|
|
"Anchors" away!
By Mona Charen, May 19, 2006
In 1970, six percent of all births in the United States were to illegal aliens. In 2002, that figure was 23 percent. In 1994, 36 percent of the births paid for by
Medi-Cal, California's Medicaid, were to illegals. That figure has doubtless increased in the intervening 12 years as the rate of illegal immigration has risen.
Any child born in the United States automatically becomes a U.S. citizen. He or she is instantly eligible for panoply of social services, food stamps and other forms of aid. When the child reaches the age of 21, he can petition to have his parents and siblings declared permanent residents.
The so-called "anchor baby" phenomenon is a hidden trap door beneath any guest worker
program, because a significant number of guest workers will have babies while in the United States and will thus elude any effort to send them
home. (There are other problems with guest worker schemes: the difficulty of enforcement, the creation of permanently alienated subgroups such as Europe has created of its Muslim immigrants, and the problem of uprooting even the non-citizen children of guest workers who have spent years in the United States.)
I happen to be a moderate on immigration. I believe that Republicans should tread carefully on reform lest they be perceived as anti-Hispanic. With the country divided so evenly between the two parties, Republicans cannot afford to alienate 12 percent of the electorate (and a group that is religiously and culturally open to the Republican message). While anecdotal evidence certainly suggests that the conservative grass roots are deeply agitated about immigration, their concerns must be addressed with finesse so as not to walk the party into a political buzz saw. That much having been said, here are some reforms that go beyond what Congress is currently considering.
-- Eliminate the "anchor baby" problem by changing the citizenship law. Most Americans take it for granted that the 14th Amendment requires birthright citizenship, but a number of scholars deem this to be a misinterpretation. The clause reads "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are citizens. If the drafters intended to say only that all persons born on U.S. territory would be considered citizens, why did they add the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? Are those words superfluous? If not, what do they mean? In 1898, the same Supreme Court that decided Plessy v. Ferguson interpreted the clause to exclude only the children of diplomats. But this contradicts the statements of one of the amendment's key authors, Michigan Sen. Jacob Howard, who explained in 1866 that the citizenship clause, intended to ensure the rights of former slaves, "would not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States..."
The United States is one of the only developed nations to permit birthright citizenship. Britain changed its law in 1981.
In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee last year, Professor John Eastman of the Chapman University School of Law acknowledged that Congress is often chary of directly challenging the courts on constitutional matters out of fear of provoking a deadlock between co-equal branches. But the courts, Eastman urged, have declared Congress's power over naturalization matters to be "plenary." It is past time to reconsider the birthright citizenship rule. It is simply too tempting a lure to poor pregnant women south of the border, and it will always undercut other immigration reforms.
-- Back to the melting pot. The United States absorbed proportionately more immigrants at the start of the 20th century than it is attempting to digest now. But our grandparents had one huge advantage: they believed in "Americanization." Immigrants were thrown into the cauldron we called the melting pot and emerged with slightly altered names, lost accents, a love of baseball and calling George Washington the father of their country. Yes, they lost something, but they gained infinitely more. Years of multicultural claptrap, bilingual education, political correctness and interest group politics have dulled our capacity to assimilate. And our lack of national self-confidence has in turn filtered down to the immigrants themselves, who see nothing odd about marching in the streets for their "rights" instead of asking politely for our indulgence. If we cannot recapture the will to insist upon Americanization, immigration will be our undoing instead of what it has always been, a great strength.
Mona Charen is the author of Do-Gooders and
Useful
Idiots.
IMMIGRATION "MAY DAY"
or
"You wouldn't understand, it's a Commie thing..."
Millions of illegal aliens, primarily Mexican nationalists
in the U.S., are protesting against immigration reform May 1st.
It is no coincidence that this "May Day" protest falls on the
Communist Party's International Workers' Day.
The communist ANSWER coalition is the primary organizer of
today's protest and they issued the following statement: "Anti-immigrant politicians and
hate mongers call immigrants 'a drain on society' ---they try to pass repressive legislation like HR 4437 and encourage groups like the racist 'Minutemen.' But immigrants contribute billions to the economy and receive few benefits in return. We will settle for nothing less than full amnesty and dignity for the millions of undocumented workers presently in the United States. Let's show the government, corporations and racist politicians that a powerful, united peoples' movement has the power to win Civil Rights, workers' rights and make history. No business as usual on May 1!"
