Showing posts with label illegal immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label illegal immigration. Show all posts

Thursday, March 23, 2017

WHAT...Am I Missing?!



Image result for Catalino Guerrero




A rally in New Jersey opposing the deportation of Catalino Guerrero had Cardinal Tobin, the Arch-Bishop of Newark defending Mr. Guerrero as, "A man who's worked hard, paid taxes and has no criminal record."

Isn't that the LOWEST possible bar?

Kinda like saying, "Come on, let him stay, sure he took a job by working for lower wages than any American could/would work for, as far as we know, he's paid taxes and he isn't a piece of sh*t criminal, what more do you want?"

It's Church leaders like Cardinal Tobin who make me glad I'm not religious any more.

ILLEGAL immigration is a crime against America, specifically against American workers. It amounts to In-Sourcing cheap labor that lowers the wage floor for ALL American workers.

NO ONE has ever countered that assertion of mine, because there appears to be no logical, pragmatic counter-argument.

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

Trump Enunciates an Inconvenient Truth About Illegal Immigration...and NBC Shows its Corporatist Colors


Image result for Donald Trump
Donald Trump





Donald Trump can be really tough to take. He’s pompous, bombastic and incessantly self-congratulatory, but he also often confirms a lot of inconvenient, even ugly truths, as he did in speaking about illegal immigration from Mexico recently; “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best...They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

All of that is (mostly) true, despite its clumsy, ham-handed wording. (http://variety.com/…/nbc-donald-trump-immigrants-1201530568/) An awful lot of drugs, as well as many criminals do cross that border every year. HOWEVER, the PRIMARY problem with illegal immigration from our southern border ISN’T the drugs and crime (although those ARE serious problems), BUT the migrant workers themselves.

To be sure, the vast majority of the illegal, migrant workers that cross our southern border are desperately poor people, looking to earn a little money to help fund a little better life. That's completely understandable, UNFORTUNATELY, that amounts to "In-Sourcing" - companies bringing in cheaper labor that undercuts American wage rates and lowers the wage floor across the U.S..

The Spanish language station Univision had previously canceled Trump’s “Miss USA” pageant. Mr. Trump, no fan of subtlety, subsequently sent Univision a strongly worded letter in response. Yahoo News reported, “Broadcast Company Univision announced Thursday it would not simulcast the pageant on its Spanish language channel, UniMas. Then Trump sent a letter to the company’s CEO on Friday, barring its employees from stepping onto his Miami golf course and country club, which are adjacent to Univision’s headquarters.

“Trump reportedly added a rather ominous P.S. to the typed letter:

“Please congratulate your Mexican government officials for having made such outstanding trade deals with the United States. However, inform them that should I become President, those days are over. We are bringing jobs back to the U.S. Also, a meaningful border will be immediately created, not the laughingstock that currently exists.” Trump wrote.” (http://news.yahoo.com/donald-trump-taking-toys-going-home-1…)

NBC, which had already severed ties with Trump due to his announced candidacy for POTUS, used those indelicately worded charges to sever all ties with Trump (allegedly) permanently, in issuing a statement; “Due to the recent derogatory statements by Donald Trump regarding immigrants, NBC Universal is ending its business relationship with Mr. Trump. At NBC, respect and dignity for all people are cornerstones of our values.”

That last line sounds great, but it is anything but, for with that stance, NBC merely amplified the Corporatist anti-working-class American viewpoint.

Again, illegal immigration amounts to “In-Sourcing” (bringing in cheaper labor to undercut American workers and lower the American wage floor). Big business LOVES that, because it LOVES cheap labor. Trump apparently DOES NOT like that, because the real estate market relies upon Americans being able to afford new homes. Cheap labor does not do much to help real estate developers.

There are TWO ways to directly attack American workers and by extension, the American middle class. The first is through “Out-Sourcing,” moving factories and businesses overseas where taxes and wage rates are much LOWER. The other is “In-Sourcing,” bringing the cheaper labor into this country. Of the two, In-Sourcing is much, MUCH, more cost effective (cheaper). BOTH are equally damaging to American workers.

THAT is the ONLY issue surrounding illegal immigration – “In-Sourcing.” And “In-Sourcing” harms all working Americans. There is no other issue, there is no other rationalization for illegal immigration.

It has ALWAYS been an “illegal employer problem,” NOT “an illegal worker/immigrant problem.”


On this issue, NBC stands squarely with the Corporate entities, of which it is one, and very much AGAINST working Americans.

Saturday, June 19, 2010

Why is Arizona THE Target?....















So apparently the Obama administration really has decided to file suit against the new Arizona law aimed at deporting illegal immigrants. I wonder if Attorney General Eric Holder has gotten around to reading that Bill yet?

The Arizona state law exactly mirrors existing federal law. Moreover, existing federal laws cannot be left “unenforced” as some claim, as the act of not enforcing existing federal law is a crime on the part of the federal government.

The move to challenge this state law is a rare instance of the federal government forcefully intervening in a state’s affairs, but the real question is, “WHY Arizona?”

After all Missouri and Oklahoma have both taken tougher stands and taken them far earlier than Arizona did. And neither this administration, nor anyone in the Justice Department voiced any concerns over those statutes at all.

In 2007 Oklahoma passed HB 1804, which makes it a felony for anyone to transport or to "conceal, harbor, or shelter from detection any alien...knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that the alien has come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law.”

The law also makes it illegal for businesses, governments and other organizations to issue identification cards to illegal immigrants, and it requires companies doing work for the state to verify their employees’ immigration status using a federal electronic system (E-Verify).

Ironically enough, the only part of that law being challenged is that last provision, and other employment measures.

