On Tuesday, Congressman Steve King organized a presser with several House colleagues who strongly oppose the Senate amnesty bill.
The other speakers included Republican Congressmen Louie Gohmert, Mo Brooks, Steve Stockman, John Fleming and Paul Gosar.
Rep. King noted that he has been a fierce foe of Obamacare, but sees the Senate amnesty as “far, far worse.” Like the other assembled representatives, a primary focus of King is to maintain the rule of law, which amnesty shreds by the act of rewarding lawbreakers. His other concerns are cultural assimilation, border control and national security.
Rep Gohmert of Texas (a drought-troubled state) observed that it’s likely a billion or more people abroad would like to move here. He was not reassured that authorities are able to keep out dangerous persons among the millions to be amnestied when the FBI couldn’t sort out the Boston bomber Tsarnaev brother when warned about Tamerlan by Russian police.
John Fleming of Louisiana reminded listeners that the 1986 amnesty was a failure and the government should not go down that path again.
Dr. Paul Gosar of Arizona warned against a huge bill which puts too much enforcement authority in the hands of Janet Napolitano.
Alabama Congressman Mo Brooks alerted about the enormous numbers of foreigners who would like to relocate here, e.g. 20 percent of Mexicans who would come illegally. He doesn’t want millions of lawbreakers to be future Americans, who will also cost taxpayers trillions of dollars according to the recent Heritage study. An open-borders society promotes anarchy, he stated.
Steve Stockman (R-TX) emphasized fairness for legal immigrants, whose care in doing immigration the lawful way is undermined by rewarding lawbreakers.
Congressman King emphasized how the bill is really really bad. He fears a doomsday scenario in which House leadership allows a conference between the House and Senate versions that might pass legislation unfavorable to the rule of law.
Rep. King said, “That conference committee could produce from it some version of the amnesty bill and send it to the floor, unamendable, an up-or-down vote, in which case, every Democrat would vote for it, it would only take a couple of dozen Republicans, and we could be stuck with a very bad bill on the way to the president. So I’m most concerned about that and I’ll continue to talk about that.”
SunTV’s John Robson starts up a segment with disgust at the fawning dhimmitude of American authorities for worrying about the Islamically correct treatment of murdering jihadist Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s body — something average Bostonians did not appreciate..
Then Robson focused on America’s political derangement over immigration in a conversation with author Peter Brimelow.
The one decent element in the 844-page Senate amnesty bill is the proposed termination of the fraud-ridden terrorist-welcoming Diversity Visa. But the Washington Post used its front page on Monday to sniffle about the loss of future diverse residents — oh the tragedy!
The Post article is a liberal Rorschach, full of the mythologies that underly the political urge to import foreigners who are supposed to enrich us in some mysterious way. Earnest foreigners arrive, work hard and become successful — it’s a narrative that highlights America’s generosity and openness, although perhaps by too much. Liberals cannot imagine an America without immigration to affirm the upside-down notion that Diversity Is Our Strength. If annoying traditional Americans could be demographically overwhelmed, then the country would be so much nicer — that’s the idea.
But even among the accolades for diverse immigration, the Post had to admit that the Diversity Visa lottery program is riddled with fraud. This widespread fakery means all sorts of criminals and enemies are given entry.
Be sure to read to the end of the Post piece for the guilt-trip finale: foreigners forced to stay in their dirtbag homelands won’t have fulfilling lives if Americans refuse them entrance to the land of opportunity. (Naturally, there is no mention of job displacement of citizens.)
In the contentious debate over immigration policy, three groups have dominated public and political attention: the roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants seeking to become legal, the skilled foreign workers bound for high-tech jobs and relatives waiting to be reunited with their families.
Then there are those who won the green card lottery.
This tiny visa program, aimed at diversifying the pool of immigrants to the United States, selects 55,000 applicants at random each year. Unlike the other U.S. visa programs, it offers the “winners” and their spouses and children U.S. residency with almost no strings attached. Although the odds of winning are infinitesimal, the program is so wildly popular that last year almost 8 million people applied. And now it is likely to be quietly cut.