Needless to say, rallying illegal aliens to protest immigration reform on U.S. soil does not play well with Americans---especially those who have immigrated here legally.
Please help stop any Congressional legislation giving illegal aliens "amnesty" and "fast-track citizenship." Support our campaign to provide millions of Americans this critical message so our Senators, Representatives and President will know that the vast majority of Americans reject any amnesty proposal.
(Spreading the
word from the PatriotPost.us newsletter)
You
will find links on the APFTE
Immigration Page where you can email your Senators and
Representatives and let them know your feelings regarding this
issue.
APFTE
NOTE:
Who would of thought we would have hundreds of
thousands of people protesting in our cities organized by a
Communist organization?
Meanwhile a million other people in the Philippines,
Africa, Europe, China, South Korea and across the globe that
have been waiting in some cases for up to 20 years for a
chance at American Citizenship, get cheated out of their
chance because they obeyed our laws and used the proper
channels. While Illegal Aliens...
"CRIMINALS"... mainly from Mexico, thumb their
collective noses at our laws and all the other people in the
world that deserve American Citizenship more than they do
because of following our laws and having respect for the
USA.
If you think we are somehow "blessed" with this
mass lawbreaking by illegals and then having to witness them
having the absolute audacity to protest about their intentional
illegality, you need to have your head examined because
eight out of ten immigrants are here from Mexico... and the
real message from the lawbreakers is "screw us", and
"screw the others that have waited for years to get
here", Illegal Aliens snuck in by breaking the law and they plan on telling
us what to do about it from now on.
We are witnessing a giant step in the downfall of the
America we all know, love and pledge allegiance to. And
Scumbags like Ted Kennedy,
the Socialist that initiated the immigration amendment in the
60's loves it...
After all, that's the only way Traitors like
him continually get elected, by the support of other less
patriotic, ignorant or outright anti-American individuals that vote for him.
Massachusetts must have a majority of Voters that are absolute morons
for them to elect Kennedy and Kerry over and over again... There must definitely
be something in the drinking water there... probably alcohol.
By
R. Smith
U.S.
workers and taxpayers pay heavy price for illegal immigration
By
Phyllis Schlafly
Apr 24, 2006
Illegal immigrants in this country are
threatening a massive boycott on May 1, purportedly to
demonstrate they are so essential that the U.S. economy would
shut down without their labor. On the contrary, such a boycott
will expose the lie expressed by President George W. Bush in
Cancun, Mexico, that they are "doing work that Americans
will not do."
According to the Pew Hispanic Center,
illegal immigrants make up less than 5 percent of the U.S.
labor force. If every one of the 20 million illegal aliens in
our country plays hooky from his job on May 1, the
overwhelming majority of those same types of jobs will be
worked by millions of U.S. citizens.
All over America, U.S. citizens will
flip hamburgers in fast-food shops, wash dishes in
restaurants, change sheets in hotels, mow lawns, trim shrubs,
pick produce, drive taxis, replace roofs on houses, and do all
kinds of construction work. Americans are quite willing to
work unpleasant, menial, tiresome and risky jobs, but not for
Third World wages.
An employment service in Mobile, Ala.,
recently received an "urgent request" to fill 270
job openings from contractors who were hired to rebuild and
clear areas of Alabama devastated by Hurricane Katrina. The
agency immediately sent 70 laborers and construction workers
to three job sites.
After two weeks on the job, the men were
fired by employers who told them "the Mexicans had
arrived" and were willing to work for lower wages. The
U.S. citizens had been promised $10 an hour, but the employers
preferred Mexicans who would work for less. Employment agency
manager Linda Swope told The Washington Times: "When they
told the guys they would not be needed, they actually cried
... and we cried with them. This is a shame."
Swope said that employment agencies
throughout Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi all face similar
problems because an estimated 30,000 men from Mexico and
Central and South America, many in crowded buses and trucks,
came into those three states after Hurricane Katrina, willing
to work for less than whatever was paid to U.S. citizens.
Meanwhile, President Bush signed the
Katrina Emergency Assistance Act extending for 13 weeks the
unemployment benefits to U.S. citizens displaced by Katrina.
Thus employers get the benefit of cheap foreign labor while
you and I provide taxpayer handouts to workers whom the
government allowed to be displaced from the jobs they were
eager to take.
There is no penalty on employers who
replace U.S. citizens with illegal immigrants at lower pay.
