s; Sally Bradshaw: former Florida Governor Jeb Bush’s Chief of Staff from 1999-2001, and served as a Co-Chair of the Republican National Committee’s Growth and Opportunity Project; Joel Kaplan: currently Vice President of US Public Policy at Facebook, Joel also served as Deputy Chief of Staff to former President George W. Bush; Dan Senor: former chief advisor to Representative Paul Ryan on the Romney-Ryan 2012 campaign; Rob Jesmer: former Executive Director at the National Republican Senatorial Committee from 2008 – 2012.

Below is the ad:

Here is Feere’s analysis of the ad phrase by phrase:

RUBIO: “Anyone who thinks what we have now in immigration is not a problem is fooling themselves. What we have in place today is de facto amnesty.”

Very few Americans believe that we don’t have a serious problem with illegal immigration. It is true that this country is experiencing a de facto amnesty for illegal aliens, and it is largely the result of the Obama administration refusing to enforce immigration laws on the books. The problem is that Rubio wants to turn this “de facto” amnesty into a formal amnesty, and grant millions of law-breakers work permits, driver’s licenses, Social Security accounts, travel documents, and an unknown number of additional state-level benefits. Rubio is trying to help President Obama fulfill his campaign goal of keeping all illegal aliens in the country and giving them benefits reserved for legal residents. If Rubio was actually troubled by the de facto amnesty being advanced by the Obama administration, Rubio would side with the ICE officials who are suing the Obama administration over the president’s effort to prevent them from doing their jobs. Top-ranking ICE official Chris Crane explained the lawsuit to Fox News, here. Mr. Crane’s recent congressional testimony, available here, raises many troubling issues. ICE’s additional concern is that the amnesty bill would make permanent their inability to enforce the law by giving DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano “virtually unlimited discretion” to waive all enforcement of immigration law. If an amnesty is passed, the Obama administration will likely continue to undermine any immigration enforcement provisions in the bill.

ANNOUNCER: “Conservative leaders have a plan, the toughest immigration enforcement measures in the history of the United States.”

The so-called “Gang of Eight” senators who wrote the bill aren’t all “conservative leaders”, unless you consider Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) to fit that description. True, the gang also includes Republican senators, but it is up for debate whether one considers Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), and Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) to be conservative on immigration. Their immigration report card grades, from the pro-enforcement group NumbersUSA, are troubling: Graham has a “C”, McCain a “D”, and a Flake “C”. This is in contrast to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has an “A+” from NumbersUSA.

The voiceover in the ad also cites a newspaper article for the “toughest enforcement measures in the history of the United States” language. This commercial carefully avoided some of the language in the article’s full sentence, particularly the part noting that this bill would allow previously deported illegal aliens to return to the country. The article’s full sentence reads:

The controversial proposal would grant most of the 11 million people here illegally a path to citizenship and give thousands of deported individuals a chance to return, but would also adopt some of the toughest immigration enforcement measures in the history of the United States.

No immigration bill in the history of the United States has ever permitted previously deported illegal aliens to return to the United States to receive citizenship, so it is difficult to see how this news organization concluded that the bill is the “toughest” our country has ever seen. Of course, the article is really claiming that the bill would “adopt some” tough enforcement measures, not that the bill itself is tough.

On closer inspection, many of these measures (noted below) are not as tough as they seem to be.

RUBIO: “They have to pass the background check, they have to be able to pay a registration fee, they have to pay a fine.”

Within six months of the bill’s passage, illegal immigrants would become immediately eligible for legal status, and many of the hoops that illegal immigrants would have to jump through to get such status do not amount to much. It is likely that any illegal immigrants who simply claim to be eligible will be able to avoid deportation, even if they’re already in detention. This is exactly what is already happening under President Obama’s deferred action program. ICE agents are being instructed to release any illegal aliens who claim to be eligible, even if they haven’t filled out an application form. The same situation will unfold under the large-scale amnesty bill. ICE will be virtually handcuffed and will not be able to carry out most enforcement.