Another Oklahoma state law (SB 1102) signed by the governor in May of 2009, requires that law enforcement collect DNA samples from illegal immigrants arrested for any crime.

Missouri has gone even further! In 2007, Missouri placed on the ballot a proposed constitutional amendment designating English as the Official language of Missouri. Nearly 90% voting in favor! English became the official language for ALL governmental proceeding in Missouri. It also means no individual has the right to demand government services in a language OTHER than English.

In 2008 a measure was passed that requires our Highway Patrol and other law enforcement officials to verify the immigration status of any person arrested, and inform federal authorities if the person is found to be here illegally. It allows Missouri law enforcement officers to receive training to enforce federal immigration laws. The bill also makes clear that illegal immigrants will NOT have access to taxpayer’s benefits such as food stamps and health care through Missouri HealthNET.

In 2009 a measure was passed that ensures Missouri's public institutions of higher education do NOT award financial aid to individuals who are here illegally. The law also requires all post-secondary institutions of higher education to annually certify to the Missouri Dept. of Higher Education that they have NOT knowingly awarded financial aid to students who are unlawfully present in the United States.

So while Arizona has made national news for its new law, other states have taken similar, and in some cases even more far-reaching measures that have not been challenged.

In the case of Missouri that state, in the words of Nita Jane Ayres, “has sent a clear message that illegal immigrants are NOT welcome in our state and they are certainly NOT welcome to receive public benefits at the cost of Missouri taxpayers!”

So what’s the Obama administration’s problem with the Arizona law again?

Sunday, June 13, 2010

Newsvine’s/MSNBC’s Online Poll on Arizona’s ILLEGAL Immigration Law Shows Overwhelming Support






















With nearly 1.2 million votes, a whopping 96% of those who answered Newsvine's Online Poll supported the Arizona ILLEGAL Immigration Law, which precisely mirrors the federal law that's been on the book AND enforced for over 70 years!

The one question poll asks simply;


Do you support Arizona's tough new law on illegal immigration?

http://world-news.newsvine.com/_question/2010/05/13/4274124-do-you-support-arizonas-tough-new-law-on-illegal-immigration


In July, Arizona will begin enforcing a new law that requires law enforcement officers to check someone’s immigration status if they have reason to suspect that he or she is in the country illegally. Do you think this is a good idea?

How you voted

* Yes

* No

Thanks for voting! View other people's answers below.

Results


Total of 1,186,276 votes

Yes - 1,138,459 votes - 96%

No - 47,817 votes - 4%

Sunday, May 9, 2010

A Letter to the Editor That Makes the Folly of ILLEGL Immigration ALL to Clear....














.
.



From Today's (May 9th, 2010) NY Daily News:


Woodside (Queens): "Now that "Los Suns" of Phoenix have come out against the new Arizona (illegal) immigration law, I have an idea. At the start of the next home game, everyone should rush through the door and take any seat they like. When the authorities (aka ushers) request papers (tickets) the people should refuse because it is blatant discrimination against undocumented fans."

Bill Olsen

Thursday, May 6, 2010

The False Controversy Surrounding Arizona’s ILLEGAL Immigration Law....

>












According to both the mainstream media (MSM) AND the current President of the U.S., the new law in Arizona dealing with ILLEGAL Immigration is designed to allow the police to stop people for no reason other than to determine their legal status as citizens or resident aliens!

Why it’s not only draconian, but Hitlerian as well!


The FACT is, Arizona’s state law mirrors EXACTLY existing FEDERAL law, which has been on the books for almost 70 years! Since the 1940s, federal law has required non-citizens in this country to carry, on their person, the documentation proving they are here legally — green card, work visa, etc. and that has NEVER changed.
.

Yes, EVERY TIME a resident alien (a legal immigrant with a Green Card) interfaces with government, that documentation must be shown.

Moreover, the police can demand ID from ANYONE (citizen or NOT) when being questioned in relation to a criminal act.

Failure to produce ID when being questioned in relation to any criminal act (felony OR misdemeanor) results in that person being “taken in” (taken to the police station) until their identification is sorted out.

You can imagine that if police were not able to verify the identifications of those suspected of being involved in criminal act(s), there’d be no way to solve any crimes. A person or persons could simply refuse to show ID, give a phony name and be on their way.

That does NOT happen. It’s NEVER happened.

Right now Arizona’s state budget is being overwhelmed by the strain put on it by millions of illegal immigrants, most of whom do not pay into the system, they benefit from. Hospitals, schools and emergency rooms have all been swamped due to that state’s huge illegal immigrant population.

For the Feds to rail against Arizona taking on a Federal power, is inane, since the Feds, who are charged to deal with that issue (SECURING OUR BORDERS) has failed to do so...and has apparently failed DELIBERATELY.

So why has the MSM and President Obama deliberately mischaracterized this law?

Obviously because they CANNOT make any affirmative argument for the federal government’s ongoing failure , nor against a state requiring exactly what the federal government requires – valid ID when one interfaces with government.

Saturday, October 24, 2009

Illegal Immigrants and the 2010 Census – What’s Really at Stake








Currently, the 2010 Census is set to count illegal immigrants in its census data.

Republicans claim to want a “second count” of citizens only, to be used for “apportionment purposes,” so that illegal immigrant tallies aren’t used to swell the ranks of Blue states like NY and California.

That’s a coy plan on their parts, because no matter which way the Census counts, the GOP wins.

That is More Northern Blue States will lose seats and More Southern Red or at least Purple States will gain.

How so?

