Tag Archives: amnesty

Amnesty Supporter: ‘It’s Better If We Can Put Our Two Countries Together’

amnesty

Conservative Videos Description:

Thousands of demonstraters showed up at the Capitol on Wednesday for the Rally for Citizenship.

MRCTV was there to ask some of the pro-amnesty demostraters if they could support a bill that also increased security on the southern border.

Interestingly, most of the people who were there simply to have their voices heard were okay with it. But the professional activists and organizers from liberal groups, didn’t have as favorable a reaction to the idea.

Rand Paul supports amnesty, bilingualism, and open borders, opposes employment verification

In recent weeks, Rand Paul has made a meteoric rise in Republican politics, dramatically raising his name recognition, winning (albeit by a slim margin) a CPAC straw poll, and successfully duping many conservatives (including some of my friends) into believing that he’s more sane and more practical than his nutty father, whom Republican voters rejected overwhelmingly in 2008 and 2012.

Sadly, these people are wrong. Rand Paul, like his father, is a leftist libertarian. His leftist brand of libertarianism is evident on many issues: deep defense cuts, supporting the cretinous “Balanced Budget Amendment”, supporting violations of states’ rights Paul’s pet issues, opposing action against Iran.

But on no issue is it more visible than on illegal immigration. Rand Paul supports a full-throated amnesty for illegal aliens (without calling it that way; he deceptively calls it “a pathway to citizenship”), bilingualism, and open borders, and opposes employment verification, including the very effective E-Verify Program.

Employers, including Big Business, are lobbying hard for amnesty and against E-Verify, because they love to hire illegal aliens; they can pay them much less than Americans and avoid federal and state employment laws.

But doesn’t Rand Paul realise that amnesty and bilingualism will only lead to bigger, more costly government? Don’t his supporters realize that?

Don’t they and their idol Rand Paul realize that amnesty (or “pathway to citizenship”, or whatever you want to call it) is TOTALLY INCOMPATIBLE with limited Constitutional government (not to mention that it rewards lawbreaking, and a limited government – Constitutional or otherwise – cannot exist if the law is not obeyed)?

Don’t they and Rand Paul understand that amnesty will create 12-20 million new Democratic voters who will send the political Right (not just the GOP) and all conservatives to the political graveyard and give the Democrats a permanent, unbeatable majority?

As Ann Coulter rightly says, as soon as the nation starts to resemble California demographically, it will also resemble California politically.

To see what amnesty would mean politically, just look at California, where whites are now only 40% of the population – a “majority minority” state. Massive immigration – both legal and illegal – has transformed California into such a liberal state that no Republican can be elected statewide anymore. Taxes are going in only one direction, the state is on the verge of bankruptcy, and there’s no one left to pay the bill anymore, because businesses are fleeing Commiefornia en masse.

Not so long ago, this state gave America such great Republican Senators and Governors as Richard Nixon, S. I. Hayakawa, Ronald Reagan, and Pete Wilson.

But now, California is permanently lost to the GOP. The Dems control the governorship and have 2/3 majorities in the state legislature.

This is what the ENTIRE country will look like if amnesty is passed. The two major parties, as Ann Coulter rightly says, will be the Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Democratic Party and the Chuck Schumer Democratic Party.

Contrary to the popular canard that “Hispanics are natural conservatives/Republicans” and that “the Hispanic vote is winnable for the GOP”, they’re not and it’s not. The converse is the truth: Hispanics are natural liberals.

They are less likely than anyone but Jews to attend religious services and to oppose abortion and gay marriage. They are more likely than anyone else except blacks to be born out of wedlock, do poorly in school, drop out of high school, have children out of wedlock themselves, be poor, be dependent on the federal government for survival, commit crime, and go to prison. They depend on an entire cornucopia of federal programs to survive – from cradle to grave.

As Pat Buchanan points out, most Hispanic households are led by single mothers who, if they work, have no tax liability (due to the high tax-free treshold and the EITC), and if they don’t work, they receive welfare rolls and 99 weeks of unemployment checks. For food, she gets foodstamps and her children receive 2-3 “free” meals at school.

For healthcare, there’s Medicaid and Obamacare.

Her children are educated for “free” K-12 and can apply for Pell Grants and student loans.