Homeland Security even announced it has suspended the
sanctioning of employers who hire illegal immigrants, and
President Bush suspended the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires
local contractors to pay "prevailing" wages.
A study published by the National Bureau
of Economic Research reported that the surge of immigration in
the 1980s and 1990s lowered the wages of our own high school
dropouts by 8.2 percent. The surge has accelerated since that
report was issued. The Congressional Budget Office reported
that 60 percent of Mexican and Central American workers in the
United States in 2004 lacked a high school diploma.
The Kennedy-McCain-Bush
guest worker plan would import more uneducated, unskilled
workers, and thereby deny our own high school dropouts (of
whom we have too many) the opportunity to get started in
building their lives in the labor force. U.S. citizens are
threatened that the cost of lettuce will rise precipitously if
we don't continue to import Mexican agricultural workers. But
a farm worker gets only 6 or 7 cents out of a $1 head of
lettuce, so even if the pay doubles, consumers would hardly
notice the difference.
On the other hand, the costs taxpayers
are forced to pay for social benefits for low-paid workers are
astronomical. The National Research Council reports that an
immigrant to the United States without a high-school diploma
consumes $89,000 more in government services than he pays in
taxes during his lifetime.
Low-paid illegal immigrants obviously
pay very little taxes, but they cash in on all sorts of
benefits paid by other taxpayers, such as schooling for their
children, emergency health care, housing subsidies, Earned
Income Tax Credit and law enforcement. If the 20 million
illegal immigrants are legalized, they will also become
eligible for Medicaid, and that's a real break-the-bank
prospect.
These figures don't even count the
rapidly growing underground economy, in which millions of
illegal immigrants are paid off the books in cash. That
enables both employer and employee to avoid paying taxes, and
enables employers to avoid paying workers' compensation,
unemployment compensation, and assorted other taxes.
If the Internal Revenue Service
collected all the taxes that should be paid by the underground
economy, our current budget deficit would disappear overnight,
according to a Bear Stearns study released in 2005. The
Americans who pay taxes are giving a free ride to those who
are not paying taxes, and a 7-cent increase in the price of
lettuce should not be on our worry list.
Phyllis
Schlafly is the President and Founder of the Eagle Forum.
Reconquista is real!
By Michelle Malkin
There are none so blind as those who will not see. While the mainstream media heaped praise on the "peaceful" May Day protesters and newspapers plastered sympathetic photos of the pro-illegal alien "sea of humanity" all over their front pages, freelance photographers, bloggers, and radio interviewers captured a sea of open-borders militancy nationwide.
Uninformed political observers delude themselves into thinking that these sentiments are relegated to the fringe. But the core concepts of reconquista (the "re-conquest" of the Southwest by Mexico) have spread wide and deep-from San Francisco to Los Angeles to Milwaukee to Arkansas and beyond. In Denver, a large banner read: "AMERICA IS A CONTINENT NOT A COUNTRY." In Albuquerque, Latino activists held up a provocative sign asking aloud: "Manifest Destiny?"
On the Sean Hannity radio show Monday, I debated (or rather listened to five minutes of screeching by) a young member of the radical group MeCha. A student at the University of San Francisco, she denied that her group still subscribed to 1960s identity politics, then promptly delivered a full-throated rant about Mexico's right to reclaim American territory: "We believe that we have the right to be in this land…Aztlan is California! Aztlan is this country! This country was ours…We didn't cross the borders. The borders crossed us…This country is based on exploitation!"
On NPR's "All Things Considered," Gloria Ramirez Vargas, a politician in Baja, Calif., rallied her constituents with a similar cry: " Many Mexicans are nourishing the ground in the U.S. , but those lands were once ours. Those same lands, which now with intelligence, with love and with a lot of work, we are re-conquering again for our Mexico."
On leading conservative talk show station KFI in Los Angeles, hosts John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou interviewed Tony Valdez, who also invoked "manifest destiny" as a rationale for supporting the sabotage of our immigration laws. He pontificated about 1846, recycled the "We didn't cross the borders" nonsense, inveighed against the war in Iraq, and exclaimed: "You took this country. You killed people in order to take this country for yourselves."
Valdez is a FOX News 11 reporter at KTTV in L.A.