“In my country, whole cities wait to hear the results of this lottery. I can’t believe they would take it away,” said Ermais Amirat, 29, an Ethiopian lottery winner who lives in Alexandria and drives a limousine. “We may not earn a lot, but on $200 a month, your whole family can survive back home.”
Under a Senate compromise, the program would be eliminated and its visa slots would be subsumed into a broad system that stresses skills, education and other criteria for legal immigration.
A few defenders, including members of the Congressional Black Caucus, have urged that the lottery be preserved. They say it helps compensate for the lopsided history of legal immigration, long dominated by a few large countries with high-skilled workers, such as China and India, and those with strong family ties to the United States, such as Mexico and the Philippines. They also note that it creates wide international goodwill for the United States at a low cost, amounting to only 5 percent of legal immigrants.
“Diversity visas are one of the few ways people from Africa and the Caribbean can come to this country,” Rep. Donald Payne Jr. (D-N.J.) said in an interview. “We are talking about creating a path to citizenship for 11 million undocumented people, and I wholeheartedly support that. But why do we need to cut a program where millions of people are competing for only 55,000 visas? I’m sorry, but I just can’t accept that.” Continue reading this article
The Gang of Eight loudmouths, particularly Senators Schumer and Rubio, insist that they are open to amendments to improve their 844-page bill. But when the Judiciary Committee met on Thursday to begin sorting through the hundreds of amendments, the deal was already cut. As Senator Jeff Sessions analyzed in a press release, the Gang of Eight met in advance to decide to what they would agree, and amendments that would improve border security were defeated. The bill which has been spun as being balanced in fact has no effective enforcement.
WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released the following statement on the Gang of Eight’s decision to block much-needed improvements to their legislation:
“One of the things that most upsets the American people about Washington is drafting a bill with special interests in secret and jamming it across the finish line in a way that minimizes public involvement and input. Despite touting their legislation as “the toughest border enforcement in history,” the Gang of Eight bill failed to live up to every major promise of its sponsors—including the promise of enforcement first—resulting in a bill that is even weaker than the rejected 2007 plan. This legislation needs improvement and openness.
Despite insistence on their openness to improving the legislation, the Gang has continued to stick together to defeat any amendment that would make any serious improvement to border security.
The National Journal reports today that ‘The night before Thursday’s marathon committee markup, members of the Senate’s Gang of Eight and their staffs huddled in a room in the Capitol to decide what amendments to their immigration bill they would let live—and what must die… Each evening, the gang will reconvene before the Judiciary Committee meets to analyze the next day’s slew of amendments and decide, collectively, what stays and what goes.’
Their legislation fails to achieve their stated goals. Their refusal to recognize that, demonstrates they are more committed to the flawed product than producing an immigration bill that serves the national interest.”
BACKGROUND ON YESTERDAY’S REJECTED AMENDMENTS:
1. Sessions amendment to define “effective control” of the border The amendment would assure that “effective control” reflects current law as defined in the Secure Fence Act of 2006, by specifically including prevention of unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband. “Effective control” would trigger the initiation of the legalization process. The amendment failed by a vote of 6–12, with all Democrats and the two Gang of Eight Republicans voting no, while all the other Republicans voted yes.
2. Sessions amendment to require completion of border fencing This amendment would require that 700 miles of border fencing—already required by law to be constructed—be “substantially complete” before the legalization process begins. As written, the Gang of Eight legislation only requires the DHS Secretary to submit a fencing plan (which may well require no additional fencing whatsoever) to trigger the start of the legalization process. There is no requirement in the bill that any fence be built at all. Currently, only 36 miles of double-layer fencing exists. The rest of the border has a combination of single-layer pedestrian fencing and vehicle barriers, both of which are easily scalable. The amendment also clarified the term “fencing” as: “Only fencing that is double-layered and constructed in a way to effectively restrain pedestrian traffic may be used to satisfy the 700-mile requirement under this subparagraph. Fencing that does not effectively restrain pedestrian traffic (such as vehicle barriers and virtual fencing) does not satisfy the requirement under this subparagraph.” The amendment failed by a vote of 6–12, with all Democrats and the two Gang of Eight Republicans voting no, while all the other Republicans voted yes. Continue reading this article
Los Angeles has been ground zero for for bearing the brunt of of immigration diversity for some time. Unlucky in geography, the county was home to 9.8 million residents as of 2010, 56.6 percent of whom over age 5 do not speak English at home according to the Census. County Supervisor Michael Antonovich has been reporting on the cost to taxpayers of illegal immigration for years, with an update a few days ago noting that $54 million in welfare benefits were issued to illegal alien parents just in the month of March in the county.