First, according to the "Connecticut State Data Center,” (http://ctsdc.uconn.edu/Reports/CtSDC_2010Reapportionment_Final_2007sept19.pdf) if Congressional seats are apportioned according to a 2010 U.S. Census that counts illegal immigrants, five states would lose House seats. Missouri, Illinois, and Michigan would each lose one seat; and Ohio and New York would both lose two seats. All, except Ohio (a Purple state) are solidly Blue states.

Three states would gain seats. Arizona and Texas would each gain two seats, and Florida would gain three. All other states would remain the same.

If illegal immigrants were excluded from the census count, only four states would lose seats - New York, New Jersey, and Ohio would each lose one, and California would lose two. Four states would gain seats, with one going to each of Montana, Arizona, and Texas, while Florida would pick up two seats. The GOP would actually fare worse!

According to the CSDC, “When undocumented populations are counted, Arizona (+2), Florida (+3), and Texas (+2) gain a total of seven seats. These seven seats come at the expense of Illinois (-1), Michigan (-1), Missouri (-1), New York (-2), and Ohio (-2), which lose a total of seven seats.

“California, Montana, and New Jersey do not gain seats when undocumented populations are counted.

“However, these states lose seats when undocumented populations are not counted.
When the count excludes the undocumented population, Arizona (+1), Florida (+2), and Texas (+1) still gain seats. However, in this scenario, total seat gain is only four – in contrast to the previous gain of seven.”

http://ctsdc.uconn.edu/Reports/CtSDC_2010Reapportionment_Final_2007sept19.pdf


So, in counting illegal immigrants in the census, some solid-blue Democratic states would lose a total of four House members, as well as three Reps from some mixed (or "purple") states, while solidly Texas would gain two. Not only that, but the two “fairly even states,” Florida and Arizona, which would gain a total of five House seats, are currently run by Republicans.

That appears to be a huge advantage for the GOP, especially since the Republican Governors in Florida and Arizona will have a LOT to say about how the districts in those states are apportioned.

If you don't count immigrants, three solidly blue states would still lose the same four Reps, and purple Ohio would lose one, as two red states would gain the same two Reps, and those same two Republican-led purple states (Arizona and Florida) would gain three Reps.

In both cases, red states are up at least two Representatives, while blue states are down four Reps, and the rest migrate between various “purple” states (most notably Arizona and Florida) that currently have Republican Governors in place through 2010 and Conservative voting majorities in place.

All of this just seems to be more of the “gamesmanship” over the issue of illegal immigration.

Ironically enough, BOTH Moderate/Country-Club Republicans and Liberal Democrats support some form of Amnesty or pathway to citizenship for those already here, while BOTH Conservative Democrats and Republicans oppose Amnesty and want the immigration laws of the land enforced.

Ironically enough, and as usual, at least the Country-Club Republicans have a logical rationale for their stance, summed up in two words, “CHEAP LABOR.” The Moderate Republicans would rather keep the illegal immigrants here illegal, for as long as possible, so that they’ll continue to work cheap, just as they’re more than happy to count them for apportionment, as that appears as though it’s going to transition more House seats FROM Blue districts to Red ones.

The hapless Liberal Democrats can’t seem to win for losing!

As it turns out, not only will counting illegal immigrants help speed up the “Reddening” of the House of Representatives, when Hispanic and Asian illegal immigrants become citizens, most are devoutly religious, entrepreneurial minded and trend Right in their voting habits, as well.

Go figure.

Monday, March 3, 2008

Geraldo Writes a Book!...Hooorah!!!











.
.

WhoooHoooo! Geraldo Rivera has written a brand new BOOK (entitled HIS-Panic)!!!

That, sad to say, is the end of the good news.

The bad news is that in that tome Geraldo Rivera defends a rabidly anti-American “Open borders” viewpoint that boldly claims that America is NOT a nation (a nation requires a common language, a common culture and actual borders). In fact, Geraldo is such an open border extremist that he even opposes deporting criminal illegal aliens.

How extreme is that position?

Well, slightly over 65% (appx. 2 to 1) of Hispanic-American citizens oppose “open borders for America,” and support basic border enforcement.” The most common refrain among that group is, “I came here legally, so should everyone else.”

Moreover, slightly more than 84% of Americans oppose any form of amnesty and support an “enforcement first” approach to dealing with illegal immigration.

While Geraldo ignores the Hispanics opposed to open borders, he makes it very clear that he (the half-Hispanic Geraldo) considers those Americans to be “racists.”

Even worse for the former, “Gerald Michael Rivera,” is that the economics are squarely against him.

* Illegal immigration puts a persistent DOWNWARD pressure on ALL prevailing wage rates. There isn’t a single economist who’d dispute that.

* Illegal immigration’s social costs (health, education, welfare, etc) dwarf the benefits of that cheap labor. It’s estimated that the cheap labor of illegal immigration saves America appx. $150 Billion/year, while the ancillary costs (the costs of all that “free emergency room care,” the costs of imprisoning of illegal felons, education, etc. for their children) are appx. $500 Billion/year. That means that while appx. 1% of Americans benefit to the tune of about $150 Billion/year (that averages out to around $80,000/year each for those lucky few, the 100 million adult Americans in the top 50% of taxpayers are shelling out nearly $3500/year to pay for all those ancillary costs...and many American hospitals are still going broke and closing their doors in response to being overwhelmed by the costs of providing free health care through their emergency rooms for the estimated 12 million illegal aliens here!

I know, I know, open border advocates don’t argue on the economics, they argue on the “morality.”

Utter nonsense!

How “moral” is LYING Geraldo?!

That’s right, Geraldo LIED. Hardly surprising, I know, but sadly it’s true. In one memorable section of his book he indignantly takes on Lou Dobbs over Dobbs’ 2003 claim that “one third of the inmates in our federal prisons are illegal aliens.”