Why would these people vote for a party that promises to cut taxes they don’t pay, but pledges to cut government dependency programs they do “benefit” from and use? Doesn’t self-interest dictate voting for the party that pledges to let them keep using these programs and, if anything, promises them more “free” giveaways?

The vast majority of Hispanics are government dependents (i.e. ideal Democratic voters). Republicans will never beat the Democrats at the giveaway offering game.

Have you ever wondered, Dear Readers, why most Latin American countries (Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, Venezuela, Mexico, etc.) have socialist governments? Answer: Because most of their citizens are socialists.

Most Americans don’t know that decades ago, the Democrats began implementing their plan to create an unbeatable Democratic majority by importing millions of immigrants from the Third World while making it harder (nigh impossible) for well-educated, highly-skilled Europeans to immigrate to the US. This plan is close to being completed. Amnesty #2 would be the final step – and the final nail in the GOP’s coffin.

The Democrats did not, and do not, want to change their ideology or their policies; instead, they’ve decided to change the voters, and they’ve done so and continue to do so.

Someone will say, “But in 2004, George W. Bush won 44% of the Hispanic vote!” Yes, he did, but that’s not a great result. If repeated at future elections and if amnesty is passed, the GOP will still be doomed. Let’s do simple math.

Assuming that there are 12 million illegal aliens in the US, let’s say 44% of these people vote Republican once naturalized, and “only” 56% vote Democratic. That is, let’s assume they’ll vote Republican in George W. Bush numbers.

OK, here’s the math:

44%*12 million = 5.28 mn new GOP voters

56%*12 million = 6.72 mn new Dem voters

Net gain: 1.44 mn new voters for the Democrats.

 

So on net, the Dems would gain 1.44 mn new voters.

Easy to see why the Democrats are for this. But why would a GOP that were not suicidally inclined support such a policy?

Those who support amnesty, including Rand Paul, need to ask themselves only this question:

If there was ANY chance – even the slightest chance – that amnesty could help Republicans in ANY way whatsoever, do you think the Democrats would’ve supported it?

The answer is obvious. It’s a resounding “no”.

Rand Paul must not be allowed to win a GOP presidential or vice presidential nomination under any circumstances whatsoever. Nominating Rand Paul for President or Vice President would be an electoral suicide for the GOP and would be an utter rejection of all conservative principles the GOP has ever stood for.

A Voter in the Hand Is Worth Two in the Focus Group

The new, focus–group tested GOP logo.

The new, focus–group tested GOP logo.

It’s remarkable that the political party allegedly joined at the hip with Big Business has such an incredible problem with a basic operational task like marketing. Somehow when it came time to divvy up the commercial sector, the Republicans got all the boring accountants, while the Democrats scooped up all the cool art directors.

Confining Republican outreach efforts to shareholder annual meetings and Daughters of the American Revolution gatherings is obviously not working. We’re going to have to get a “twitter” and compose some “twits” er, “tweets” if the GOP intends to become the happenin’ party.

Fortunately, great minds are at work on this project and they have arrived at a solution. Over the next few years the GOP will be including up a storm. According to Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, the party will be establishing “swearing–in citizenship teams” to approach the newly naturalized with the new, improved GOP message.

I have this mental picture of first contact that’s a combination of ‘The Andromeda Strain’ and ‘Alien’ but I’m sure that’s too harsh. No doubt the teams will be so earnest they squeak when they walk and they will have memorized an “elevator speech” for new citizens who get within range. Assuming Organizing for America and the SNAP people have not hogged all the good tables at the accompanying trade show.

But that’s not all, this “not your grumpy old man’s GOP” will also reach out to minorities who didn’t get here by crossing a river. Priebus says, “We will talk regularly and openly with groups with which we’ve had minimal contact in the past: LULAC, the Urban League, the NAACP, NALEO, La Raza. And we will take our message to college campuses, with an especially strong focus on Historically Black Colleges and Universities.” And I suppose if the communists were still around, Republicans would have coffee with the KGB.