Even Los Angeles liberal pols are concerned about what another massive amnesty will do to the county’s welfare spending, although they are hopeful the feds will kick in some extra cash, as was done in 1986.
With an estimated 1.1 million people in L.A. County illegally, officials fear that the county will get stuck with many costs for those who apply for citizenship.
WASHINGTON — Few regions will absorb the impact of future immigration reforms more than Los Angeles County, home to an estimated 1.1 million people in the country illegally, one-tenth of the nation’s total.
As the Senate Judiciary Committee began debating the bipartisan immigration bill last week, county officials voiced concerns that local taxpayers will be “left holding the bag” to pay for the brunt of healthcare and other services for multitudes of immigrants who apply for citizenship.
Local and state officials believe the overhaul bill will encourage those in the country illegally to come out of the shadows and turn to local services during the proposed 13-year-long pathway to citizenship.
“The one thing that’s really clear as day is that the federal government is going to be protecting itself against costs, and we’re going to be left holding the bag,” said Mark Tajima, an analyst with the county’s chief administrative office.
In Washington last week for the start of the debate, county officials, including Supervisors Don Knabe and Zev Yaroslavsky, warned of a “major cost shift” to state and local governments from the proposed legislation and pressed Congress to provide federal aid to help cover future costs.
Officials could not, however, provide a figure on the potential tab. Instead, as they made the rounds on Capitol Hill, they pointed to the $800 million the county received in the last big immigration overhaul signed by President Reagan in 1986.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), after meeting with county officials, brought up the county’s concerns at the Judiciary Committee meeting and directed her staff to look into the possibility of creating a “state impact assistance” fund, similar to the $4 billion provided to local and state governments in the 1986 bill. Continue reading this article
Meanwhile out in the country, the inconvenient physical limits of the natural world are intruding. Texas has intermittent lengthy droughts anyway, and an escalating population, fueled by immigration, stresses the available water supply still further.
Out in West Texas, the present water shortage is considered extreme — check out the US Drought Monitor Map, updated weekly. As a result, towns like Odessa and Midland have decided to embrace water recycling, called “toilet to tap” by some skeptics.
The psychological ick factor has blocked some attempts to implement reclaimed water, because it means trusting the government to turn sewage into safe drinkable water. However in Orange County California, the recycled water is piped into local groundwater recharge basins, where it will eventually be pulled back for use.
As the population grows to environmentally unsustainable levels to please business and Democrat elites, the public will be increasingly have to pay for expensive water recycling technology. It’s another hidden cost of destructively high levels of immigration, along with schools and welfare to name a couple.
Today, in drought-stricken Texas, people are desperate for water. You can’t live on whiskey.
BIG SPRING –– In a parched corner of Texas four hours west of Fort Worth, water supplies are drying up. But ideas to replenish them are not.
Near Midland lies what used to be a peninsula, a spot that was once nearly surrounded by a sprawling reservoir. But almost the entire lake has evaporated. Years of drought have created a desperate thirst; the area remains in an extreme drought.
Is it desperate enough, though, for residents in Odessa, Big Spring, Snyder, Midland and Stanton to accept a solution that some find hard to swallow?
The Colorado River Municipal Water District recently began recycling millions of gallons of sewage.
After the sewage is scrubbed at the wastewater plant in Big Spring, the liquid is pumped into a new $12 million washing warehouse where it goes through micro-filters and reverse osmosis. Then, it’s disinfected with hydrogen peroxide and ultraviolet light.