In Seattle, photojournalist Byron Dazey of CreativeFlashes.com snapped hundreds of pictures of extremist left-wing claptrap. "Open the Borders" screamed a giant banner. "No more blood! No more borders!" echoed another placard. "Stop the War! Stop the Borders!" preaches a sign carried by a "Freedom Socialist Worker." Other protesters displayed a rambling, illiterate message scrawled on a giant blue tarp:
"To the diplomats in Arizona talking of illegal deal, why R U so hipocratics (sic) when we know that almost ½ of what it was Mexico, was bought illegally by the US . Santa Ana was a conquestee from France, he was not the president of Mexico or Mexican. 1845-1847 we were fighting our own independence with their own people and also fighting the French. The US took advantage N offered Santa Ana money for the Mexicans land. Do U call this legal?"
Dazey wrote me: "The best line from a speaker…was the one where she screamed: 'They can't deport you from the land that they stole from you!' The crowd cheered wildly, of course."
Our borders are sieves. We are at war with Islamofascism. And these seething demonstrators are still griping about the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo while our government prepares to grant a massive amnesty at Mexican President Vicente Fox's behest. Hello?
While left-wing socialists and anti-war Bush-bashers are indeed helping coordinate the open borders movement, it is a foolish, patronizing mistake to characterize the reconquistadores as hapless pawns of the American Left. The homegrown multiculti-mau-mau-ers know exactly what they believe and the know exactly what they are doing. They aim to mainstream the "Stolen Land" mantra and pervert history. They aim to obliterate America's borders by sheer demographic and political force.
And they are succeeding...
By
Michelle Malkin
(The APFTE loves
you Michelle!)
This Land is Our Land…
Or is it Their Land?
It appears that Americas open arms policy towards immigration has lost its luster after 230 years, especially after 9/11. Under increasing pressure from constituents to do something about the massive illegal immigration problems at our borders, legislators begin the process of doing what they do best, nothing. Well, nothing outside of igniting a pre-election firestorm that is…
In Washington DC, when an issue is too hot and too complex to handle head on, the obvious answer is to pontificate and when that fails, legislate. You’re not supposed to notice that had we enforced any of the already existing immigration laws over the last 50 years, we wouldn’t be having this conversation now. Nor are you supposed to figure out that any new law they pass now, will be enforced (or not enforced) with the same vigor as the old. It’s called kicking the can down the road.
Legislators legislate, that’s what they do. Any problem that can’t be solved with a piece of legislation can’t be solved in Washington DC. Of course, if legislation alone would fix the problem, past legislation would have already fixed it.
Partisans across the board are angling for voter blocks and the Latino vote just became a hot commodity for the upcoming mid-term elections, which brings me to the real message I have for you on this subject.
Like fixing Social Security, fixing our immigration nightmare will cost somebody votes, no matter how they address the issue. Politicians aren’t in the business of losing votes. So not too many are likely to be in the business of solving tough problems either.
Congressional (open border) Democrats have been pounding Bush over the head for not doing more to secure our boarders for the last five years now, under the guise of a bogus concern for national security. But the second any effort was made to actually address the issue, Democrats took a quick head count and immediately jumped sides to defend the poor downtrodden illegal immigrants, accusing the Bush administration of cruel and unusual punishment of their new prospective special interest voting block.
Congressional Republicans have avoided addressing the issue for so long that they are beginning to get nervous about what they read in the tea leaves for November, growing increasingly concerned about their base and feeling the need to at least appear to be taking action on the matter before the election rolls around.
Meanwhile, illegal immigrants and those who support the notion of an open society where our laws, language, principles and traditions don’t matter, take to the streets in protest against any effort to address illegal immigration at all.
Protesters brandish signs saying “This is OUR continent, not yours,” “We are indigenous! The only owners of this continent!” and “If you think I'm illegal because I'm a Mexican, learn the true history, because I'm in my homeland."
They have already established their election year slogan, “Today we march - tomorrow we vote.”
Clearly, an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living and working in America have no real concern for American laws, further placing in doubt any notion that yet another new law can solve this problem. If that doesn’t sink the idea for you, go read a similar effort signed by Reagan some 20 years ago that was supposed to solve the same problem. It looked good on paper, but if it had worked, would we be here right now?
Yet it is an election year and constituents want to see action. So Washington takes the only action they know how to take. They once again attempt to legislate the problem away. That provides a paper trail to prove that they did “something”. But what else does it accomplish?