Geraldo called Dobbs a liar and a bigot. I guess Dobbs earned the “bigot moniker” by dint of that particular lie.

Geraldo rebutted by claiming that illegal aliens only comprise 6% of our federal inmates, adding that ILLEGAL immigrants commit crimes at "a lower rate than American citizens do.”

So, the question is, “Who’s right?”

Well according to the DOJ stats, in 2003 (the year that Lou Dobbs made that claim), the 2003 federal prison population was comprised of 71.6 percent United States citizens, and 28.4 percent “other” (?)...apparently non-citizens. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/30/dobbs.prison/index.html



Well, who’s closer to the truth?

It seems very clear that one-third (33.3%) is certainly closer to 28.4% than it is to 6%. The fact that illegal aliens comprise 6% of the total prison and jail population in America would further seem to indicate that Geraldo didn’t merely mis-speak, he deliberately misled his audience into believing that Dobbs said "one third of all those in prison in the U.S.", in short, he appears to have lied. So, does that make Geraldo, by his own standard, a “bigot”?

At any rate, looks like Lou Dobbs 1, Geraldo River 0, on this score.

Still, what about Geraldo’s claim that illegal aliens commit crimes at a LOWER rate than American citizens do?

Well, there are appx 1.6 million people in America’s prisons. There are 12 million illegal aliens in the country. There are 300 million people in America, of which 220 million are adults. Many estimate that as many as 4 million of the illegal alien population here are children, but let’s say that there are 10 million adult illegal aliens here.

OK, using those numbers; 1.5 million Americans out of the 220 million adults in the country are in prison – that’s appx. 0.7% of Americans in prison.

Six percent of the prison population (appx. 100,000) are illegal aliens. One hundred thousand out of appx. 10 million adult illegal aliens is appx. 1%.

It would seem that 0.7% (the percentage of Americans in prison) is LESS than 1% (the percentage of illegal aliens in prison, so, while it’s certainly close, that too, seems to be a false claim by Geraldo Rivera.

But there’s more...MUCH more!

The ONLY reason that illegal immigration has been tolerated up to now has been that the cheap labor (that $150 Billion/year going to less than 1% of all Americans), so any kind of AMNESTY program would eradicate that cheap labor just as surely as would E-Verify and other forms of immigration enforcement!

Now some would argue (and rightly so) that “some jobs are exempt from minimum wage laws,” but we’re not supposed to know that about many agricultural jobs and some food service positions...but it IS true. So, without illegal immigrants, those employers would have to pay more for those workers and charge more to us consumers, BUT we’d be free of all those ancillary costs!

Beyond that is the fact that a majority of those here illegally DON’T WANT U.S. citizenship. They’d rather have jobs in Mexico, Guatemala and Ecuador, where most of their families still live, and who can blame them? For the most part, they DON’T WANT to become “Americans.”

Well, then what about the “Re-conquista?”

Stop! That’s a canard, an utter pipedream! Less than 10% of Mexicans (many of those who are here, members of that racist group, La Raza – “the race”) believe that any kind of re-conquest of the American southwest is even remotely feasible.

Consider that some 85% of Staten Islanders voted to secede from New York City, in a referendum Giuliani promised them while running for Mayor. Once safely in office, however, Rudy had a change of heart and decided that “all of New York had the right to vote on this issue,” which doomed Staten Island to remaining a part of a city it wanted no part of, just as surely as a national vote would doom the Southwest (no matter how many Mexicans transplanted there) to remaining a part of the U.S.

As history shows, America has a poor track record on allowing secessionist movements within its borders.

In fact, any kind of “re-conquest” figuratively pisses on the graves of the estimated 1600 Mexicans and 400 U.S. Army casualties of the Mexican-American War, rendering all of those, “deaths in vain.” The current arrangement honors the dead on both sides of that brief (1846 – 1848) conflict.

Truth be told, Mexico legally ceded those territories to the U.S.A. with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which was signed on February 2, 1848. That Treaty not only ended the war, it gave the U.S. undisputed control of Texas, established the U.S.-Mexican border of the Rio Grande River, and ceded to the United States the present-day states of California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Arizona, new Mexico, and Wyoming. In return, Mexico received U.S. $15,000,000, — less than half the amount the U.S. had attempted to offer Mexico for the land before the opening of hostilities — and the U.S. agreed to assume $3.25 million in debts that the Mexican government owed to U.S. citizens.

On top of all this, Geraldo lies yet again, by implying that “Hispanics are turning away from the GOP over this issue.”

Really?

Even though Hispanic-Americans oppose open borders by better than 2 to 1, and they’re angry with Republicans EVEN THOUGH the most recent border enforcement Bill, H.R.4088 (the SAVE Act) was sponsored by a DEMOCRAT (Heath Shuler D-NC)!

That doesn’t make any sense, when you think about it!

Then again, neither does Geraldo’s book.


Friday, February 15, 2008

E-Verify Makes Border Enforcement Free and Easy!







A new tool in the war against ILLEGAL immigration may be turning the tide in this all important fight.

On Jan. 1, Arizona became the first state to require all employers to confirm each worker's legal status via the federal "E-Verify" system. It survived a federal court challenge last Thursday (February 7, 2008) and the new law now promises to transform the immigration crisis in America.

After just six weeks, Arizona's system is already working: Newspapers in the state report that illegals are self-deporting by the thousands. Apartment complexes in Phoenix and Tucson confirm that thousands of tenants have skipped town. Many are returning across the border to Mexico.

This Arizona success is proof that attrition through enforcement works and other states are taking notice.