“You are basically looking at bottled water quality water,” said operations manager John Womack. He contends what once went down a drain is pure enough to drink. Continue reading this article
North Africa and the Middle East were largely Christian regions until the Muslim hordes swept through and converted by the sword. As a grade-school kid, I never understood how that could work because the confluence of religious conversion and war didn’t seem to fit. Now we can see how the process functions first hand — constant intimidation with the message Join or Die is a very effect method of low-intensity warfare, perfected over centuries of practice by supremacist Muslims.
Below, Muslims harassed church-goers in front of London’s Westminster Cathedral.
Muslims warring against Christians and everyone else is a fact of history that has been going on for 1400 years. It seems highly unwise to invite such people into our midst via immigration. One wonders how many additional hostile Muslims would be admitted under the Senate’s crazy diverse overpopulation immigration scheme.
Scholar Raymond Ibrahim is a Coptic Christian whose parents left Egypt because of Muslim harassment. He recently published a book about the persecution of Christians in Islamic societies, Crucified Again.
He recently appeared on Canada’s SunTV with Brian Lilley to discuss the book:
A mass exodus of Christians is currently underway. Millions of Christians are being displaced from one end of the Islamic world to the other.
We are reliving the true history of how the Islamic world—much of which prior to the Islamic conquests was almost entirely Christian—came into being.
The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom recently said: “The flight of Christians out of the region is unprecedented and it’s increasing year by year.” In our lifetime alone “Christians might disappear altogether from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Egypt.”
Ongoing reports from the Islamic world certainly support this conclusion. Iraq was the earliest indicator of the fate awaiting Christians once Islamic forces are liberated from the grip of dictators.
The 2010 Baghdad church attack, which saw nearly 60 Christian worshippers slaughtered, is the tip of a decade-long iceberg.
Now as the U.S. supports the jihad on secular president Assad, the same pattern has come to Syria: entire regions and towns where Christians lived centuries before Islam came into being have now been emptied, as the opposition targets Christians for kidnapping, plundering, and beheadings, all in compliance with mosque calls that it’s a “sacred duty” to drive Christians away. Continue reading this article
A suspicious person might reasonably look away momentarily from the noisy debate on the legalization of (officially) 11 million lawbreaking foreign job thieves and reflect upon the ginormous “future flow” of legal immigrants that continues in perpetuity. Gargantuan unsustainable legal immigration is the real crime against Americans.
Senator Sessions brought up the question of legal numbers during the Thursday mark-up. Senator Schumer’s response was that the millions are coming anyway; under the new regime they will enter legally. Schumer said, “They’re coming. They’re either coming under law or not under law. And what we do is try to rationalize that system.”
So Schumer is saying in effect that no enforcement can be implemented that will keep out the invading foreigners, so Washington might as well legalize the unlawful behavior — problem solved, according to Democrat rules!
WASHINGTON—U.S. Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and David Vitter (R-LA) today sent a letter to the Gang of Eight Senators asking for estimates of future flow under the bill, detailing the specific categories of immigration that must be tallied:
The immigration bill is proceeding toward a vote and yet members of the Senate still do not have an estimate from the bill’s sponsors of the future flow of immigration that will occur.
It appears your bill would authorize legal status for 30 million immigrants over the next 10 years and provide work authorization to many millions more through nonimmigrant visas.
The public, and the Senate, are entitled to hear directly from the bill’s sponsors about just how many people will be given legal status under this proposal over the next decade. Only then can we fully understand the implications for the 90 million Americans who are not in the labor force, many of whom are either unemployed or have simply given up looking for a job. Continue reading this article
Following is Senator Sessions’ opening statement listing the lofty promises made about tough enforcement in the Gang of Eight bill, with its lack of actual means to create that lawfulness.
One problem: I wish the Senator didn’t feel the need to begin his statement with a pledge of allegiance to the institution of legal immigration, which many patriotic restrictionists routinely do. Isn’t America full yet? Still not diverse enough? Here in California, we are both overly crowded and diverse, and the state has become a dystopian basket case as a result.