To acquire the primary legal status offered under this bill, illegal immigrants would have to undergo a simple background check. But the bill would still grant legal status to illegal immigrants with a significant amount of criminality on their rap sheet. For example, crimes like ID theft and vandalism are not considered serious enough to deny a person status, despite the fact that such crimes create real victims. Specifically, two misdemeanors will not result in legal status being denied and under the bill multiple misdemeanors could be counted as “one” misdemeanor, provided they occur on the same day. Additionally, any problematic history an illegal immigrant has in his home country is unlikely to be uncovered; in a sense, our public safety would depend on the bookkeeping of police departments in the alien’s homeland, and there are many things that Americans consider criminal that are not criminal overseas.

Finally, the government’s capacity to conduct background checks on millions of illegal immigrants is questionable. ICE Union head Chris Crane explained in a video interview with the Daily Caller that there is “no such thing as a background check on a foreign national.” The 1986 amnesty also had background checks, but hundreds of thousands of fraudulent applicants were rubber-stamped. The amnesty granted legal status to someone who used his new status to freely travel to the Middle East to pick up terrorist training and helped lead the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Had we enforced our immigration laws, he would have been removed from the country and the attack might never have occurred.

The recent Boston Marathon bombing should also illustrate the government’s inability to carefully vet backgrounds. The FBI interviewed at least one of the terrorists, his family members, and his neighbors, in addition to analyzing his Internet usage. They apparently found nothing that would have raised a red flag. Despite the fact that DHS estimates there are many problematic foreign-born people living in the United States, the millions of illegal aliens applying for the amnesty will not have nearly as vigorous of a background check as the Boston bombers had, suggesting that some bad people will receive legal status through the bill. As written, the bill would allow known gang members to become U.S. citizens if they simply “renounce” their gang affiliation.

Rubio also claims that illegal aliens applying for the amnesty would have to pay a fee, but there are waivers and no specificity. The bill simply notes that illegal aliens aged 16 and older who want legal status will have to pay a fee “in an amount determined by [DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano]”. While it is unclear how much the fee would be, the bill says it should be enough to cover processing the applications. (See here for David North’s estimate of the size of the fee needed to process applicants properly.) But in the next section, the bill gives Napolitano the power to limit the fee and to exempt “classes of individuals” altogether. With such broad authority granted by Congress, it is unclear whether this fee would apply to most amnesty applicants.

It should also be noted that USCIS already offers waivers for those who cannot afford certain fees — in fact, the Obama administration created a form for such waivers in 2010 — and similar waivers may apply to any future amnesty. To obtain a fee waiver for some existing immigration benefits, an applicant simply must show that they are currently using a welfare program. Currently, 71 percent of illegal alien households with children make use of at least one form of welfare.

Rubio also claims that amnesty applicants would have to pay a fine. A fine is different from a fee and, by definition, a fine is meant to be a punishment for breaking a law. The bill puts the fine at $500 for the initial legal status — not much of a punishment considering the laws that have been broken. This initial status turns the illegal aliens into legal residents and grants them work permits, driver’s licenses, Social Security accounts, and many other benefits. Applicants would have to pay another $500 over the next six years. If a person wants to upgrade from this provisional status to full green card status (and eventual U.S. citizenship), they would have to pay another $1,000 many years down the road. But there are many exceptions. For example, people of any age who claim to have entered before age 16 and have a high school degree or GED would not have to pay either of the $500 fines, nor would they have to pay the $1,000 fine for green card status. Also, all people under 21 years of age, regardless of when they entered and whether they have a high school degree, would be exempted from both of the $500 fines.

Furthermore, it is likely that some pro-amnesty groups will assist applicants in paying the fines — some of which will be using taxpayer-provided funds to do so. The bill would actually grant groups like La Raza $150 million of taxpayer dollars to help illegal aliens apply for the amnesty, and the bill grants them a lot of discretion to decide how to spend the money. In reality, the fine may not be much of a punishment at all — particularly if American taxpayers are the ones footing the bill.

Absent from Rubio’s list is the requirement that illegal aliens pay back taxes. The reason he is no longer citing it is because that provision never made it into the bill. For months Rubio and other amnesty advocates sold the bill on the notion of requiring illegal aliens to pay back taxes for the years they have worked off the books. But it was simply part of an attempt to mislead the public into thinking this bill is tougher than it really is. Only “assessed” taxes have to be paid, and if the IRS doesn’t audit illegal immigrants working off the books — which is won’t — then there will be no “assessed” taxes to pay.

ANNOUNCER: “Border security on steroids. Tough border triggers have no giveaways for law breakers.”