What he expects to accomplish by reaching out to the already convinced remains to be seen. I don’t recall being approached by a Honda salesman as I drove off the lot in my new Infiniti. A more useful approach to me would be contacting minority homeowners in suburban neighborhoods that are mixed racially and politically. Your chances of finding an open mind are vastly greater there than at the NAACP or Urban League.

Still, even if you find an open mind, there is the problem of party beliefs that are still a source of embarrassment to many in GOP leadership.

Which is why Priebus’ handpicked committee has come up with a solution. All national Republicans have to do to achieve presidential success is become Democrats, or more specifically Southern Democrats, since we won’t agree to spend as much money as the Yankee Dems.

And current or holdover members of the GOP base will be permitted to retain some conservative social views, but we are urged to avoid discussing our feelings in polite company or any gathering that includes representatives of the news media.

It’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” applied to an entirely different demographic group.

Specifically, the Priebus group claims it is “not a policy committee” and then recommends “comprehensive immigration reform,” which is code terminology for amnesty; and a change in “issues involving the treatment and the rights of gays,” which is code for quit criticizing Adam and Steve if they want to get “married.”

This is beyond strange. NRC big thinkers want the party to work hard to accommodate the views of two demographic groups that have no interest in voting for us so we will what? Get kinder treatment on MSNBC? Meanwhile the people composing the base of the party are alienated by their betters.

Undocumented Democrats are not going to vote Republican after receiving amnesty. You can get the details here. And homosexuals are not going to give up the best tables at trendy restaurants so they can break bread with Ralph Reed at CPAC. And speaking of Ralph, who is the founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, he takes a dim view of the report, If the Republican party tries to retreat from being a pro-marriage, pro-family party, the big tent is going to become a pup tent very fast.” And he adds, “I am concerned that some in the party are going wobbly on this issue,” which is putting it mildly.

As for amnesty, a Washington Post/ABC poll found that Republican party members opposed amnesty by a margin of 60 to 35 percent, with 5 percent refusing to answer since the question was not in Spanish.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, proposes to hit the GOP where it hurts when he says, “”I would not give my money to the national party, to the national Republican Party. I would not give it to the RNC, I would not give it to the Republican Senatorial Committee nor to the Republican Congressional Committee,” which pretty much covers all the bases.

Good advice, particularly when you consider the recent lawsuit filed over entertainment problems in connection with last summer’s Republican National Convention.

Now I’m not referring to the run–of–the–mill lawsuit involving some rookie advance man who plays an unauthorized version of In–A–Gadda–Da–Vida at a rally to get the crowd fired up. (Usually the 17–minute album version, since even the most ancient, establishment Republican officeholder can shuffle up to the stage in that length of time.)

When Tom Petty or Heart or John Mellencamp demands a GOP candidate stop using their song, it’s not necessarily due to a disagreement on the issues. (Buying weed has taught them all about the free market and specifically the theory of supply & demand.) It’s because they know if the public starts associating their music with the accountant party, instead of the art directors, any hope of a revival tour will dry up.

No, I’m referring to the lawsuit that reveals the people in charge of entertainment at the convention offered Lady Gaga $1 million to perform.

For those readers who still miss Anita Bryant and may not be up to speed on Gaga, here is a brief rundown of her background. She’s a homosexual activist who supports homosexual marriage, the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” enjoys performing in her underwear before large crowds and appears in blasphemous music videos.

And if that wasn’t enough, she thinks the rich don’t pay enough taxes!

There is no tactful way to say this. These people are idiots and have no idea what they are doing. Money given to them is by definition wasted. Even if by some stroke of misfortune Gaga had agreed to appear, there is no telling what she would have done once she was on stage.

That would have been a real two–fer: national laughingstock and object of scorn by the delegates. Besides convention delegates don’t go to hear Lawrence Welk or Wendy O. Williams. They go for the privilege of waiting in security lines, sitting on uncomfortable chairs, wearing silly hats, listening to obscure arguments and being bored by long–winded speakers.

Besides the panic currently being experienced by national GOP leadership is misplaced. As Michael Medved has helpfully pointed out the Republican vote among 18 to 29 year olds increased to 37 percent, a significant boost from 2008’s 32 percent. Voters under 30 of the white persuasion went for Romney over Obama by a strong 7 percentage points. It was minority Obama generating sympathy and solidarity among minority youth that won him that demographic’s vote. A situation unlikely to be repeated when the white brothers: Hillary or Joe, run in 2016.

