Jeh Johnson, the new guy who replaced Janet Napolitano as head of the Department of Homeland Security, remarked recently about illegal aliens, “Everyone knows we have millions of undocumented immigrants in this country, and they’re not going away; they’re not going to self-deport.” His comments came during a February 7 speaking event at the Woodrow Wilson Center with former Congresswoman Jane Harman, now CEO of the place.
That observation is simply not true. When tough enforcement measures were applied following passage of Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration law, illegals packed up and left en masse for more permissive locales. Despite their obnoxious lawbreaking, lawbreaking foreigners are rational creatures who come to make lots of American dollars and act according to that goal.
If the nation as a whole enforced borders and the workplace, most of the foreign job thieves would go back to where they came from. Self-deport, in other words.
That’s right. They go to other, less law-abiding states to steal American jobs. All states should emulate Arizona to limit jobs to citizens and legal immigrants, as well as keep their dollars in America and avoid billions being shipped offshore as remittances.
Politico reports that the powerful Chair of the House Judiciary Committee Bob Goodlatte believes he has the “solution” for the problem of 11 million illegal aliens living openly in the shadows.
Note to clueless Republicans: illegal aliens don’t cross the burning Arizona desert so they can become citizens to vote in US elections. They come for American jobs that normally pay substantially more than employment in Mexico and points south.
But back to the millions of illegals who cause so much head-scratching in Washington, what should be done with them is the big question vexing the big important brains.
How about. . . nothing. Leave them exactly as they are because they are getting along fine as is. (Of course, if they are caught drunk driving or shoplifting or engaging in document fraud, they should be deported after serving appropriate sentences.)
Life “in the shadows” must be quite agreeable since many illegals manage for years, as illustrated by Pew research from the paper Unauthorized Immigrants: Length of Residency, Patterns of Parenthood, December 2011. It found that “nearly two-thirds of the 10.2 million unauthorized adult immigrants in the United States have lived in this country for at least 10 years.”
The illegals would prefer to have the threat of deportation removed so they can continue to work at their stolen jobs, and legalization with its associated work permit would do that immediately, or as soon as the rubber stamps can be produced. Then they would have been rewarded for lawbreaking by getting everything they came unlawfully to get. For that reason:
Legalization IS Amnesty.
Congressman Goodlatte has been dreaming up enforcement strategies that can be made into legislation, but he may have forgotten that actually carrying out laws is the job of the executive branch. And the current President is arguably the biggest friend open borders ever had and will not enforce sovereignty after an amnesty any more than he has thus far. A Rasmussen poll from last October found only 5 percent of voters believed that an amnesty would include genuine border enforcement.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) says he sees “no reason” why current undocumented immigrants shouldn’t gain legal status as long as Congress enacts tougher border-security and enforcement measures.
In a Telemundo interview set to air Sunday, Goodlatte addressed the set of immigration principles that Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said earlier Thursday is expected to be released in the “coming weeks.”
While not delving into specifics of the document, Goodlatte said the principles are meant to show the broader House Republican Conference how all the pieces of immigration reform would fit together and ultimately “galvanize” support among lawmakers.
Though reform has essentially been written off for dead this Congress, Republican leaders in the House have said they want to get an overhaul done and many lawmakers in the chamber are eager to pass a rewrite of current immigration laws.
Goodlatte outlined three pillars of an overhaul – ensuring border enforcement, fixing the legal immigration system and determining a legal status for immigrants already in the country illegally. He stressed that interior enforcement was a major point of focus for Republicans, noting that as much of 40 percent of undocumented immigrants did not cross a border illegally, but overstayed a visa.
