Ann Coulter and Grover Norquist Debate Immigration Amnesty on CNBC

It’s nice to see an energetic discussion about the central issue of saving the country, when at least one of the speakers is knowledgeable (Coulter) and not a traitorous snake, a friend of hostile Islam (Norquist).

Many of the open-borders hacks don’t seem motivated to make sense — perhaps they are arrogantly sure of winning, or just lazy. For example, the evil Grover denied the economic basics of supply and demand, saying, “I really hesitate when I hear conservatives use the rhetoric of the AFL-CIO that more people somehow reduce wages, this is what the unions have been saying for a hundred years.”

On the contrary, the whole reason business wants firehose immigration is because it lowers wages and saves a bundle for those doing the hiring. A recent report from immigration economist George Borjas reinforces that truly basic point.

Then Grover observed, “There used to be three million Americans; we were quite poor. Now there are 300 million Americans; we’re much richer.”

Apparently well known personages can make statements that broadly meaningless on an NBC business show and get no argument.

Also, it was curious for host Larry Kudlow to say that one of the reasons the economy is so weak is the falling labor participation among Americans — hello! Has the fellow not heard of the relation between cause and effect?

People are giving up on the labor market because there are no jobs for them to participate in. Importing additional excess workers from abroad will not create more employment; it would make jobs even more scarce and harder for Americans to find.

Cost of Amnesty for Lawbreaking Foreigners Is Estimated at $4-5 Trillion

In the following video, Fox reporter Eric Bolling says, “A new report from Heritage Foundation expected to show making illegals legal would add 4 to 5 trillion bucks to the national debt.”

Steve Camarota, the research director at CIS.org, mentioned the same number during an interview with Neil Cavuto a couple days ago, but I can’t find a video of that.

In 2007, Heritage economist Robert Rector published a study titled, Amnesty Will Cost U.S. Taxpayers at Least $2.6 Trillion. He is a well known expert on welfare use and helped write the 1996 welfare reform legislation. Rector announced a few months ago that he was working on an update to the amnesty numbers. It sounds like the report is close to being published.

Meanwhile, a run for the border is apparently increasing, as reports of the Obama Amnesty spread around the globe.

Snapshots from Amnesty Extravaganza

To third world moochers south of the border, the United States looks like one big piggy bank, the free stuff of which is somewhat blocked by an annoying border. That attitude was illustrated by an interview from Wednesday’s amnesty mob in DC, where one participant opined, “‘It’s better if we can put (our) two countries together.”

Of course, such an arrangement would be a huge win for crackhouse Mexico and a total loser for America, as I explained in a 2007 article (when the North American Union was being discussed), Top Ten Reasons Why the US Should Not Marry Mexico.

Another example from Wednesday’s gimme spectacle:

Perhaps the guy picked up the idea that “migration is a human right” from his local Catholic church, an anti-sovereignty organization that consistently violates its non-profit tax status by campaigning against US borders. “Any family in economic need has a right to immigrate, that’s our posture,” said Catholic priest Michael Seifert of south Texas, perfectly voicing the Marxist view of the church, aka “liberation theology.”

Rep. Steve King and Other Border Stalwarts Present Anti-Amnesty Arguments

Are the House friends of American sovereignty waking up to the looming amnesty danger? Perhaps.

On Thursday, several of the more spine-enhanced members had a low-key presser, called a “pen-and-pad” by Roll Call (new scribbler shop talk to me). Organized by Congressman Steve King (R-IA, pictured), the event included Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Lou Barletta (R-PA), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Mo Brooks (R-AL).

There’s no video of the event, at least so far, or transcript either. Why so shy? Millions of citizens are starved for leadership supporting the well-being of the nation, rather than an immigration amnesty deal made in secret for powerful special interests. Congressman King was involved in an outdoors press conference in 2011 spotlighting the crime victims of illegal aliens; that format could be usefully be followed for a presentation on American joblessness, for example.