Finally, if simple outreach and individual contact is the root of the problem, why don’t we try marketing the existing recipe before we start tinkering with the product?

Meanwhile, if Chairman Priebus wants to generate excitement and attract more and trendier youth to GOP conventions, do what they do in Trinidad: Serve rum backed with plenty of drums.

Here We Go Again: A Discussion with Numbers USA’s Rosemary Jenks

Screen Shot 2013-01-30 at 10.12.17 AM

Screen Shot 2013-01-30 at 10.12.17 AMWith the “Gang of Eight” announcing their immigration reform package yesterday, I’m sure many American found the deal sensible, rational, and fair.  It’s a bipartisan deal, which pleases the independent segments of the electorate, and has Sen. Marco Rubio endorsing it wholeheartedly.  Immigration keeps the United States economically vibrant, unlike Europe, which has become older, grayer, and more Islamized.  We should welcome immigrants, but not at the cost of undermining our economic interests – which is what NumbersUSA, an organization dedicated to common sense immigration reform, is trying to tell members of Congress.  I was able to speak with Rosemary Jenks, NumbersUSA’s Director of Government Relations, about the new proposal last night.

On NumbersUSA’s website, they lay out the details of the package:

 1. Create a tough but fair path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants currently living in the United States that is contingent upon securing our borders and tracking whether legal immigrants have left the country when required;

2. Reform our legal immigration system to better recognize the importance of characteristics that will help build the American economy and strengthen American families;

3. Create an effective employment verification system that will prevent identity theft and end the hiring of future unauthorized workers; and,

4. Establish an improved process for admitting future workers to serve our nation’s workforce needs, while simultaneously protecting all workers.

It doesn’t sound like snake oil, but anything from government that sounds too good to be true – tends to be that way.  Case in point, the passing of Obamacare.  However, to low-information voters, or those who aren’t privy to immigration data, it represents, as Jenks said:

…part of the problem with the immigration debate because when you see an outline of a proposal, and you don’t know a whole lot about the issue, it tends to look pretty reasonable.  It’s only when you get into the details that things start to fall apart. So, you know for example – the bottom line is that this proposal is virtually identical to the proposal from the Gang of Eight in 2007. And I actually like Sen. Sessions’s title for them better, which is “masters of the universe.”  They basically have been meeting behind closed doors.  They don’t allow anyone else into the meetings – anyone who might disagree with them – and then they come out with this grand announcement, and assume that everyone will fall in line and vote for it. But the problem is that this proposal is not well thought out in terms of what’s best for America. And part of the reason for that is that involved in their little secret meetings, and closed-door negotiations, are groups like the AFL-CIO, the Chamber of Commerce, and organized religion, the ethnic advocacy groups – special interest groups have all had their say, but the one group that’s always left out of these negotiations is the America people. So, here we go again – starting this whole process, and we’re looking at essentially the same proposals with the same meaningless so-called triggers that aren’t actually triggers – and massive amnesty.

Closed-door negotiations? It’s a bit ironic that comprehensive immigration reform that intends to keep us an open, immigrant friendly nation needs to be fleshed out in secret meetings.  However, what shocked me was the involvement of the AFL-CIO.  The Democratic wing that’s beholden to union interests have usually opposed illegal immigration since they allow, for example, contractors to underbid union contracts.  Why are they for amnesty? Jenks explains that:

basically, the unions have an interest in amnesty because immigrants, legal or illegal, is the only growing population of union-dues paying members. If they want to continue their dues, the need to legalize the illegal population to keep them here, keep them unionized, and keep them paying dues.  So in exchange for that amnesty, they’ve made a deal with the Chamber of Commerce, in which the unions give up on guest workers – to get amnesty – and the Chamber gives them amnesty to get guest workers.  So, everybody wins, except the American worker.

However, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) did say, at the close of the press conference yesterday, that the proposal will tie  immigration the influx of legal immigration to the nation’s unemployment rate.  However, Jenks wasn’t convinced that this item in the package will be taken seriously.