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano Napolitano simply has to submit a plan for border security and a fencing plan within six months of the passage of this bill. As soon as she submits the plans, illegal aliens become eligible for work permits, Social Security accounts, driver’s licenses, travel documents, and countless state-level benefits. Past amnesties show that these benefits are mostly what illegal aliens are looking for; green card status and U.S. citizenship are not priorities for most illegal immigrants. No border security has to be in place for these benefits to be handed out. A proposed amendment to the bill that would have made border security come before these benefits are handed out was rejected by the Senate. Sen. Jeff Flake and Sen. Lindsey Graham, two of the alleged “conservative leaders” who helped authored this bill, voted against the amendment along with all of the Democrats.

The “triggers” — border security, an entirely new electronic verification system (to replace E-Verify), and an operational exit-tracking system — are required to be in effect before illegal immigrants can upgrade to a green card. But even this isn’t exactly true.

The bill does provide a significant amount of funding for border security, but it remains unclear how that money would be spent and whether the border would ever actually be secured. The bill requires an “effectiveness rate” of 90 percent and defines such a rate as “the percentage calculated by dividing the number of apprehensions and turn-backs in the sector during a fiscal year by the total number of illegal entries in the sector during such fiscal year.” This equation requires some estimate of the number of missed illegal entries, but the metrics of border security have been up for debate for many years and it’s unclear how such an estimate would be reached. Shawn Moran, vice president of the National Border Patrol Council asks, “How are they going to measure effectiveness?” He fears the bills language “will put pressure on Border Patrol management to fudge the number in order to fit political purposes.”

Rubio has said that if effective control of these sections of the border is not met within five years, “it goes to a border commission made up of people that live and have to deal with the border and they will take care of that problem.” But in the bill, the “Southern Border Security Commission” would be made up of six Washington-appointed members (two by the president and four by congressional leaders), plus one from each southern border state (appointed by the governor), and it could do nothing but issue recommendations. But it gets worse. The bill also says that if “litigation or a force majeure” prevents the border from being secured then Secretary Napolitano has the authority to go ahead and issue illegal aliens U.S. citizenship anyhow.

One member of the Gang of Eight has asserted that citizenship for illegal immigrants will not be conditioned on actually having a secure border. Sen. Charles Schumer (R-N.Y.) explained, “We are not using border security as a block to a path to citizenship. This [the trigger] will not be a barrier to giving citizenship to the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in our country.”

In other words, there really aren’t any border security triggers at all.

RUBIO: “No federal benefits, no food stamps, no welfare, no Obamacare, they have to prove that they’re gainfully employed.”

Rubio is simply wrong with these assertions. Illegal immigrants are already receiving federal benefits and this bill would do nothing to stop that. This bill would actually extend greater amounts of benefits to illegal immigrants by giving them legal status.

We estimate that 71 percent of illegal immigrant-headed households with children use at least one welfare program. Illegal immigrants generally receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children, but they, not the children, are collecting the benefits, which support the entire family. Illegal immigrant households with children primarily use food assistance and Medicaid, making almost no use of cash or housing assistance. In contrast, legal immigrant households tend to have relatively high use rates for every type of welfare program. It is undeniable that if the amnesty bill becomes law, the legalized illegal immigrants will have greater access to the welfare state.

As for Obamacare, illegal immigrants who get green card status will have access to Obamacare, causing the aggregate annual deficit to soar to around $106 billion, finds the Heritage Foundation. Heritage also concludes that the amnesty applicants who receive green card status would also receive full eligibility for more than 80 means-tested welfare programs.

As to the “gainfully employed” requirement, Rubio is not being completely honest. The most important exemption comes toward the end of the bill, but it’s worth noting at the outset: All education and job requirements in the bill are waived if the immigrant is unable to work or go to school “due to circumstances outside the control of the alien”. The bill provides no explanation of what this might include, and one must ask whether high unemployment rates would count as something outside the control of the amnesty applicants.