That quibble aside, rest of the statement is a suitably dreadful inventory of Senatorial bad faith. Sessions called the bill “dangerous” in an interview with Breitbart a couple days ago, remarking, “It was written by experts who know what they’re doing. It was not written by the Gang of Eight themselves. But they have blessed special interests to write and develop and approve each one of those provisions and sections that impact their interest area.”
WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, delivered an opening statement today as the Judiciary Committee began marking up the Gang of Eight immigration bill. A text of Sessions’ prepared remarks follow:
“First, what do Americans really believe about immigration? We believe in it. Our current law provides for the yearly lawful admission of over one million persons. More than any nation in the world. We are proud of that—of being a nation of immigrants. But, almost as many have entered the country unlawfully, causing serious concerns. Americans are rightly not happy about that.
This is the situation. The people of this country are good and decent. They understand and have compassion for those who come here, even if illegally. But, they have pleaded with, urged, and sometimes even demanded that their government end the lawlessness, and for the creation of a lawful system, a rational system, that admits not too few and not too many. A rational system that serves the national interests. One with clear rules where the rules are enforced. I certainly support that kind of reform.
Wrestling with these issues is what we are here about today. While the sponsors of the legislation say their bill meets these goals, it does not. It was crafted in secret, essentially, by a series of interest groups. Too little concern was expressed for the impact this huge increase in immigration would have on struggling American workers and families. With high unemployment, anemic job growth, and with unprecedented number of workers who have given up and dropped out of the labor force, we must be focusing more on getting jobs for lawful immigrants and Americans. Wages are not even keeping up with inflation.
And, we should be hearing in depth from those sheriffs, police, and immigration officers who can tell us how to end the illegality.
I would ask unanimous consent to offer into the record a letter sent to Congress today from law enforcement officials across the country—including ICE officers—expressing their concerns over this legislation.
The sponsors told us there would be enforcement first. This legislation provides immediate amnesty and actually weakens enforcement requirements already on the books.
We were told there would be a border fence. There is no fencing requirement in the bill.
Critically, we were told there would be biometric entry and exit system as the 9/11 Commission called for and as Congress has required. This legislation undermines that requirement.
We were told there would be strict requirements for amnesty. But the amnesty is immediate and is open to those with multiple misdemeanor convictions, gang affiliations, and long criminal records—all without a guarantee of future enforcement.
We were told there would be the toughest security measures in history. But the border security provisions actually weaken current law, changing “one hundred percent operational control” to “effective control” of only three of nine border sectors, and currently collapsed interior enforcement is further gutted. Removal or denials of entry can be waived for reasons as vague as “hardship” or “the public interest”—in effect, codifying the unlawful abuse of discretion the Administration is now using.
We were told illegal immigrants would not be eligible for public benefits. But many will become eligible for all benefits in as soon as five years. These costs have been calculated to total trillions of dollars in the long term. Continue reading this article
Mexico is by far the biggest sender of illegal aliens, so this attitude is not an insignificant item. If Mexico the national entity is hostile, then the mass of its population must be seen in the same way.
And why should the Mexicans want a big cash cow killed off? The pests south of the Rio Grande get over $20 billion in free-to-them remittances every year. It’s money that goes to poor families, and subtracts from social welfare pesos the Mexican government needs to shell out to its citizens.
President Obama met with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto late last week to discuss ways to reduce violence and drug trafficking along the border and stressed his continued support for immigration legislation that provides a pathway to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants now in the United States. However, fewer Americans than ever view Mexico as an ally of the United States, and most still don’t believe the Mexican government wants to stop the flow of illegal immigrants.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that just 30% of Americans view Mexico as an ally of the United States. Eight percent (8%) see the southern neighbor as an enemy. A bare majority (52%) thinks Mexico is somewhere in between the two.
The Senate’s pending immigration bill will trim taxpayer spending on illegal immigrants for a decade, but will explode deficit spending by roughly $1 trillion in each following decade, according to a new analysis by the Heritage Foundation, which opposes the sweeping measure.