 Well, the fact that they’re talking about giving expedited amnesty to AG workers [agricultural workers] and to dreamers – and then some kind of extended amnesty to all of the rest of the eleven million illegal aliens in the country, despite the fact that we have 7.9% unemployment tells me whatever they have in mind for the future is certainly not going to happen because they’ve already vastly exceeded the ability of our economy to employ these people. We’ve already got twenty million Americans who can’t find full-time jobs.  So, we’re going to add eleven million more?

The growth industries in the U.S. economy are mostly highly skilled, high-tech occupations.  So, why would we then be giving a massive amnesty –expedited amnesty – to AG workers, and creating a new guest worker program for low-skilled labor?  It doesn’t make sense.  We should be reforming our legal immigration system to meet the needs of the 21st century. Instead of doing that, they’re basically just packing on a whole bunch of new programs that will continue to flood the labor market, primarily the low-skill labor market, and increase the competition for our own most vulnerable workers. And who’s going to pay for it?  The taxpayers.

Yet, Brad Plumer posted on The Washington Post’s WonkBlog yesterday – and said that illegal immigration has “slowed since 2007.”  So, what’s the big deal?  Isn’t that a positive indicator?

there has been – it appears – through some Census data – that the number of new illegal aliens coming into the United States slowed somewhat during the recession, but there’s also evidence that the number has started to pick up again.  It’s entirely possible that’s because of all this talk of amnesty – but the bottom line is illegal immigration is going to be affected by some small degree by economic changes in the United States.  But the fact is that the illegal population has stayed at about an estimated eleven million. It hasn’t actually dropped.  We still have a huge problem, and you can’t stop illegal immigration by redefining it as legal.   That’s not a long-term solution.

What alternative policy does NumbersUSA endorse to solve this crisis?  Jenks said that since its inception, NumbersUSA has supported the proposals laid out from the 1995 U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, which was chaired by former Texas Congresswoman Barbara Jordan.  Jordan, a Democrat, and her commission had these key points in their report.

  • a scale back of family chain-migration by implementing a prioritization of family relationships to determine who will be admitted through family-based immigration. Spouses and minor children of US citizens would continue to be admitted as first priority;
  • elimination of other family-based admission categories, including:
    • Adult, unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens;
    • Adult, married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens;
    • Adult, unmarried sons and daughters of legal permanent residents; and
    • Siblings of U.S. citizens.
  • a focus on the admission of highly-skilled individuals to support the national interest by bringing to the U.S. individuals whose skills would benefit our society. Recommended the elimination of the admission of unskilled workers and elimination of the diversity visa lottery;
  • immigration admissions level of 550,000 per year, to be divided as follows:
    • Nuclear family immigration 400,000;
    • Skill-based immigration 100,000;
    • Refugee resettlement 50,000.
  • Stressed deportation is crucial. Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: those who should get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave.

Without a doubt, amnesty will be unpalatable to Republicans in the House.  As a naturalized citizen, who immigrated via adoption from South Korea, I want America to remain an open nation.  However, there are rules.  It’s unfair to the legal immigrants to be cast aside because millions of illegals broke the law.  They’ve waited patiently, and now they’re about to be cut in line.  There’s something unethical about it, but we shall see how conservatives react to this new amnesty push – even with the stringent standards attached to the pathway to citizenship.

Originally Posted on PJ Tatler.

Republicans Advocate Surrender After Defeat

undocumented-democrats-democrats-politics-1338770687

Evidently Romney campaign consultants were paying way too much attention to Michelle Obama’s War on Cafeteria Lunch Ladies. Consequently, when her husband offered a campaign built around Bread & Circuses; they countered with healthy eating and free–range elephants.

A role reversal that proved fatal.

More than once I’ve heard discouraged conservatives complain that ignorant voters were responsible for re–electing Obama, but that’s simply not true. Misguided and short–sighted voters, yes, but certainly not ignorant.

Obama supporters voted for the candidate who gave them the most freebies. Union members voted for the Government Motors bailout and the prospect of “card check.”

Government employees voted for bigger government and its number one disciple. Hispanics voted for a freeze on deportation and amnesty for illegals. College students voted for low interest student loans and possible loan forgiveness.