E-Verify is a free program and it’s easy to use. The employer simply types in the employee's name, date of birth and Social Security number (or taxpayer ID number), of the prospective employee and gets an answer back from the government in seconds.

More than 20,000 businesses nationwide were using E-Verify voluntarily before Jan. 1. Now Arizona's 145,000 businesses are obliged to join their ranks.

According to Kris W. Kobach (Professor of Law at the University of Missouri), "All this debunks the common claim that America has only two choices - either round up all illegals and send them home; or unjustly grant amnesty to millions of lawbreakers (thereby virtually begging millions more to break the law in the future).

"In Arizona, illegals began exiting the state on Jan. 1 - even though no county attorney there is set to take any enforcement action until after March 1. No government official has yet done a thing, all it took was a credible threat of enforcement. "

As I’ve long advocated, “Go after the illicit employers, fine those who hire “undocumented workers,” and workers “off-the-books,” and force them to use tools like E-Verify and the illicit, magnet jobs will dry up...and once those illicit jobs dry up, the illegals will simply self-deport.”

Arizona seems to be proving that viewpoint out.

Is an Amnesty Bill on the 2008 Docket?







Astoundingly enough, even as millions of Americans flooded Congress with calls and emails to stifle the recent McCain-Kennedy (“Shamnesty”) Bill, Liberal House Democrats are looking at an election year Amnesty Bill!

Crazy, or desperate?

Could this be designed to hurt McCain with Hispanics, now that he's honor bound to adhere to his recent enforcement first pledge?

Or is it rooted in a fear by Liberal Dems that local get-tough enforcement measures, in states like Oklahoma and Arizona, might already be having a surprising effect and encouraging other states to do the same?

The new E-Verify program, now being used in Arizona, make it possible for an employer to check a prospective employee’s social security number of taxpayer ID in seconds and for free!

Arizona and Oklahoma both require that now and illegal immigrants are fleeing both states in droves and self-deporting at record levels.

Or is it that even with our current meager enforcement measures, the growth rate of the U.S. Mexican-born population has dropped by nearly half to 4.2% in 2007 from about 8% in 2005 and 2006 and Democrats seeing a demographic they view (misakenly, or not) as favorable for them?

With over 75% of Americans polled, favoring a strict "Enforcement First" policy on illegal immigration, and with even a large majority of Hispanic-American citizens opposing illegal immigration, it is certainly politically risky proposition for Democrats. Moreover, the majority of Hispanic-American citizens tend to be MORE socially Conservative than native born American citizens, and that doesn't bode well for long-term Democratic designs on that demographic.

The good news is that Conservative Democrats have, so far, stymied the Amnesty Bill, in favor of an enforcement-first Bill penned by Heath Shuler.

Conservative Democrats and Democratic leaders are in a tough position. Besides NEEDING a Bill “they can run on,” Conservative Dems (the same group that is steadfastly supporting the Senate Bill on FISA) are in no position to support any kind of Amnesty Bill, while Democratic leaders have to fear that if the Liberals get their way, they may well hand back all those hard-won Mid-west and Southern 2006 seats to the GOP.

Saturday, December 15, 2007

Bloomy Wimps Out in China







Independently wealthy politicians have a lot in common with eighty year old grandmothers, some good, some bad. Like grandma, they’re prone to say almost anything that pops into their heads. There’s just no governor on their mouths. Sometimes this is good, in that they tell people things they need to hear, unfortunately, at other times they merely babble on incoherently about things they have little or no understanding of.

Recently New York City Mayor, Mike Bloomberg, went to China (China???) and took the time to express his disappointment over “China’s legendary human rights abuses?

Nope, no such luck. He took that venue, some 8,000 miles away from the closest U.S. southern border town to castigate those Americans (according to reports appx. 74% of us!) who vehemently oppose ILLEGAL immigration!

This is one of those “eighty year old grandmother” moments that even supporters of Bloomy find infuriating.

Bloomy complained that anti-immigrant sentiment in America is imposing “staggering damage” on the country, railing that “The xenophobia that unfortunately seems to be gripping parts of America is really very dangerous. One of the things you have to realize is how dependent we are on each other.”

What’s wrong with Bloomy’s “China sentiments?”

Tons!

First, there is NO significant “anti-immigrant sentiment in the U.S.” Over two thirds of Americans support LEGAL immigration as it now exists, feeling that the current numbers of legal immigrants does not have to be raised nor lowered, proving that there is no widespread “anti-immigrant feelings” in America.

Of course, well over two thirds of Americans vehemently oppose ILLEGAL immigration, BUT ILLEGAL immigration is NOT and never has been a part of the overall “immigration debate.” It’s, quite simply, a criminal matter.

With over two thirds of Americans supporting LEGAL immigration and over two thirds opposed to ILLEGAL immigration, there is obviously a lot of overlap among thoughtful Americans on the issue.

So what’s so bad about supporting ILLEGAL immigration or even “open borders?”

Where do we begin? For one thing, it must be noted that many misguided businessmen have, through the years, also supported chattel slavery (which reduces agricultural labor’s value to mere room and board), indentured servitude (where an “owner” can extract whatever arbitrary price he sees fit on the hapless servant/slave), company towns (where one primary business owns the town, the stores, saloons, etc., and where workers work themselves to early deaths owing significant sums to the company they worked for) and in favor of families selling their children into sexual slavery. What can we say? Some businessmen have always been amoral.

While on the subject of the “horrible kinds of people” who support each position, an estimated 2 to 3 percent of Americans support the abolition of ALL criminal statutes, including those on rape, pedophilia and murder and ALL of those anarchists support abolishing our immigration laws as well.

Does that mean that all those who favor an a more open border policy are tainted by this lawless few?