Acquiring provisional status does not require evidence of employment. Renewing the status after six years does trigger an employment section of the bill. The section requires that the legalized immigrant fulfill one of two options. In the first option, the alien must prove that he “was regularly employed throughout the period of admission as a registered provisional immigrant, allowing for brief periods lasting not more than 60 days” and “not likely to become a public charge”. But this means that the immigrant could be unemployed for a two-month period and still meet this requirement. Plus, the wording is such that it leaves some interpretation to the courts. What if the immigrant has two “brief periods” of unemployment “lasting not more than 60 days”? By some interpretations, the immigrant would still be able to meet this requirement. Can an immigrant have five such brief periods? Ten? If the bill were written to limit unemployment to 60 days, then it would read “allowing for brief periods of unemployment totaling not more than 60 days”. It is a simple wording change, but it leads to a significantly different outcome.

As an alternative, the alien can “demonstrate average income or resources that are not less than 100 percent of the federal poverty level” for the period he lived here as an alien legalized under the bill. If the alien is the only person in his household, this requirement means that he would have to be making at least $11,490 a year.

But standards are low here. Amnesty applicants can submit a number of different documents to prove they worked. This includes any paperwork from a day laborer hiring center or even sworn affidavits from an alien’s family member who is willing to claim that the alien was working.

On top of all this, the work requirements do not have to be met if an amnesty applicant is going to school. The bill defines the education requirement quite broadly.

Furthermore, the employment and educational requirements do not apply to anyone under age 21 at the time of applying for the amnesty’s provisional legal status, nor do they apply to people over age 60. Also exempted is anyone who is a “primary caretaker of a child or another person who requires supervision or is unable to care for himself or herself.”

ANNOUNCER: “Bold, very conservative, a tough line on immigration.”

Considering all the exemptions and waivers already laid out above, it is difficult to conclude that this bill is bold with a “tough line” on immigration. The phrasing in this portion of the Rubio commercial is taken from quotes from pro-amnesty columnists in the media. The word “bold” was used by a Washington Post blogger who supports amnesty. The phrase “very conservative” is from the same writer; the full sentence is more illuminating:

In essence, if you accept that you have to start somewhere and we have no capability to uproot 11 million people, this is a very conservative-friendly plan.

So the writer called the bill “very conservative-friendly” and the ad shortened it to “very conservative.” One could certainly argue that these have different meanings. But the premise of the full quote is also worthy of debate. Does the United States have no capability to send 11 million people back home? Amnesty advocates constantly argue that the only alternative to mass amnesty is mass deportations. But in reality, both are unworkable. The only solution to the illegal immigration problem is the “attrition through enforcement” policy where we consistently enforce our immigration laws for a period of years and encourage illegal immigrants to go home in greater numbers than they already are. The Post blogger does not entertain this option and presents only a choice between amnesty and mass deportations, one embraced by Rubio.

The phrase “tough line on immigration” was taken from a pro-amnesty columnist from CNN. The same columnistcalled Arizona a “rogue state at war” for passing laws attempting to curb illegal immigration. That the pro-amnesty columnist opposed Jan Brewer’s efforts but embraces Rubio should raise flags about Rubio’s commitment to immigration enforcement.

RUBIO: “It puts in place the toughest enforcement measures in the history of the United States, potentially in the world and it once and for all deals with the issue of those that are here illegally but does so in a way that’s fair and compassionate but does not encourage people to come illegally in the future and isn’t unfair to the people that have done it the right way.”

Rubio claims that this comprehensive amnesty will fix the illegal immigration problem “once and for all”. But the American people have been told this before. The 1986 comprehensive amnesty, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was sold to the public as a one-time plan that would not have to be repeated because the bill contained sanctions against employers for hiring illegal immigrants, and other enforcement provisions. But after IRCA legalized about three million illegal aliens, the enforcement provisions never materialized. Today, about 7.5 million illegal aliens are holding jobs and their employers are not being held accountable. Why would anyone believe that the enforcement provisions in yet another amnesty would ever be enforced? In fact, only a few years after IRCA passed, the National Council of La Raza issued a report calling for the end to workplace enforcement. Interestingly, the author of that report was Cecilia Munoz, who today is President Obama’s chief immigration advisor. Odds are high that she will be working to undermine the enforcement in Rubio’s bill the moment it becomes law. Just last week President Obama told a roomful of amnesty advocate groups that if the bill becomes law, he will “revisit” the enforcement provisions. In other words, Obama has pledged to administratively narrow the scope of enforcement as soon as 11 million illegal immigrants and their family members acquire legal status through the bill. This is why enforcement must come before any type of legal status. Rubio’s bill is backwards, and it’s clear he hasn’t learned from the mistakes of IRCA.