“If we can have a way to get [enforcement] up and operating, I see no reason why we can’t also have an agreement that shows how people who are not lawfully here can be able to be lawfully here – able to live here, work here, travel to and from their home country, be able to own a business, pay their taxes,” Goodlatte, a veteran lawmaker who was an immigration lawyer before coming to Congress, said on the Telemundo show “Enfoque,” according to a transcript of the interview. Continue reading this article
Recent Rasmussen poll results reflect the lack of faith with which the public regards the Washington swamp of corruption. The White House and Congress should be embarrassed, but they are incapable of feeling shame and don’t even pretend to carry out the wishes of the American citizens any more.
Most voters continue to put more border control first in any immigration reform plan, but fewer than ever trust the federal government to actually control the border if a new plan is passed. Voters also lean toward a go-slow piece-by-piece approach to immigration reform over a comprehensive bill.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 25% of Likely U.S. Voters think it is even somewhat likely that the federal government will actually secure the border and prevent illegal immigration if that’s part of new immigration legislation. Sixty-five percent (65%) consider it unlikely. This includes only five percent (5%) who say the government is Very Likely to secure the border if it’s part of legislation that would give legal status to those already here illegally and 24% who feel it’s Not At All Likely. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Confidence in the likelihood of the federal government actually securing the border fell to a previous low of 28% in late June from a high of 45% in January. This skepticism continues to be perhaps the biggest problem immigration reformers face.
Republicans want proof that the border has been secured to prevent further illegal immigration before allowing legalization of those now here illegally to go forward. The president believes the legalization process and the implementation of more border security should take place at the same time.
But only 18% of voters believe those who are now in this country illegally should be granted legal status right away. Sixty-two percent (62%) disagree and think legalization should come only after the border is secured. Nineteen percent (19%) are not sure. These attitudes are unchanged from past surveys. Continue reading this article
Anyway, wouldn’t it be better for Mexicans to dislike America, particularly if the feeling dissuaded them from relocating here? A report of positive attitudes on the part of Mexicans is not reassuring.
When U.S. President Barack Obama travels to Mexico this week, he will encounter a Mexican public that has far more positive attitudes about the United States than at any time in the last several years.
America’s image south of the border fell sharply in 2010, when Arizona passed a “show me your papers” law aimed at identifying, prosecuting and deporting immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally. But Mexican views have rebounded since then, and U.S. favorability ratings are now at their highest point since 2009. The prospects for U.S. immigration reform may be, at least in part, the source of renewed Mexican approval of their neighbor to the north.
A new Pew Research Center poll found that 66 percent of Mexicans have a favorable opinion of the U.S., up 10 percentage points from a year ago and up 22 points from May 2010, immediately following the enactment of Arizona’s immigration law. The last time America’s image was as strong among Mexicans was in 2009, when 69 percent said they had a favorable opinion. [. . .]
Doesn’t anyone in the polling universe care about what Americans think of Mexico and its demanding inhabitants? Particularly since Mexico is largest sending country of immigrants by far. A search of the handy internet turned up a survey from the National Journal last November, expressed rather cleverly.
The word cloud below answers the survey question, “Now, thinking about Mexico, what are three words that come to mind?”
As the newly elected Mexican president travels to Washington next week, a new survey released by consulting firm Vianovo on Monday underscores the startling challenges Mexico faces with its international image, especially in the U.S.
The survey highlights what has been widely assumed: that Americans have a generally unfavorable view of Mexico. But while illegal immigration and border crossings may be at the forefront of concerns in the Southwest, drugs and corruption are the ringing concerns of most Americans.
“Drugs” was the word most often used to describe Mexico by those surveyed, as is stunningly illustrated by the survey’s word cloud. Additionally, 72 percent cited drug cartels and traffickers as the main reason behind their negative perception of their neighbors to the south.
Of those surveyed, an astounding 72 percent of Americans think Mexico is unsafe for travel and only 17 percent consider the country to be modern. Continue reading this article
The Catholic church has upped its bankroll to wreck American law and sovereignty. It has added $800,000 to its previous amnesty spending of $3 million, since opening the borders to millions more hispanic Catholics is highly desirable for the bishops.