No more and no less than those who rightfully oppose illegal immigration and open borders should be tainted by those very few (2 to 3 percent?) of their ilk motivated by xenophobia!

Moreover, the economics of ILLEGAL immigration stand starkly against its proponents! The plain fact of the matter is that higher wage rates (1.2% to 2.8% ABOVE prevailing inflation rates) are actually GOOD for the economy. How so? How can cheap labor not be GOOD when it leads to “cheaper goods and services?” Higher wage rates leads to more consumption, which leads to more consumer demand and greater demand for all those goods and services. Unchecked “cheap labor” puts a persistent downward pressure on all prevailing wage rates and that ultimately puts the vast majority of workers in a position where they cannot afford even those “cheaper goods and services.”

So what motivated Bloomy’s latest utterances?

Probably another one of those “eighty year old grandma moments.”

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

What Happened to "The Steamroller?!"







Yeah, what happened to the guy who was going to "do what he thought was best for the people, no matter what?!"

First he took on Sheldon Silver (State Assembly Chariman) and Joe Bruno (State Senate Leader)...and LOST.

Then he took on the entire State of New York with his recent "drivers licenses for illegal aliens" scheme...and insisted that he was going to force this through, despite all objections....so far, he hasn't gotten off the floor.

Today (Wednesday, November 14, 2007) Eliot Spitzer officially pulled the plug on his "licensing illegals" plan, mere weeks after responding to NYC's Mayor Mike Bloomberg's complaint that this plan "may result in a NY State driver's license no longer being OK'd as ID on even domestic flights, that Bloomberg was "Wrong on every level, factually wrong, legally wrong, morally wrong, and ethically wrong."

Spitzer's approval ratings are now, not only lower than G W Bush's, but lower than the current Pelosi Congress's! As Fred U. Dicker of the NY Post put it, "His once sky-high popularity has fallen faster and further than that of any governor in modern state history."

But that's not all, not by a long shot!

Did Spitzer really believe in this plan?

If he did, he should've stuck by it no matter what, no matter the personal cost.

But if he really believed that Mike Bloomberg was factually wrong (he was NOT), then he is ignorant of the facts, if he really believes that Bloomberg was legally wrong (he was NOT), he (a former State Attorney General) is woefully ignorant of the LAW and if he thinks Bloomberg was "morally and ethically wrong" (AGAIN, he was NOT), then that speaks volumes about Spitzer's own morals and ethics!

And it's even worse if he really didn't believe that, as that proves that he's the kind of man who'd say anything to dismiss an opponent and avoid serious thought about the issues. It proves him to be a thoughtless, rudderless, naively Liberal Democrat - the kind that places like New York churn out faster than a Chinese sweatshop churns out toys.

But some good has come out of this humiliation for New York, today the entire country saw that even in Liberal old New York, a hair-brained scheme like doling out driver's licenses to illegal aliens doesn't fly.

As a result, there are fewer people today proudly supporting "open borders," and claiming that "anyone who wants to come to America has a right to come."

Today, the army of the shiftless, shameless and stupid, who support illegal immigration took a haymaker to the chin...a BIG haymaker and today they know, they KNOW that over 78% of Americans want illegal immigration reined in and an "Enforcement First" policy adopted.

For THAT, we have Eliot Spitzer to thank!


Friday, July 6, 2007

Why Don’t National Dems Take a Lesson From These Guys...?






Jim Webb (D-VA), Jon Tester (D-MT) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) all voted to defeat the recent ill-conceived “amnesty for illegal aliens Bill,”

Now Arizona’s Democratic Governor, Janet Napolitano has signed a new law that effectively sets up a two-strikes penalty for enterprises that hire illegal aliens/”undocumented workers.” For a first offense, a business employing an illegal immigrant would have its business license suspended temporarily. A second offense would mean a permanent revocation of that license.

The new law "takes the most aggressive action in the country against employers who knowingly or intentionally hire undocumented workers says Gov. Janet Napolitano (D), who signed the measure into law late Monday, July 2nd.

This get-tough attitude with businesses is growing across the US. As of April, 40 other states had introduced 199 bills related to employment of undocumented workers – the top subject of immigration-related legislation in the states,

Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, Tennessee, and West Virginia are still in the process of enacting legislation to force employers to verify their workers' legal status.

There’s no question that individual states have the right to set the parameters for employment within that state, so these new laws are expected to weather any challenges.

Given the overwhelming public support for border enforcement and its antipathy for illegal immigration, why are the national Democrats failing to adopt the agenda of their more enlightened brethren?

Sunday, June 17, 2007

Career Bureaucrat From a Semi, Pseudo, So-called "Conservative" administration Calls Out the Conservative Base Over Illegal Immigration






A petulant Michael Chertoff (a man whose always best served by his silence) has decided to smack-down the GOP’s Conservative base.

A nice strategy if you’re an “Open Border Democrat,” or even a Moderate “Cheap Labor” Republican, but it’s certainly not the best way for a so-called "Conservative Republican administration" to reach out to America’s Conservative majority.

“I don't believe Americans in large numbers are going to go pick lettuce,” Mr. Chertoff says.

“What you will see is a major shift of our businesses, certainly the agriculture business, out of the country, and that that is going to be a very, very bad thing,” he says.

Mr. Chertoff also faulted much of the right-wing blathersphere for its opposition to the Senate bill.

“We are fighting a very heavy headwind,” he says, pointing to talk radio as a major culprit.


Lawmakers are being swamped with letters, e-mails and phone calls from constituents with opinions about the proposed changes.