Rubio also claims that the bill “does not encourage people to come illegally” but he apparently hasn’t been listening to border officials in the field who have come to Washington to testify before Congress. Rubio didn’t see thisWashington Times article:

“We have seen an increase in attempted entries,” Border Patrol Chief Michael J. Fisher told a Senate committee.

He said part of the reason for an increase is that Congress is talking about legalizing illegal immigrants, which is luring more foreigners to try to be in the U.S. when amnesty takes effect.

This should not come as a surprise. Amnesties always encourage illegal immigration because they send the message that illegal entry is a feasible path to legal U.S. residence.

Rubio also claims that amnesty is not unfair to those who are attempting to come to the United States the legal way. The reality is that illegal aliens get to stay in the country the moment they apply for amnesty. If they pass the simple background check, they receive legal status and nearly all the benefits of citizenship, including a work permit, a Social Security account, travel documents, a driver’s license, and many additional state-level benefits. While green card status may be delayed for a period of years, it is undeniable that amnesty applicants are in a much better position compared to those overseas who have applied to come to the United States legally. The amnesty applicant is only in the “back of the line” in the sense that the green card — and eventual U.S. citizenship — would allegedly be delayed until after all existing green card applications are processed. But the fact is, the genuine back of the line is in the illegal alien’s home country.

ANNOUNCER: “Stand with Marco Rubio to end de facto amnesty, support Conservative Immigration Reform.”

Again, Rubio wants to turn the de facto amnesty we’re currently experiencing as a result of non-enforcement of immigration laws into a de jure amnesty for millions of people who do not belong here. Rubio asks you to “stand” with him, but Rubio himself is standing with Obama, Napolitano, La Raza, the ACLU, and many other amnesty supporters who cannot be described as “conservative” in any sense of the word.

A Florida Citizens Letter To Senator Marco Rubio on Comprehensive Immigration Reform

The following is a letter WDW recieved from a Florida resident. The letter was sent to Senator Marco Rubio:

VIA: senator@Rubio.senate.gov

RE: “Comprehensive” Immigration Reform (Read Amnesty)

Senator Rubio:

Let me say as a Florida resident I vividly remember you blocking 6 immigration bills when you were Speaker of the Florida House in 2008 stating “The House was too busy” to deal with state immigration laws.

I remember you campaigning to be senator opposing amnesty (though you supported the Florida Dream Act early in your state legislative career) as you followed in the footsteps of previous Cuban Senator Martinez who campaigned opposing amnesty and three years later in 2007 led the charge for it. It seems you couldn’t wait three years to change positions back to what you supported during your early state tenure.

That said, let me respond to what I have read regarding your proposed legislation and zero in on Comprehensive which to me means dealing with all related topics to amnesty.

It is a well known fact constantly blared by open border types Hispanics are the fastest growing segment of the population and that is correct having researched all the latest numbers. Their chant is you better deal with the criminal illegal aliens if you want our support. Look at the immigration numbers and they are correct. The tail is now wagging the dog and how did it happen? It happened through the Family Reunification immigration program you heartily support with no limits basically emptying peasant villages in Mexico and Central America and moving them into balkanized barrios around the country. It has also happened through the failure of the U.S. Government Executive Branch performing its duties in protecting our borders and regulating visa holders with no outcry from Congress.

WHAT DO YOU THINK IS THE PURPOSE OF IMMIGRATION?

In 1962 then President Kennedy called for a reform of the immigration system. He did not call for an increase in immigration quotas stating we need not increase the level of immigrants allowed because “we have no lands left to settle.” Following his death the Democrat controlled Congress concocted the Family Reunification visa program introducing mass immigration favoring Hispanic countries and why is a good question? Prior to 1965 the large majority of under 250K allowed in the country annually were educated, had a skill and spoke English. Following 1965 legislation the overwhelming majority imported have been a perfect democrat candidate being unskilled, uneducated and non English speaking. When politicians and talk show hosts scratch their heads about the level of poverty in the country and how to lower it they aren’t looking at the primary cause being the importation of an endless stream of poverty. Statistics show 68% of legal MX immigrants with children are in or near poverty. The study by CIS also shows over 50% of Mexican immigrants are still on welfare 20 years after arriving in the country. Other Hispanic immigrants have similar statistics.