Anyway, the pen-and-pad is a welcome step in the right direction. Hopefully there will be more leadership forthcoming to maintain a recognizable America.

Steve King Leads House Reps’ Fight against Amnesty, Breitbart.com, April 11, 2013

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) on Thursday pulled together a group of conservative colleagues to fight back against Democratic Party and GOP establishment efforts to grant amnesty to at least 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.

King organized an invitation-only press conference for reporters from several different publications, including Breitbart News, at which he and Reps. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Mo Brooks (R-AL), Lou Barletta (R-PA), and Michele Bachmann (R-MN), declared opposition to any and all efforts by career politicians inside the beltway to grant amnesty to the millions of illegal immigrants in the country.

In the 113th Congress’s immigration debate, only a handful of conservative Senators, led by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), have been fighting back against the amnesty attempts, especially without real border security or interior law enforcement reform. But now at least a small House contingent is joining Sessions and his conservative colleagues on the other side of Capitol Hill.

King said he is speaking up now because of the “inertia” of pro-amnesty lawmakers. “[W]e’re concerned about having this wash over us and not have the opportunity for the constitutional conservatives in this country and in this Congress to have their voice heard,” he said.

King also discussed the many erroneous conclusions drawn by colleagues, such as that the presidential election was lost because of certain misstatements or verbal gaffes, such as “self-deport” or “47 percent.” He also questioned the efficacy of using the fact that George W. Bush received a high percentage of the Hispanic vote as an excuse for the disappointing results in November.

[“I think it’s high time we had this discussion,” King added. “A number of us have sat back and watched with amazement at how quickly some of our colleagues leaped to erroneous conclusions. One of them would be on the morning of November 7, when a good number of them concluded that Mitt Romney would be president-elect that morning if we had just not said ‘self-deport.’ Continue reading this article

USA Today Follows PC-AP to Drop 'Illegal Immigrant' Descriptive Phrase

The left’s project to rejigger the language according to its political agenda continues to pick up steam with the mainstream media which is on board. The latest symptom is USA Today falling in line with the Associated Press decision to drop the phrase “illegal immigrant” from its Stylebook of usage.

The campaign to censor the phrase “illegal immigrant” has been going on since at least 2010. The following clip of Tucker Carlson’s comments is dated Dec 28, 2010.

Here are a few examples of redefining reality for political reasons:

• The assault by invasive Muslims on the facts which appear in the news has been acute. Critics of hostile Islam and its daily murders in the name of Allah are said to display Islamophobia, as if recognition of a profound threat to our way of life is a mental disorder. The encroachment of sharia speech restrictions as part of the left’s wide-ranging agenda of political correctness is a huge danger to our liberty. The recent sale of Al Gore’s CurrentTV network to Al Jazziera will certainly bring a more positive view of Islam to American viewers.

Plus, the recent banning of the word “Islamist” by AP is a bad sign. The word was used to designate sharia-pushing jihadists and differentiate them from their less-bloodthirsty brethren. But CAIR complained about negative words referring to Islam, so AP folded like a cheap lawn chair.

“Gay marriage” is a political creation to poke conservatives in the eye. Almost no one objected to domestic partnerships for gay couples. But dragging in the institution of marriage was perfect for bashing religious people who have strongly felt beliefs about the meaning of marriage. The idea of gay marriage is gaining traction, a tribute to the propaganda skills of the left and its partners in the press, even though this so-called “human right” was never discussed 30 years ago.

Watch for “marriage equality” to expand soon to include polygamy, one of the most misogynous practices ever.

• The much-promoted idea that “Diversity is our strength” is a denial of human nature, which is deeply tribal. People normally prefer the comfort and safety of their own cultural group. Media and schools promote diversity as a plus precisely because it is unnatural not to see a foreign tribe as a danger. Group identity is hard wired in our species.