Not that it’s new for Vaticrats to work to subvert a nation that has been very generous to them. The Catholic hierarchy believe their organization supersedes mere laws and nation-states, particularly when the church sees a way to fill its empty pews. Immigration-fueled demographic change has supplied the Catholic church with more credulous worshippers, helpful to replace the many Americans who have left the church out of disgust with its pervert priest problem. (Around 10 percent of Americans are former Catholics, according to Pew research.)
In a 2005 article titled Church organizing anti-Minuteman campaign, (Brownsville Herald, Sept 3), priest Michael Seifert stated, “Any family in economic need has a right to immigrate, that’s our posture.” In Catholic teaching, such Marxist views are called Liberation Theology, which sounds so much nicer than “redistribution.”
Anti-sovereignty Catholics shouldn’t complain so much about Americans, since they get billions of taxpayer dollars, supposedly for Catholic Charities to perform refugee resettlement and “immigrant” services. The chart below comes from the 2010 edition of Catholic Charities at a Glance. FYI, 62% (the Government Revenue) of the total = $2,895,092,130.
The organization of U.S. Catholic bishops said it would make $800,000 in grants available for projects aimed at mobilizing regular Catholics to push for the bishops’ immigration platform That includes family reunification, a path to citizenship and addressing the root causes of immigration, among other things.
The bishops’ anti-poverty program in the past year has invested more than $3.5 million in grass-roots immigration reform.
For a decade, the bishops have had a clear policy on immigration, called “Strangers No Longer.” In addition to being part of general church teaching, support for newcomers matches the demographics of a U.S. church built by immigrants. Even today, half of Americans born abroad are Catholic. Continue reading this article
Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX) has compiled a fine to-do list of immigration enforcement strategies that would help if they were the implemented instead of a multi-trillion-dollar amnesty trough of goodies for lawbreaking foreigners. Among the items, several are suggested upgrades to existing laws plus a couple new ones, including ending the odious anchor baby magnet.
There could have been a few more. Let me add my suggestions:
=> Lower the overall number of legal immigrants to 100,000 annually, maximum. That should be more than enough to serve the interest of the American people.
=> End immigration from Special Interest Countries that are said to “promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations or their members.” Why welcome spies and enemies? Aliens from the officially unfriendly nations (also called Specially Designated Countries, SDCs) get extra security checks to enter or immigrate. Why allow any immigrants from those places when presumably plenty of nice people want to become Americans?
Amnesty advocates argue that our immigration system is broken and can only be fixed by legalizing millions of illegal immigrants. But they ignore the real problem plaguing our system today: lack of enforcement of laws already on the books.
America has the most generous immigration system in the world, admitting one million legal immigrants every year. There is a right way and a wrong way to enter our country. The right way is to play by the rules and wait your turn, not cut in front of the line and ignore the law. Better border and interior security will benefit American taxpayers and workers and make our communities safer.
But even if the border itself is secure, that doesn’t mean that individuals won’t continue to gain legal entry and remain in the country illegally. That happens when those on student, visitor or business visas don’t return home after their short-term visa has expired. They account for 40% of all illegal immigrants, more than four million people. Border security must go hand-in-hand with interior enforcement. Congress can take numerous actions to reduce illegal immigration at the border and inside the country. Some of these merely require that the government enforce existing law:
• Require employers to only hire legal workers. This will reduce the magnet of the easy availability of jobs that entices many to enter illegally. And it will reduce the competition for scarce jobs that hurts legal workers. More than 425,000 employers have signed up voluntarily for E-Verify that ensures that prospective hires are legally authorized to work in the U.S. And 99.5% of legal workers are confirmed immediately.