You have recently stated you are a BIG BELIEVER in family based immigration. Please explain why since it has shown to simply be the conduit for exporting poverty from banana republics to here?

We never had a mass amnesty in this country until President Reagan in an unwise move granted the first ever amnesty in 1986. From then until 2000 there were 6 more for a grand total of 6 million amnesties granted in 14 years. In 2012 President Obama directed an amnesty by fiat without Constitutional authority affecting more than a million criminal illegal aliens and nary a peep was heard from Congress. Representative Steve King promised on 8/17/2012 to challenge Obama’s amnesty by fiat and in my inquiry a week ago to his office he was still gathering facts. WOW!

As a result of the 7 previous amnesties we now have, based on government numbers I find highly suspect, 12 million waiting in line for amnesty. If that is the number you want to use then promise to cap it at that number.

Attempting the same thing over and over again is a form of insanity. Actually, I believe the Congress is quite content with the millions of unskilled joining the work force ranks keeping wages low for their large corporate donors like Walmart and at the same time providing them ever new customers. As far as illegal immigration goes it satisfies the needs of criminal illegal alien employers wanting cheap labor in a modern day version of slavery.

If Congressional members really cared about American workers do you think they would have allowed 125K new immigrants a month to continue to be imported to worsen the employment picture for 23 million Americans suffering through the worst recession since the great depression? I never heard a word from one Congressman or woman to at least suggest a pause of the onslaught of the endless stream of immigrants month after month. Not one word was ever even uttered and that silence is a damn loud message to American workers and all citizens.

Senator Rubio, these are tasks that need to be accomplished long before the amnesty discussion even begins for criminal illegal aliens. You said in an interview you wanted to solve their problem. Sir, who cares about solving their problem since they brought it upon themselves. The most important thing is how it will affect the citizens of this country. They are the ones who self inflicted their pain and it could end quickly by returning to their home country instead of demanding a path to citizenship.

End the nonsensical family reunification visa program that has simply uprooted tens of millions of peasants who couldn’t even spell the United States of America in English before arriving and come simply to start sucking on the government teat that is nearly dry.

Secure the borders. President Obama and Sec. Napolitano say the border has never been more secure. I suppose then the signs posted 70 miles north of the border warning travelers to beware of illegal aliens were previously 100 miles north of the border. The Border Patrol recently issued a statement they only intercept 61% of illegals attempting to enter the country and who knows how little as a percentage of the drugs entering illegally.

Senator, when you talk about securing the border I hope you mean the same way we protect the Korean border at the 39th parallel. We have been there for 60 years and rarely if ever is the border breached by anyone. If that is the case then great. However, what you promise has to be executed by the Executive Branch and President Obama has no appetite for securing the border. In fact, neither has Congress since it was promised over 25 years ago. We protect a foreign countries borders half way around but not our own and the citizens deserve to know the reason why.

Get the Visit USA program to work so visa over stayers can be located and deported. Over 40%, or perhaps more of the criminal illegal alien population has supposedly come legally and just melted into a city to live and work. With over 100 Million visitors to the United States annually the 40% number of total criminal illegal aliens appears awfully low.

Make it a felony to enter the country illegally or overstay a visa. This is a common sense measure since we currently treat the crime like jaywalking. Get permission to house the lawbreakers in Guantanamo to end their appetite for breaking our laws.

Make E-Verify mandatory for all employers and direct the SS administration to check the user is who they say they are. You achieve that by having the SS office issue a new tamper proof card with picture to all prospective employment seekers to eliminate document fraud (HR98). Regarding Mandatory E-Verify in a poll conducted by Pulse Opinion Research 89% of Whites, 81% of Blacks and 76% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans were in favor of it.

Pass and enforce Childbirth legislation that would remove a magnet to come here now granting citizenship to babies born in the USA to foreign parents by amending the Immigration and Naturalization Act (HR140) requiring at least one parent be a citizen ending the anchor baby link to the welfare system. Over 200K births like this are performed annually with taxpayers footing the majority of the bill. There is a cottage industry for birth tourism for wealthy foreign women making a mockery of our citizenship requirements. Coincidentally you would not have been a citizen either if the law is changed since when you were born your parents were not citizens of the United States but still of Cuba.