"Senators on both sides are being pounded by talk radio," said Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott, R-Miss., told the Houston (Texas) Chronicle.

http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=5430

As the good folks at Freedomfolks, put it, “Blathersphere? WTF? So I’m thinking they haven’t gotten the memo, the one that suggests not excreting on your supporters heads? Perhaps it hasn’t crossed the border illegally yet?"

Without question, the biggest problem with the failed Bill was that enforcement was an afterthought, at best.

And even a cursory look back at how the last “Amnesty Bill” (the 1986 Bill) worked out proves the legitimacy of the skepticism of the huge majority of Americans who support enforcement first.

Moreover, the “cheap labor” argument is ill-served by the push for mass legalization. After all, once these 12 million illegals become “Americans,” they will be guaranteed the minimum wage, withholding taxes, social security, etc., they will no longer be “cheap labor,” in fact, they’ll be part of that mass of Americans who no longer want to do all those drudgery-jobs, at least for the subsistence wages some employers want to offer for those jobs.

See where that goes?

Amnesty creates the need for ever more cheap labor and ever more amnesty.

Better to focus on going after the rogue employers, from those companies that hire massive numbers of “undocumented workers,” “off the books,” to the homeowner who hires a few workers at a local shape-up. KILL those illicit jobs by heavily fining these employers for first offenses and jailing them for second offenses and the vast majority of the illegal aliens here will self-deport.

The idea that “we need these people to voluntarily come out from the shadows,” is absurd! For one thing, NONE of the criminal aliens, nor potential terrorists here illegally are going to step forward under ANY process. Moreover, a recent Mexican Poll asserts that fewer than 40% of those Mexican nationals in America illegally would want American citizenship even if were offered free, as they remain fiercely loyal to Mexico.

So how is offering something, the majority of illegals don’t even want (U.S. citizenship) going to make those we desperately want out of the shadows (the criminals and potential terrorists, of whom over 90% probably don’t want citizenship) come out and identify themselves?

The short answer is, “It won’t.”
.
So what's wrong with "Enforcement First," again?

Wednesday, June 6, 2007

Where They Stand on Illegal Immigration







First, a Clinton appointee judge (U.S. District Judge Sam Lindsay) holds up a Farmers Branch, TX law that bars property owners from renting to illegal aliens, then Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., proposes allowing more spouses and minor children of legal permanent residents to immigrate to the U.S., by exempting them from visa caps.

The Senate is also considering a bid by Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., to more than double, to 90,000 a year, the number of green cards available for parents of U.S. citizens.

For his part, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., plans an attempt to phase out the point system that gives little credit for family ties to a U.S. citizen or permanent legal resident.


On Wednesday, May 30, 2007 former Senator, John Edwards said that it's a "hard one" to decide if an illegal working here for one year has a "right" to citizenship, but says "five years, definitely," meaning five years of ILLEGAL STATUS definitely transforms this into a right.

Sen. Harry Reid referred to the 12 million illegal aliens currently in the U.S. as "12 million undocumented Americans."


As bad as the Moderate Republicans are on this issue (and they ARE bad), the Democrats are clearly the real pro-illegal immigrant Party.

Will this translate into votes?

Bill O’Reilly and others think, “Yes,” as poor immigrants will vote for the bigger government, more welfare Democrats.

Call me a cynic, but I’m thinking a sizable percentage of these new immigrants would be swayed by Conservative rhetoric on social issues, BUT why should any of that matter?

It shouldn’t!

The reality is that illegal immigration results in a flood of unskilled labor, driving down the “wage floor” in the U.S., which in turn pulls down other wages as well.

The Democrats can’t claim to be “the Party of the workingclass” when they support the devaluing of American labor.

At this point, ONLY the Conservatives of both Parties CAN.
.
.
.
UPDATE: "Immigration Deal Survives GOP Threat"
.
.
According to Julie Hirschfeld Davis of the AP, "The proposed immigration overhaul narrowly survived a potentially fatal challenge Wednesday as the Senate turned back a Republican bid to limit the illegal immigrants who could gain lawful status.
.
"The close vote on a proposal by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, to bar felons — including those court-ordered to be deported — from legalization reflected the delicate position of the contentious immigration bill, which remains under threat from the right and the left.
.
The vote was 51-46 against the amendment. Democrats succeeded in pulling support from Cornyn's proposal by winning adoption of a rival version that would bar a more limited set of criminals..."
.
.
So, the Dems rebuffed a Republican measure that would thwart criminals and terrorists from automatically becoming U.S. citizens?
.
I guess that sounds about right.
.
.
.
UPDATE II: The Senate voted 50-45 today to BLOCK a Democratic attempt to "limit debate" and speed this flawed immigration Bill through Congress. That's 15 votes short of the 60 needed to limit debate!
.
Once again, Conservative Dems Jim Webb and Jon Tester sided with other Conservatives and voted AGAINST limiting debate. As a result the Bill was set aside and the Senate moved onto other business.
.
As a result, this very flawed Bill may be DOA.

Monday, May 21, 2007

The WRONG Focus on Illegal Immigration












There are two major problems with the way discussions about ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION are framed, the first is that they’re framed as part of the overall “immigration debate,” and the second is that it’s framed as “an illegal immigrant,” or “migrating worker” problem rather than what it really is “an ILLICIT EMPLOYER problem.”

This has led to two primarily wrong “solutions” to this problem and with illegal immigration costing EVERY American $19,000 over the cost of their lives, it IS definitely a major problem!

The first wrong-headed “solution” is putting the focus on the illegal aliens themselves, as though they were immigrants who somehow have a right, or even a profound desire to be here. This kind of “solution” is the dumbest, in that seeks some form of Amnesty (pathway to citizenship) for the illegal aliens already here.