• Increase work-site investigations by Immigration and Customs Enforcement to make sure employers are hiring legal workers. This will protect jobs for unemployed or underemployed Americans. Unfortunately, work-site enforcement is down 70% under the Obama administration. Continue reading this article
In the big capitol city, the Gang of Eight senators continue working in secret to create a “compromise” plan to legalize the 11 million illegal aliens mooching in America. Doubtless the plan is to spring the complete amnesty scheme as a done deal and shove it through the Congress as rapidly as possible. Senator Durbin remarked on Sunday that the ad hoc group meets “virtually every day.”
The work permit IS amnesty. “Normalizing status” IS amnesty. Legalization IS amnesty.
Illegals don’t care about the so-called “path to citizenship” that politicians chatter about to distract and confuse the voters. Illegals come for the money, period. Therefore the legalization that will occur immediately upon the bill’s signing will give them everything they want, namely access to American jobs and no more threat of deportation.
It’s further interesting that the Gang of Eight plotters are not at all dissuaded by the bad faith shown by Obama’s sequester release of 2,000 illegal alien criminals who were set to be deported. A top job of government is supposed to be the protection of public safety, although illegal alien lawbreakers are apparently exempt.
WASHINGTON – Capitol Hill was fixated last week on the sequestration that went into effect on Friday, but behind the scenes, the U.S. Senate’s so-called Gang of Eight pressed forward with its work on bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform legislation.
The group of four Republican and four Democratic senators met three times last week, most recently on Thursday, U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., told The Arizona Republic.
“We’re working through the items one by one,” Flake said after Thursday’s meeting during an interview on the second floor of the Senate. “Sometimes we have to come back to them, but we’re progressing, and everyone is sticking together.”
Earlier in the week, U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., another member of the group, also reported general progress.
Some of the topics under discussion include border security, the future flow of immigrant labor and employer sanctions, he said.
“There are a lot issues involved, obviously, with immigration reform,” McCain said.
Flake said he didn’t think the unrelated bickering over the sequester and other fiscal matters will hurt the chances of the immigration legislation. The immigration bill is on track to be ready by the end of March, he said. Continue reading this article
At a time when college costs are rising more rapidly all the time (up 1120 percent since 1978), foreign interlopers are being given special benefits for their education.
The kiddies in question are illegal aliens in Philadelphia (pictured) blessed by King Barak with no-deport status because they were fortunate (but not culpable!) when their parents supposedly dragged the youngsters across the border against their will to stupid-generous America. Lucky them!
A 2011 poll found many Californians struggling to afford college, where the study found that the state ranks 41st in the number of bachelor’s degrees awarded per every hundred high school graduates, with cost being the major factor. A few decades back, people actually moved to California for the excellent education system.
But there’s always a helping hand for illegal aliens in Obama’s America. Hard-working citizens, not so much.
PHILADELPHIA (CBS) – Thousands of young undocumented immigrants have been coming out of the shadows to apply for President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
The program gives these dreamers a chance to get a social security number, a work permit and drivers license. And now several young people in the region have been awarded the scholarships to help them get one step closer to their dream.
“This is like, a dream come true. Everything that I wanted is coming along.”
Sixteen-year-old Montserrat Gallegos stood in a basement room at Juntos headquarters in South Philadelphia with joyful tears in her eyes. Gallegos came to America nine years ago by crossing the border from Mexico into Arizona.
She’s moved from Arizona to New Mexico and finally to Philadelphia a few years ago. Money is tight at her home, so the $465 DACA application fee was a huge burden. Thankfully, the scholarship pays the fee which allowed Gallegos to take the first step in pursuing her dream. Continue reading this article
Even during an election that showed big gains for Democrats, many of whom are permissive regarding borders and US sovereignty, a majority of voters nevertheless remain favorable to tough immigration policing.
A poll commissioned by Breitbart.com and JudicialWatch.org found that 61 percent of voters preferred an approach like Arizona’s state enforcement law to crack down on immigration anarchy.
A Breitbart News/Judicial Watch Election Night poll found Americans are more conservative when it comes to immigration policy than mainstream journalists, liberals, and even some Republicans may suggest.
After Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney lost more than 70 percent of the Hispanic vote in the 2012 presidential election, a chorus of media and establishment figures have insisted Republicans need to embrace more liberal immigration policies.
However, the Breitbart News/Judicial Watch Election Night poll found Americans are still fairly conservative when it comes to immigration policy, with 61% of voters favoring Arizona-style immigration laws and the nation nearly evenly divided on President Barack Obama’s executive action that gave temporary two-year work permits to illegal immigrants who had been brought to this country as children, with 40% in support and 37% opposed. Continue reading this article
Raza open-borders extremists like to fake outrage by comparing the ID requirement to Nazis’ “show me your papers” behavior. Hardly. Anti-sovereignty enthusiasts conveniently forget that LEGAL immigrants are instructed by law to carry their proof of legal residence at all times:
(e) Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d). Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.
PHOENIX (AP) — A judge has ruled that police in Arizona can immediately start enforcing the most contentious section of the state’s immigration law, marking the first time officers can carry out a requirement that officers, while enforcing other laws, question the immigration status of those suspected of being in the country illegally.
The decision on Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton is the latest milestone in a two-year legal battle over the requirement. It culminated in a U.S. Supreme Court decision in June that upheld the provision on the grounds that it doesn’t conflict with federal law.
Opponents who call the requirement the “show me your papers” provision responded to the Supreme Court decision by asking Bolton to block the requirement on different grounds, arguing that it would lead to systematic racial profiling and unreasonably long detentions of Latinos if it’s enforced.
Other less controversial parts of the law have been in effect since July 2010, such as minor changes to the state’s 2005 immigrant smuggling law and a ban on state and local government agencies from restricting the enforcement of federal immigration law. But those provisions have gotten little, if any, use since they were put into effect.
Arizona’s law was passed in 2010 amid voter frustration with the state’s role as the busiest illegal entry point into the country. Five states — Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah — have adopted variations on Arizona’s law. Continue reading this article
While states like Arizona and Alabama have succeeded to some degree in exerting more control over the illegal alien brigands in their midst, the California legislature is in a mad rush to legalize the millions in the state as far as it can.
One of the more egregious examples of power politics in the all-Democrat-run capitol was the unscrupulous technique called “gut and amend” to push through a bill that has not gone through the normal process.
Last winter, a Los Angeles-area lawmaker launched a petition drive to place an initiative on the California ballot. Its name was innocuous: The California Opportunity and Prosperity Act. Its aim was not: It would have allowed illegal immigrants to live and work in the state without fear of deportation.
Not surprisingly, the drive failed to get enough signatures, and that should have been the end of that.
But no. This week, Assemblyman Felipe Fuentes revived the effort to give as many as 2 million illegal immigrants “safe harbor” in the state. Using the sneaky “gut and amend” method of slipping controversial laws through the Capitol in the final days of a legislative session, the Democrat from Sylmar has turned a state Senate bill about vehicle pollution into a bill to make life easier for illegal residents.
Fuentes had told The Sacramento Bee the proposed ballot measure was a “moderate, common-sense approach” to immigration reform, and his spokesman told the newspaper this week that the effort “shows that we’re a compassionate state.” Both said it’s a reaction to the federal government’s failure to enact comprehensive immigration reform.
The state’s voters should be the judge of all that. Or, if such a significant change in such an important policy is to be considered in the Legislature, it should be done with time for careful thought and public comment, not in the frenzy of the last week of the 2012 session. [. . .]
California legislators must think the state has too much public safety to unleash foreign criminals with such abandon. It’s all up to Gov. Jerry Brown now to sign or veto the evil bills.
Following is an overview of the whole assortment of legislation that puts the pleasure of lawbreaking foreigners before the rights and safety of the citizens.
California lawmakers are pushing this week to pass four bills that would make life easier for immigrants living and working here illegally, but all require the support of a governor who chooses his immigration causes carefully.