Repeal the antiquated Cuban Adjustment Act which is a knee jerk cold war relic reaction meant to damage Castro’s Cuba after the Bay of Pigs fiasco and grants any Cuban who arrives in the USA anywhere preferred treatment and a path to citizenship. This is especially important since Cuba is now granting travel Visas to their citizens. The last thing we need is an aerial version of the Mariel boat lift that forever changed Miami into what is now the fifth most impoverished City in the USA and where English is the second language.

End the corrupt Diversity Visa lottery Program that brings in people to the USA from supposedly countries that need greater representation under the guise of diversity. Senator Rubio, name a more diverse country than the United States of America; You can’t.

End the Temporary Protected Status program that is permanently temporary. Case in point are the over 200K EL Salvadorans brought here after an earthquake in their country and undoubtedly sucking on the welfare teat since. They are only here temporarily 10 years later wink wink.

Dramatically reduce the corrupt refugee program and remove the UN’s participation in determining who comes and make the US groups profiting from the refugee business get the approval from the locales where they want to dump the refugees before doing so. I understand every refugee entering costs the U.S. government $20K for shipping and handling.

End the work visa program which Milton Friedman correctly identified as corporate welfare. Work visas that allow maids and lawn mower operators into the country as specialty occupations illustrates the lengths companies will go to avoid paying U.S. workers and the fica. If the US is not graduating candidates to fill America’s needs whose fault is it since we are the third most populated country in the world and had, I emphasize had, a great education system when I attended and undoubtedly has been ruined since by the teacher unions and Federal interference.

Commission a study to determine the impact of the 12 million criminal illegal aliens will have on our welfare system, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, environment and the impact on American workers.

Commission a independent study to determine the optimum population the United States can comfortably sustain. When talking about immigration I have never heard a politician mention what our optimum population should be regarding Natural Resources and avoiding similar terrible human conditions suffered today in India, Bangladesh and China. Publish all the findings.

Senator Rubio, do those tasks necessary to get a clear picture of what you propose to do and its impact on American Society so the facts speak for themselves as to whether it is in the national Interest of the citizens of the United States of America to support or reject amnesty for the criminal illegal aliens.

I am also sending along a speech given by Democrat Ex. Governor Richard D. Lamb several years ago titled “I Have a Plan to destroy America and many parts of it are underway.” Read it and see if you can relate it to what is happening in the country today from a speech written 10 years ago.

George Fuller

Sarasota, Florida

FL Primary Voting Registration Ends July 16, 2012

With a primary election approaching, here is voter information from the Sarasota County Supervisor of Elections office:

In order to register to vote in Florida, you must:

  • Be a citizen of the United States of America
  • Be a Florida resident
  • Be 18 years old (A person who is otherwise qualified may preregister on or after his/her 16th birthday and may vote in any election on or after his/her 18th birthday.)
  • Not now be adjudicated mentally incapacitated with respect to voting in Florida or any other state
  • Not have been convicted of a felony without your right to vote having been restored
  • Provide your current and valid Florida driver license number or Florida identification card number. You must provide the last four of your Social Security number if you do not have a Florida driver license number or a Florida identification card number. If you have not been issued any of these items, you must write “NONE” in the box indicated on the Voter Registration Application.

How to Apply to Register to Vote

  • Fill in the Voter Registration Application online. If you wish, you can print the application and write your information in with a black ballpoint pen.
  • For the Voter Registration Online Application in Spanish select this link.
  • Print the application out.
  • Verify that all the information on your application is complete. The office where you register, your decision not to register, your Social Security number, Florida driver license number and Florida ID card number will remain confidential and will be used only for voter registration purposes.
  • Sign your application. The application requires an original signature because you are swearing to or affirming an oath.
  • Mail your application to your county supervisor of elections. (Requires first class postage stamp.) You may also hand-deliver the application to any supervisor of elections office in the state, a driver license office, a voter registration agency or armed forces recruitment office, or to the Division of Elections.
  • If your application is complete and you qualify as a voter, the supervisor of elections will mail you a voter information letter as official notification that you are registered to vote. Make sure all of the information in your letter is correct. If you do not receive a confirmation letter within 8 weeks, or if you have any questions, call your supervisor of elections.

NOTE: You must be registered for at least 29 days before you can vote in an election.

If the information on the application is not true, the applicant can be convicted of a felony of the third degree and fined up to $5,000 and/or imprisoned for up to 5 years.