We have not yet reached a consensus on the cause of our immigration ills. So how can we hope to come up with the right cure? And will any cure be acceptable to all parties involved? Hardly…
Unless I’m missing something, there is only one reasonable cure for the problem and that is to enforce the laws these people broke the moment they set foot on US soil in the first place. If you are here illegally already, what other law do we need? Did we forget to pass a law establishing our right to enforce our laws?
Frankly this is just as insane a notion as the idea that gun laws will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. If criminals cared about what our laws say, they wouldn’t be criminals, now would they. If laws alone worked as a means of keeping people decent and honest, we wouldn’t need prisons. Prisons exist for the sole purpose of enforcement.
The same rule applies here. If illegal immigrants cared about American laws, they wouldn’t be here now. Since they don’t care what our laws say, what difference can one more law make? If not enforced, the answer is none! And we have no reason to believe that anyone in Washington is interested in enforcing any of these laws, old or new.
So why another law? That brings me to the “guest worker” (amnesty) program…
The guest worker idea is designed to entice these lawless visitors into compliance. Do they look enticed by this idea to you, as they march in your city streets with signs saying “Gringos must leave, not us?” They don’t look enticed to me, by this generous offer ….
And with the standard “gasoline on the fire” help from Democrats busy mining for votes with yet another class warfare toy, is there any chance that anything positive can come from the effort? Sadly…I don’t think so.
The real truth of the matter is, until somebody is willing to enforce our immigration laws, it doesn’t make any difference at all what those laws say, does it?
Are our current laws un-enforceable because they are unfair or unreasonable to people seeking a US residence? Legal immigrants don’t seem to think so. Those same laws even allowed 14 of 19 9/11 hijackers to enter the US legally. So how unfair could they possibly be?
Enforcement is our problem and I can’t even imagine another law improving the situation, much less solving it. Unless of course, someone in Washington wants to sponsor a bill that would increase the existing penalties and fund an all out search, capture and deport mission while standing the National Guard on our borders?
Is there anyone in Washington proposing that we even attempt to enforce immigration laws? Not that I have seen. I hear lots of typical Washington hot air, but where’s the bill?
Until I see a bill that addresses our enforcement problems, I can’t get on board. And unlike my Democrat friends, eagerly strip mining America for much needed votes, I couldn’t care less how people unwilling to live by our laws feel about the issue. They can march in the streets from now till November and their opinion means nothing, because they have not earned the right to have an opinion in the country they clearly don’t respect.
As for those seeking to penalize people who hire illegal immigrants for casual labor, I suggest you rethink your position. Any immigrant willing to toil in the hot sun picking fruit for minimum wage in order to earn his family a better life is likely to be the kind of immigrant we wouldn’t mind having around.
It’s the immigrants that you won’t find on anyone’s payroll, but will find robbing your local 7-Eleven or surviving by way of the gang lifestyle that’s the problem. Stop the decent people from finding honest work and guess where they will go to survive from there? Besides, why penalize tax paying employers for a problem our law makers are responsible for? This nonsense only makes sense to people who spend too much time listening to politicians yak.
I’m disappointed how many Americans seem to have overlooked these minor details.
I can’t think of another thing to say about this…. Can you? If we aren’t going to enforce existing laws, why bother to pass a new one?
Written by JB Williams
©2006-03-29 (Posted with permission)
What Illegal Immigrants?
All I see is a new voting bloc up for grabs…
As you watch ILLEGAL immigrants, our uninvited house guests, march in the streets demanding their rights to FREE health care, FREE schooling and FREE admission to the greatest lifestyle on earth, take special note of why our borders are wide open today, who is behind it, and for what purpose.
Before you jump on the “evil corporation” seeking “cheap labor” train, do a little real homework of your own for a change. People in desperate need of votes are far more interested in these ILLEGALS than all of corporate America combined, I assure you. The most powerful socialist politician in America provides a much needed dose of reality on the matter.
Speaking to a crowd of ILLEGAL immigrants, Taxachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy proclaimed, "I look across this historic gathering and I see the future of America. As President Kennedy proclaimed a half century ago, we are a nation of immigrants. And today, we stand together as brothers and sisters to shape America's destiny-old Americans, new Americans, future Americans—all joined together for the common good.”
For the first time ever, I almost agree with something Teddy Kennedy said. When I look at these ILLEGAL protesters in our streets, I see the future of America too…
However, even JFK wasn’t talking about ILLEGAL immigrants, and a half-century ago, nobody was hoping to replace “old-Americans”, who came here “legally” hoping to contribute to and assimilate into the real American culture, with Teddy’s “new-Americans” who come uninvited with open disdain for our laws, our culture and our language, seeking to cash-in by destroying Americas sovereignty and security. In fact, Teddy hopes to run roughshod over most “old Americans” who still believe in silly little notions like the rule of law, and national sovereignty and security.