The censorship of “illegal immigrant” is designed to blur the idea of illegal alien foreigners stealing American jobs. The press wants us to see them as family people who moved to the United States in search of a better life, no big deal even with 20 million citizens unable to find full time work and 90 million out of the labor force in the current jobless “recovery.”

USA Today Changes Style On‘Illegal Immigrant’, Talking Points Memo, April 11, 2013

Another news organization has revised its editorial style on immigration terminology. USA Today, according to a memo obtained by Jim Romenesko, will stop using the term “illegal immigrant” unless it is used in a direct quote. Continue reading this article

Senator Sessions Objects to Democrats Rushing Amnesty Bill without Examination

Senate Democrats still plan to shove their amnesty plan down the throats of an unwilling public. Suggestions from Republicans that normal procedures be followed have been ignored by the open-borders Democrats. Senator Pat Leahy, the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, has insisted the process be rapid — quite a change from the Senate’s usual leisurely style.

The regular process for such an important bill would include months of hearings, with experts explaining what the costs would be with time for American citizens to examine the legislation’s contents.

Interestingly, the cartoon below is from 2007, showing how little things change in Washington’s halls of power.

Senator Sessions released a press release on Wednesday voicing his objections to the majority running roughshod over the public interest. (See also his list of 10 questions about the bill that has been negotiated in secret to please special interests like business and unions.)

Leahy Doubles-Down On Plan To Rush Immigration Bill Wednesday, April 10, 2013

WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, issued the following statement today on the announced timeline for moving a comprehensive immigration bill:

“The process that Chairman Leahy has described – a single hearing on a potentially 1,500 page bill – is unacceptable. It is an explicit rejection of the process demanded by Judiciary Committee Republicans and endorsed by Senator Rubio. To acquiesce to such a process would be to accept the Majority’s plan to rush through this massive legislation before the American people know what’s in it. Now that the special interests have what they want, the deal has been made: force it through and set the public interest aside. As with 2007, the drive to enact amnesty supersedes all else – including the open government principles of our democratic Republic. The American people are being shut out, the law enforcement community is being shut out, and the people’s representatives are being shut out.

We need a committee hearing on every component of reform, including the extraordinary potential costs to taxpayers, the impact on wages and job prospects for the unemployed, and the Administration’s continued refusal to enforce the laws previously enacted by Congress.

Failure to commit to this kind of open process is tantamount to an admission that the bill is not workable and will not stand up to public scrutiny.”

10 Questions from Senator Sessions for the Gang of Eight

Senator Jeff Sessions is one of the best list makers in Washington, in a good way. Efforts in years past have pointed out the nasty fine print in the 2011 DREAM Amnesty with 10 terrible items and 20 Loopholes in the 2007 Senate Amnesty Bill.

Now he is back with 10 excellent questions for the Gang of Eight, suggesting analysis of the bill that has been created in secret, away from the public’s curious eyes.

10 Questions For The Gang Of Eight; Some Of The Many Questions That Must Be Answered Before Legislation Is Produced, Monday, April 8, 2013

Due to the enormous complexity of immigration reform and the profound consequences for American workers, taxpayers, and society at large, many have advocated for a step-by-step approach rather than a comprehensive one. The last attempt at comprehensive legislation was riddled with flaws and loopholes that made it unworkable—serving the special interests but not the national interest. Dozens of crucial questions remain for the Gang of Eight that must be resolved before any proposal can properly be called comprehensive. The American people have a right to know the answer to each of them—and to express their views during a thorough period of public hearing and review. The public must know exactly what’s in any far-reaching proposal before anyone votes on it. With that in mind, here are 10 questions for the Gang of Eight:

1.  Is this bill enforcement first or legalization first?
After the last attempt at comprehensive legislation was rejected by the public in 2007, a national consensus emerged that any successful reform of our immigration system begins with securing the border and achieving enforcement of current federal law first—before creating any new legal status or amnesty. When the Gang of Eight first emerged, “enforcement first” was a publicly stated principle. Yet, on the March 31st edition of Meet the Press, Gang of Eight member Senator Chuck Schumer said: “We’ve come to a basic agreement, which is that first, people will be legalized. In other words, not citizens, but they’ll be allowed to work, come out of the shadows, travel. Then, we will make sure the border is secure. And we have specific metrics that are in the bill. I’m not going to get into what they are…” Following that statement, ICE officer and National ICE Council president Chris Crane explained that “the plan of the Gang of 8 appears to be legalization or amnesty first and then enforcement. That’s the big problem for us… Here’s my promise to America, if we don’t take care of the enforcement part of this first it will never happen. The only thing that will happen is that 11 million illegal aliens will be legalized.”

2.  What are the concrete metrics used to measure border security?
Since 2004, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been required to maintain “operational control” the border, i.e., the Department must be able to detect, identify, classify, and then respond to and resolve illegal entries along our U.S. borders. According to a 2011 GAO report, the federal government has only 6.5 percent operational control of the southwest border. The stunning revelation that this administration had left the border highly vulnerable caused DHS to abandon that metric. Recently, Administration officials admitted that they have no standard by which to measure border security and have no plan to establish one, apparently because the Administration is concerned that it will discourage Congress from passing a large-scale amnesty. Meanwhile, Secretary Napolitano publicly dismissed the Gang of Eight’s idea of a border security “trigger” as “not the way to go.” According to recent news reports, the Gang of Eight is contemplating a trigger that simply asks DHS to submit a plan “to achieve within a decade 90 percent apprehension and 100 percent real-time surveillance.” Once that plan is simply submitted, illegal immigrants would be offered amnesty and, like 1986, there will be no way to guarantee that the enforcement will ever take place. Even the rejected 2007 legislation included a stricter trigger, requiring DHS to certify 100 percent operational control of the border.

3.  Does the bill complete the border fence and secure all ports of entry?
In 2006, Congress mandated 700 miles of physical double-layer border fencing. To date, only 36.3 miles of that fencing have been completed. Additionally, DHS has failed to comply with Congress’ nearly 20-year-old mandate that the government implement a biometric exit system to track visa overstays, which account for an estimated 40 percent of the illegal population in the country today. After the attacks of September 11th, the 9/11 Commission identified the absence of such a system as a national security threat. Importantly, GAO has specifically stated that without a biometric exit system, “DHS cannot ensure the integrity of the immigration system by identifying and removing those people who have overstayed their original period of admission.” Any comprehensive immigration reform must adhere to Congress’ mandate that a biometric exit system be implemented at all ports of entry—air, land, and sea. Continue reading this article

Senator Rubio Is a Star on Talk Show Even without Being There

Several political shows this Sunday included immigration in the topic mix. Senator Marco Rubio was a celebrated figure, without appearing in person, because grateful open-borders Republicans, particularly fellow Gang of Eighters, sing his praises — perhaps too much.

During his appearance on Meet the Press, Senator Lindsey Graham was effusive about his colleague, saying, “Marco Rubio has been a game changer in my party. . . Marco has been indispensable, 70:30, we get there.”

Acclaim from one of the Senate’s most dedicated amnesty villains is not a plus in many quarters, particularly among the traditional voting citizens.

Here’s part of the transcript from Meet the Press:

GREGORY: On immigration, what stands in the way of a deal?

SEN. GRAHAM: We’ve got an agreement between labor and business about the Guest Worker Program, but we’re revisiting that. We’re hoping to get this thing done in the next couple of weeks, is the Guest Worker Program. High skill and low skill labor. How can you access it in an affordable fashion when you can’t find an American worker? If we’re reasonable with 11 million, if we all give them a pathway to citizenship that’s earned and hard and fair, get in the back of the line, pay taxes, learn the English language, then the Democratic Party has to give us the Guest Worker Program to help our economy. That’s what we’re arguing over.