Gov. Jerry Brown won praise last fall from Latinos and immigrant communities when he signed a law giving illegal immigrant college students access to state financial aid, but this season he must sift through a more complicated set of measures that opponents view as defying federal prerogatives.
The flurry comes in the last days of the 2012 legislative session and tests the compassion and political future of Brown, who supports a path to citizenship for California’s more than 2 million illegal immigrants but has repeatedly said the solution must come from the federal government.
Already on Brown’s desk is the Trust Act, which would partially pull California out of an immigration dragnet that has deported about 80,000 people from the state since Brown, as attorney general, signed a federal-state partnership in 2009. Continue reading this article
On Tuesday, an article appeared that was something of a head-scratcher, which indicated that some states could use a federal immigration database to check their voter rolls to delete illegal aliens. Underline “some” because that was the headline:
WASHINGTON — The federal government is expanding access to an immigration database so that several states can use it to purge ineligible voters, officials said Monday.
Homeland Security Department representatives notified Florida officials last week that they could check to see whether registered voters were actually noncitizens who should not be eligible to cast a ballot. State officials said Monday that the department was offering similar access to other states who had requested the information.
“I’m pleased that DHS has agreed to work with states to verify the citizenship of people on the voter rolls and help reduce our vulnerability,” said Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler, who had renewed his request for the data last week, writing a letter with the support of several other states.
Elections leaders in Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio and Utah had signed onto Gessler’s request. Five of the states — Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, New Mexico and Ohio — are expected to be competitive in the 2012 presidential race. Each of the election chiefs in those states are Republican. [. . .]
So what’s the deal? Why aren’t ALL states allowed to use the federal database to
purge voter rolls of non-citizen voters?
So the friends of electoral integrity have good reason to fear widespread voter fraud. The ability of states to purge illegal alien voters would be a step in the right direction.
Wednesday’s news has a partial answer, with the hint that states may officially request permission to use the Washington database. If so, then citizens of responsible states could lobby their governments to take that step to help assure an honest election in November — although there are signs of considerable pushback:
Texas elections officials on Wednesday joined a growing number of states across the country seeking access to a massive immigration database to check voter rolls for possible noncitizens.
Texas Secretary of State Esperanza “Hope” Andrade sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano requesting access to a federal database that contains more than 100 million immigration records.
Andrade, appointed by Gov. Rick Perry, is the latest of roughly a dozen Republican election leaders from across the United States to seek the information since Homeland Security granted Florida officials permission last week after a protracted fight.
Andrade’s plans to check voter rolls against the DHS database mark the latest chapter in an ongoing controversy over the state’s efforts to combat voter fraud. Texas officials and the Department of Justice already are embroiled in a court battle over a Texas law passed last year that requires voters to show photo identification at the polls.
Some Texas voter advocates worried that Andrade’s plans to run checks through the immigration database – coupled with the state’s controversial voter ID law – would fuel confusion and discourage minority voters from going to the polls in November.
“We think this will address a problem that doesn’t really exist and will create confusion about a supposed or alleged fraud that – if it happens at all – is so miniscule that it has no impact,” insisted Carlos Duarte, the Texas Director of Mi Familia Vota, an advocacy organization. “This is happening so close to the election that the actual effect is going to be disenfranchising people who otherwise should be eligible to vote.”
First request in 2007 Spokesman Rich Parsons at the secretary of state’s office said Texas plans to start using the DHS database “as quickly as possible,” but did not have a timeline and could not say if it will begin the checks before the November election.
For months, the Obama administration resisted granting Florida access to the DHS database, but relented after a judge ruled in the state’s favor on a separate issue related to its efforts to purge noncitizens from its voting rolls.
Since then, election leaders in nearly a dozen states have expressed interest in gaining access to the DHS database. But opponents of the move argue that the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program, also known as “SAVE,” was intended for use by government agencies verifying the immigration status of applicants for benefits and licenses – not to purge voter rolls. Continue reading this article
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.