Teddy Kennedy’s “new-Americans” come in common self-interests, at odds with any and all true American interests. A close look at who is leading the charge against America from within, should provide a sobering glimpse into your crystal ball and shake every American, even real liberals to the core.
Kennedy said “You are what this debate is about. It is about good people who come to America to work, to raise their families, to contribute to their communities, and to reach for the American dream.”
What Teddy means is, you are our new minority voting bloc, the folks tearing our country apart. It is about people (some good, some not) who come to America to work (cheap) and do our dirty jobs, contribute to our over-bloated federal spending, pay labor union dues, and help other socialist anti-American folks like me, complete the mission of establishing a ruling proletariat class in America.
The proof begins in Kennedy’s own words and continues in
the flyer circulated by the Democratic Party at perp-rallies across the country.
Kennedy said “This debate goes to the heart of who we are as Americans.” It certainly does, but he wasn’t speaking to Americans, he was speaking to ILLEGAL aliens. Are Americans a people of law and order, who love and respect our nation, its principles and its heritage, or will Americans continue down the path of self-destruction, by accommodating yet another group of lawless invaders intent upon forcing Americans to assimilate into some bogus One World Order run by President Hillary and the new Secretary General of the United Nations Bill Clinton?
Kennedy added “It will determine who can earn the privilege of citizenship. It will determine our strength in separating those who would harm us from those who contribute to our values.”
An interesting statement from a guy with no values at all, who has never earned anything in his entire life, I’d say.
But yes it will Teddy, and we can start by separating those who entered our home with respect for our home and our laws, from those who invaded our home uninvited, ILLEGALLY and now demand our submission!
Then Teddy lets the cat out of the bag, “It will determine our future progress as a nation and our future economic growth.” He say’s “progress”, as in “progressive”, as in “socialist” as in “One World Body”, followed by “economic growth”, which translates to, we need your taxes to keep growing our federal dependency organization built upon the backs of the proletariat.
Who else is behind this “progressive” approach to immigration? The usual cast of socialist clowns of course. Read this “Immigrant Rights Action Packet” issued to protesters by the Communist Party USA. You might also enjoy “The new war on immigrants” posted on the International Socialist Review web-site.
Take a good look at these “good people” who according to Teddy Kennedy are our nation’s future. It is a “progressive” movement alright, supported by “progressives” down the street, in Washington DC and even outside our own borders. It isn’t the nasty corporations behind this movement. It is the nasty socialists who hope to trick most Americans into believing it is their arch enemy (capitalism) at fault. Many Americans are willing to go along for the ride too.
Kennedy is not operating alone of course - he has lots of help, even from across the so-called political divide. “John McCain and I have a plan. It is a strong plan. It is a fair plan. It is a plan for America's future. I’m here today to say that we will support you, too. We will never give up. We will never give in. Hasta la
victoria! Si se puede!” Sounds a lot like the plan to reign in fraudulent campaign funding that resulted in the greatest fraudulent campaign funding bonanza in world history before the ink was even dry.
This is not a new tactic by Americas leftists now in full control of the Democratic Party. They hi-jacked the black voting bloc by convincing them they would never be equal in America without the same Democrats who voted against civil rights in charge.
They hi-jacked the gay movement, the bra burning contingency, the pro-abortion constituency and have even gone as far as to reach out for the Muslim vote by referring to criminal/terror profiling as racial profiling. This is the MO of today’s Democratic Party.
That explains why the Communist Party USA says “Defend Democracy, Change Congress in the 2006 Elections!”
If Americans are truly stupid enough to keep falling for the same old class warfare DNC divide and conquer game over and over again, then they deserve what they get.
Conservatives are circulating e-flyers calling for a protest vote against Republicans this November. The same people who elected Bill Clinton by voting for Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996, are lining up to replace admittedly crappy Republicrats with even more crappy Teddy
Kennedys. I suspect this is a futile venting exercise, but I also thought conservatives learned their lesson in 1992.
Of course the lamestream press is on board, but what about most of those “old Americans” Teddy was talking about? According to a current Zogby poll, not exactly.