The lifetime costs for the 11 million illegals would reach $9.4 trillion, although they would pay roughly $3.1 trillion in taxes. That’s a $6.3 trillion lifetime cost to taxpayers, the report projects.
The cost would rise to $1.6 trillion per decade once the wave of amnestied low-skill immigrants starts using federal retirement programs in roughly 35 years, said Heritage’s assessment, released Monday.
Without an amnesty, the cost of the “unlawful immigrants” would be $1 trillion over five decades, Robert Rector, Heritage’s forecaster, told reporters May 6.
“Unlawful immigrants on average are tax consumers; they never once generate ‘fiscal surplus’ that can be used to pay for government benefits elsewhere in society,” said the Heritage report.
In contrast, “well educated households tend to be next tax contributors [and] the taxes they pay exceed the direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services they receive,” said the report.
Meatpacking used to be a middle-class job for Americans, illustrated in the 1990 Academy-Award-winning documentary American Dream, which showed Minnesotans fighting to maintain their wages and benefits at Hormel which had cut them despite healthy profits. Companies later discovered that illegal alien foreigners were happy to work for peanuts, and wages were lowered accordingly. However, in the years following, occasional spurts of government enforcement proved troublesome, so the meatpackers turned to refugees to take the hazardous, poorly paid jobs. (See the 2008 report, Legal Somalians (“Refugees”) Replace Illegal Mexicans At Swift Plant.)
The latest influx courtesy of the Refugee Industrial Complex is the importation of Burmese into Iowa, home to many meat processing plants.
Interestingly, local Mexicans are miffed at the importation of non-hispanic diversity. As doctoral student Christina Ortiz observed, “But in a certain sense, they are in competition with each other. They are applying for the same jobs. They have the same skills. And that’s tricky. Obviously there is some tension there.”
Didn’t the Mexicans get the memo that Diversity Is Our Strength?
Other diversity symptoms have included drunk driving, public urination and unhealthy barracks-like living conditions among the newbies. So enriching. Four hundred non-English-speaking refugees in a town of 1899 residents (2010 Census) is a huge burden on schools and social services, despite all the happy talk.
If the reader objects to the government’s reckless refugee program to replace citizens with compliant foreigners, don’t forget that the State Department is accepting remarks from Americans on the topic. The occasion is an annual meeting, with the deadline for written statements being May 8 — that’s Wednesday!
COLUMBUS JUNCTION, Iowa – The first Chin Burmese student arrived at Wilma Sime Roundy Elementary School three years ago, a smiling preschooler whose father often checked on his progress.
The school had long been accustomed to educating the children of the Mexicans, Hondurans and El Salvadorans who came to work at the sprawling Tyson Foods pork processing plant that sits outside this town of 2,000. But then, principal Shane Rosenberg recalled, Tyson informed school leaders that a new group of workers was coming — the Chin, a largely Christian ethnic minority who were fleeing their homeland in western Myanmar to avoid persecution.
A trickle of Chin students turned into dozens. Frustrated educators struggled to communicate, often having to call the pastor of the Chin church to interpret. Rosenberg intervened to ease the way, using grant money to hire one of the Chin to translate to and from the Hakha language. And he invited Chin parents for a welcoming ceremony and tour of the school.
“It was an awe-inspiring moment, for them to see the opportunities their children were going to have by being here in school,” he said.
All told, about 400 refugees have descended on the town, and more are arriving by the week to reunite with friends and relatives and work grueling jobs for Tyson. Like other waves of immigrants, they were drawn to this poor, sparsely populated region of southeastern Iowa by the promise of jobs, good schools and welcoming people.
And as was the case with other waves of immigrants, there have been bumps along the way.
“We’ve had a lot of experience with Hispanic cultures, but for all of us, the Burmese thing is new. There’s no one around that is an expert in that area or knows the language or this and that. That whole transition has been interesting,” said Mayor Dan Wilson, a businessman who grew up on a farm outside town. He said the influx has been more easily noticed in Columbus Junction than elsewhere: “It’s more obvious in a small town when you’ve got 200 new people coming in. You’re not going to blend in here. You’re going to stick out.” 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.