MS. FLOURNOY: Will Marco Rubio be there for you?

SEN. GRAHAM: Marco Rubio has been a game changer in my party. He will be there only if the Democrats will embrace a Guest Worker Program and a merit-based immigration system to replace the broken one and we’ll regain our sovereignty back, securing our borders and having control of jobs through E-Verify. Marco will be there. If we get the 11 million right on our side it puts pressure on the Democrats to come up with a workable guest work– a practical Guest Worker Program. Marco has been indispensable, 70:30, we get there.

Congressman’s Border Tour Reveals Same Old Lawlessness

Rep Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) visited the southern border recently, which was interesting to follow via remarks and photos on Twitter (@jasoninthehouse). He was pretty shocked at one border crossing spot which not only isn’t fenced, but has a handrail and convenient steps leading to the Rio Grande. We wouldn’t want any illegal alien to stub his toe en route to stealing an American job!

When he appeared on Fox News on April 5, he sounded surprised at the general level of anarchy, given the administration’s many assurances of border security. “That border is still very porous,” he observed and seemed taken aback at the diversity of the OTMs, from Chinese nationals to Romanians. At the Eloy Detention Center, out of 1500 total detained, 900 were non-Mexicans. Plus, parts of the border have no fence at all. Mexican kiddies cross the border daily to mooch free-to-them schooling on the American side at Naco Arizona.

So the border is just as lawless as it has been for years. But we little citizens are supposed to accept a nation-changing amnesty with the promise of future enforcement from Obama and his cronies.

At least Chaffetz sounds a little more interested in enforcement after his visit to the real deal. It’s always good to see the word “punishment” being used regarding lawbreaking foreigners. And lengthy incarceration needn’t cost a lot, as shown by Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s tent city detention center.

Chaffetz wants tougher treatment of illegal border crossers, Salt Lake Tribune, April 5, 2013

The southwest border is porous and the punishment for illegally crossing it is not tough enough, Rep. Jason Chaffetz said after spending three days in southern Arizona with Border Patrol agents this week.

While Chaffetz, R-Utah, has a list of problems with border security, what he doesn’t have yet are policy solutions.

“If there was a simple, easy answer I’m sure someone would have done it a long time ago,” he said Friday after returning to Utah. He said no fence will stop all illegal immigration, particularly for people involved in the drug trade and those searching for jobs.

The congressman is the chairman of the House national security subcommittee and he’s planning a border security hearing for May, where he’ll continue to explore the topic.

“I really worry that there is no consequence of coming across the border illegally,” he said. “There is no pain involved in that.” Continue reading this article

Senator Sessions Reacts to Jobs Report in Light of Looming Amnesty for Millions

Below is Senator Jeff Sessions‘ response to Friday’s terrible unemployment report which showed only 88,000 new jobs were added to the economy, about half the average of the last few months. Plus, the labor force participation rate dropped to 63.3 percent, the lowest since 1979 (the Carter administration). Nearly 90 million Americans older than age 16 are out of the work force.

There was plenty of hand-wringing about the dismal numbers, but Sessions was unique in connecting the report with the negative affect on Americans of the proposed behemoth amnesty.

Sessions: With 90 Million Out Of The Labor Force, We Need An Immigration Policy That Helps Americans Get Jobs, Friday, April 5, 2013

WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, issued the following statement today following the new jobs report:

“Today’s jobs report reveals that 90 million Americans are now outside the labor force. We need to be getting Americans back to work, helping people move off of food stamps and welfare, and find good jobs with steady incomes. But the comprehensive immigration bill being drafted right now would provide nearly immediate work authorization to millions of illegal immigrants while substantially increasing the future flow of workers. Our first priority must be to help American citizens, and current legal immigrants, find good employment. What we cannot have, and what is not sustainable, is an economic system where a large and growing share of our population is permanently unemployed while jobs are filled by a constant supply of foreign workers.”