It’s dumb because, (1) it defeats the primary purpose over which such people support illegal immigration – CHEAP LABOR, as once they’re made citizens, they’ll be subject to the Minimum Wage laws, that ILLICIT EMPLOYERS subvert by hiring illegal aliens. They’ll also be eligible for a host of social services that are a disincentive to work. In fact, those social services are one of the things that makes so many American citizens “unwilling to do all those menial, low paying jobs,” AND (2) the vast majority of the illegal alien workforce here migrate back and forth between here and Latin America. They come here for the work and leave to be with their family and friends at HOME.

The second and by far, the most disastrously wrong focus is considering the problem to be a trespassing problem or “illegal alien” or “migrating worker” problem.

The overwhelming bulk of the illegal aliens here come for jobs that are unavailable in their homelands. The problems for America are (1) this veritable human trafficking serves to deliberately subvert American laws on minimum wage, withholding income and FICA taxes from employees and (2) serves to lower the American “wage floor” – the wage rate paid to all unskilled labor in America and all other wage rates are tethered to that “wage floor.”

The bulk of the problem really is "an illegal employer" problem, rather than an "illegal immigration" problem.
.
So, in that vein, fining employers is a "win-win!" It's good for the government coffers and good for the American people. OK, it's very bad for a very few Americans who are making illicit profits off human exploitation, but it's to the greater good of the vast majority of Americans.Fine an employer $10,000 for hiring an "undocumented worker," and $10,000 for hiring a worker "off-the-books." Those fines must be levied per offense, so if a Slaughterhouse or a Meat Packing plant, for instance, has hired 300 illegals, the total fines will equal $20,000 X 300 workers or $6 Million for that plant. For second offenses, the fines would double and a federal prison sentence should be required of BOTH the plant manager AND the company's CEO at the time the infractions were discovered.
.
Yes, those fines and second offense jail terms would have to be applied to small businesses (landscapers) and even homeowners who deliberately use illegal immigrant workers.Under those conditions, the jobs would dry up.
.
Once the jobs dried up, the draw would dry up and the illegal immigrants here for work, would then self-deport.The 10-15% or so who are here for nefarious purposes will be caught up in various criminal procedures. We must then draw up some agreements whereby we pay for the incarceration of Americans abroad and those countries pay for their citizens incarcerated here.
.
The canard that “cheap labor = cheaper goods and services,” is proven false every day. One such example is the Nike’s Air Jordans saga. Air Jordans were mass produced in Indonesia for pennies and with transportation and distribution costs factored in, their total cost was around $3 per unit, and yet they sold for $150 and up.

The reason is that market prices are determined by demand and what the market will pay and NOT the mere cost of production. Ergo, cheaper illegal immigrant labor does NOT always translate into cheaper goods and services for Americans.
.
As far as the overall “immigration debate” goes, I don't see the need for anything more than changing legal immigration to a more "merit based" approach (ending family reunification AND the “anchor baby” system and moving to a system that allows people in based on skills America needs) and bolstering our porous borders (fences and more border guards).
.
I have to say I don't now, nor have I ever had much sympathy for illicit employers who seek to use illegal immigrant labor to bolster profits and deliver cheaper goods & services to their customers and the latter is certainly a very lofty goal, perhaps the most lofty there is, but it's still no excuse for breaking the law.

Employers who use illegal immigrant labor are (1) reducing the wage floor - the price paid to unskilled labor in this country and reducing the wage floor puts a persistent downward pressure on all other wage rates, (2) they don't withhold taxes from these workers, increasing the tax burden on the rest of us, (3) their illicit activity and their lobbying for continuing it maintain a porous border that post-9/11 has become a major security risk and (4) they're involved in human exploitation, very close in its depravity to that engaged in by all the other human traffickers - illegals are paid a sub-standard wage, often dozens of them live huddled together in cramped apartments, with barley enough to live on.
.
It seems hideously wrong for a select few (unscrupulous "businessmen") to profit at the expense of EVERYone else. These white collar thugs (because they're far worse then mere white-collar criminals - embezzlers and such) don't care that every illegal alien here costs EVERY American $19,000 over the course of their time here. They don't care that they've depressed wages or that they've weakened our national security.Fine them, jail them (if necessary)...then the illegal jobs dry up...and then the overwhelming bulk of the illegal immigrants self-deport.

Some have argued that hiring illegal aliens “hurts no one, increases profitability and makes millions of jobless illegal alien/migrant workers “happy.” Well, hiring illegal aliens is against the law.

There's really no way to rationalize that....well, short of changing the law and moving to an "open border policy, but that would be suicide! A nation without borders quickly becomes a nation without a common language and a common culture, which is to say, "not a nation at all."

We don't allow people to do illegal things simply because those things benefit them or make them happy. Many people like to speed. The fines (now many are over $200 for significant speeding) are very good thing.

They both generate revenue for government AND they serve as a deterrent for offenders.

Owning a business in ANY nation (and God, I really hate to admit this) is a privilege. The fact that you need a myriad of licenses and must go through a gauntlet of government inspections to open most businesses proves that.

Illegal aliens will work for below subsistence wages because they're willing to live at below subsistence levels (ten and more illegals sharing a one BR apt).

The bottom-line is that there’s really no downside to going after America’s white collar THUGS hard.

After all, what are they going to do, shut down their businesses?

And even if heavy fines and jail time puts some businesses out of business, the void left, will draw ten new entrepreneurs looking to fill that niche and take advantage of that opportunity.

There’s no question that America is better off without illegal immigrant labor and the best way of dealing with this is as an “ILLICIT EMPLOYER” problem.
American Ideas Click Here!