The socialists have managed to convince even many conservatives that this is all about Bush and his rich corporate cronies. Just once, would somebody read past the headlines and take a close look at what is really happening here?
Written by JB Williams
4-12-2006 Link
to Website
"Immigration taboos" by Thomas
Sowell
Immigration has joined the long list of subjects on which it is taboo to talk sense in plain English. At the heart of much confusion about immigration is the notion that we "need" immigrants -- legal or illegal -- to do work that Americans won't do.
What we "need" depends on what it costs and what we are willing to pay. If I were a billionaire, I might "need" my own private jet. But I can remember a time when my family didn't even "need" electricity.
Leaving prices out of the picture is probably the source of more fallacies in economics than any other single misconception. At current wages for low-level jobs and current levels of welfare, there are indeed many jobs that Americans will not take.
The fact that immigrants -- and especially illegal immigrants -- will take those jobs is the very reason the wage levels will not rise enough to attract Americans.
This is not rocket science. It is elementary supply and demand. Yet we continue to hear about the "need" for immigrants to do jobs that Americans will not do -- even though these are all jobs that Americans have done for generations before mass illegal immigration became a way of life.
There is more to this issue than economics. The same mindless substitution of rhetoric for thinking that prevails on economic issues also prevails on other aspects of immigration.
Bombings in London, Madrid and the 9/11 terrorist attacks here are all part of the high price being paid today for decades of importing human time bombs from the Arab world. That in turn has been the fruit of an unwillingness to filter out people according to the countries they come from.
That squeamishness is still with us today, as shown by all the hand-wringing about "profiling" Middle Eastern airline passengers.
No doubt most Middle Eastern airline passengers are not carrying any weapons or any bombs -- and wouldn't be, even if there were no airport security to go through. But it is also true that most of the time you will not be harmed by playing Russian roulette.
Europeans and Americans have for decades been playing Russian roulette with their loose immigration policies. The intelligentsia have told us that it would be wrong, and even racist, to set limits based on where the immigrants come from.
There are thousands of Americans who might still be alive if we had banned immigration from Saudi Arabia -- and perhaps that might be more important than the rhetoric of the intelligentsia.
In that rhetoric, all differences between peoples are magically transformed into mere "stereotypes" and "perceptions."
This blithely ignores hard data showing, for example, that people who come here from some countries are ten times more likely to go on welfare as people from some other countries.
The media and the intelligentsia love to say that most immigrants, from whatever group, are good people. But what "most" people from a given country are like is irrelevant.
If 85 percent of group A are fine people and 95 percent of group B are fine people, that means you are going to be importing three times as many undesirables when you let in people from Group A.
Citizen-of-the-world types are resistant to the idea of tightening our borders, and especially resistant to the idea of making a distinction between people from different countries. But the real problem is not their self-righteous fetishes but the fact that they have intimidated so many other people into silence.
In the current climate of political correctness it is taboo even to mention facts that go against the rosy picture of immigrants -- for example, the fact that Russia and Nigeria are always listed among the most corrupt countries on earth, and that Russian and Nigerian immigrants in the United States have already established patterns of crime well known to law enforcement but kept from the public by the mainstream media.
Self-preservation used to be called the first law of nature. But today self-preservation has been superseded by a need to preserve the prevailing rhetoric and visions. Immigration is just one of the things we can no longer discuss rationally as a result.
By Thomas Sowell, a Rose
and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow
Visit
Townhall.com for more great articles!
Birthright
Citizenship & "Anchor Babies"
The United States currently grants automatic U.S. citizenship to almost all children born in the United States, regardless of whether the parents are U.S. citizens, legal residents, temporary visitors, or illegal aliens in the United States. Some 200,000 children are born in the United States each year to illegal-alien mothers, according to U.S. Census data. The only exceptions to this automatic granting of citizenship are the children of foreign diplomats stationed in the United States, whose citizenship at birth is governed by international treaty.
"Anchor Babies"
The children born in the United States to illegal-alien mothers are often referred to as "anchor babies." Under current practice, these children are U.S. citizens at birth, simply because they were born on U.S. soil. They are called anchor babies because, as U.S. citizens, they become eligible to sponsor for legal immigration most of their relatives, including their illegal-alien mothers, when they turn 21 years of age, thus becoming the U.S. "anchor" for an extended immigrant family.
While there is no formal policy that forbids DHS from deporting the illegal-alien parents of children born in the U.S., they rarely are actually deported. In some case |