The percentage of foreigners taking American jobs continues to increase and will grow further if the evil amnesty is allowed to become law.

New Radar Disproves Administration Fable of Border Security

The Obama administration insists that the border is secure enough to justify an amnesty for millions, even though just the chatter on that subject has doubled the number of illegals heading north to get the new welfare+jobs program for lawbreaking foreigners.

Now we learn that a new kind of radar, mounted on a drone, shows that a lot more illegals are getting through than was previously estimated.

No wonder that Gang of Eighter Sen Schumer recently reneged from the initial promise of border enforcement before mega amnesty.

On Meet the Press last Sunday, Schumer explained, “So look, we’ve come to a basic agreement, which is that first, people will be legalized. In other words, not citizens, but they’ll be allowed to work, come out of the shadows, travel. Then, we will make sure the border is secure.” (Watch clip.)

Remember:

Legalization, meaning an immediate work permit, IS the amnesty.

Illegals don’t care about voting rights in some future US election. Only 40 percent of 1986 amnestied cohort were naturalized as of 2009. Democrat politicians care about citizenship for grateful future voters, but not the foreigners themselves, who come for the cash, period.

According to Senator Jeff Sessions on a April 3 phone call to Fox News, “as many as eight million workers” will be legalized, which means a bad effect on the US labor market, where 22 million citizens cannot find full-time work.

And they are still coming, with no serious enforcement to stop them:

Radar shows U.S. border security gaps, Los Angeles Times, April 4, 2013

Vader, a system originally used to track the Taliban, finds that more immigrants elude capture at the U.S.-Mexico border than previously estimated.

WASHINGTON — A sophisticated airborne radar system developed to track Taliban fighters planting roadside bombs in Afghanistan has found a new use along the U.S. border with Mexico, where it has revealed gaps in security.

Operated from a Predator surveillance drone, the radar system has collected evidence that Border Patrol agents apprehended fewer than half of the foreign migrants and smugglers who had illegally crossed into a 150-square-mile stretch of southern Arizona.

The number of “gotaways,” as the Border Patrol calls those who escape apprehension, is both more precise and higher than official estimates. Continue reading this article

Phoenix Recruits Diverse Non-Swimming Lifeguards

Another source of unacceptable whiteness has been found — this time in lifeguards, who lounge around in their skimpy outfits showing lots of white skin, poised to rescue drowning persons from death.

Phoenix decided that the shocking state of affairs must end, and therefore sent recruiters to non-white high schools to find young people willing to take the plunge.

Swimming skills were not required! Training would be supplied, so details like applicants having a fear of water were deemed unimportant. No mention is given of how rigorous the lifeguard “test” would be.

Diversity-beguiled NPR reported affirmative action swum amok without missing a stroke.

In Phoenix, A New Quest For Diverse Public Pool Lifeguards, NPR, March 28, 2013

After noticing that most of the lifeguards at the public pools used by Latino and African-American kids were white, the Phoenix aquatics department decided to try to recruit minorities.

More than 90 percent of the students at Alhambra High are black, Latino or Asian. On a recruiting effort there over the winter, the city’s Melissa Boyle tells students she’s not looking for strong swimmers. Like many under-resourced schools, Alhambra doesn’t have a swim team.

“We will work with you in your swimming abilities,” Boyle says.

Boyle’s colleague Kelly Martinez takes on the delicate task of explaining the scenario the city is trying to correct.

“The kids in the pool are all either Hispanic or black or whatever, and every lifeguard is white,” she says, “and we don’t like that. The kids don’t relate; there’s language issues.”

Martinez turns to a Latina student next to her. “Do you speak Spanish?” she asks. “We need more lifeguards who can speak Spanish.”

Competitive swimming still has a reputation as a white sport. And a national study released in 2010 found African-Americans and Latinos reported much lower swimming proficiency compared to whites. Continue reading this article

Page 109 of 225« First...102030...107108109110111...120130140...Last »