Unmarried mothers voted for food stamps, welfare, free contraceptives and — for the sexually disorganized — federally–funded abortion. Homosexuals voted for homosexual marriage. And blacks voted for the black guy.

Now, proving there is no one more gullible than a panicked Republican, some of our “leaders” are considering amnesty for illegal aliens.

Amnesty for illegals will be called “immigration reform,” just as adulterers call fornication “marriage reform.” Passage will be equivalent to allowing a family who squatted on land inside a national park to keep the land as part of “ownership reform.” It wouldn’t be fair to evict them, don’t you know, because they built a house and their kids would have to change school districts.

Unfortunately for Republican leaders who put power before principle, amnesty is wrong for four reasons.

First it’s morally wrong. Rewarding lawbreakers, only encourages more lawbreaking, erodes respect for the rule of law and discriminates against potential legal immigrants who are waiting their turn. Amnesty also serves to take jobs from low income US citizens and depresses the wages of those that have jobs.

Secondly, it solves nothing. Democrats — who make short–term memory loss part of their governing philosophy — conveniently forget the US granted Hispanics a massive amnesty during the Reagan administration. That “never to be repeated” amnesty legalized over 4 million illegals. This final solution possessed such deterrent power that over 12 million illegals are demanding amnesty this time, a four–fold increase.

Third, amnesty will damage Republicans at the ballot box. Let’s assume 4 million of the approximately 12 million illegals are of voting age. These are not Republican votes in waiting, they are, as fellow columnist Mike Adams says, “undocumented Democrats.” All 4 million will be voting Democrat from now on.

It’s a fact the GOP never gets credit for anything involving civil rights. When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed a larger percentage of Republicans supported the bill than Democrats, yet Democrats get all the credit. If I recall correctly Ronald Reagan was a Republican, yet even after the passage of amnesty during his administration, the GOP still has a problem with Hispanics.

Four, “socially conservative” Hispanics are like Iranian “moderate mullahs.” GOP “experts” claim Hispanic “family values” mean their natural home is the GOP. Yet on Sunday, November 4th, these “socially conservative” Hispanics sat in Catholic churches and heard homilies about the Obama administration forcing the church to violate basic Catholic beliefs. Then they rushed to the polls to vote for the most radical abortion–supporting president in history.

The only way for Republicans to profit from amnesty is to invest in companies producing the velvet Obama paintings that will soon be joining the velvet JFKs gracing the walls of many minority homes.

No wonder Democrats are so eager to cooperate with the GOP on this “bi–partisan reform” legislation.

Republicans simply cannot win a bidding war with Democrats and remain Republicans. It will take time for a values and civic virtues campaign to be successful, because changing public attitudes is a long-term project. So I suggest Republicans conduct asymmetrical electoral warfare.

Presidential election years have larger turnout that favors Democrats. Off–year elections have smaller turnout and give our base a larger impact. Nationally, during the education process, the GOP can concentrate on winning off–year elections and build up conservative margins in the US House, gain a Senate seat or two and defend the rest during Presidential years.

All the while concentrating our message on the benefits of individual liberty, personal responsibility and marketplace competition. Democrats and “progressives” are now using the ballot box to exploit the cultural pathologies their incompetent policies have created over the past 40 years. Over the short term it may prove to be an indestructible ideological loop.

But if conservatives aren’t in this fight over the long term, why are we in it at all?

Boehner Caving?

Boehner Responds To Obama Statement On Debt Talks

Since the results of the 2012 election came in, Speaker of the House John Boehner has shown signs of abdicating his role as a Conservative American leader.

On taxes he has said “For purposes of forging a bipartisan agreement that begins to solve the problem, we’re willing to accept new revenue, under the right conditions.”

Where repealing Obamacare is concerned: “Well, I think the election changes that. It’s pretty clear that the president was reelected, Obamacare is the law of the land.”

What were Boehner’s remarks regarding amnesty for illegal aliens? “A comprehensive approach is long overdue, and I’m confident that the president, myself, others can find the common ground to take care of this issue once and for all.”

This is not the kind of leadership Conservative Americans deserve.

Boehner appears to be falling into the same trap Republicans have repeatedly fallen in to when dealing with “progressive” Democrats.  Time after time, Republicans have agreed to “compromise”; essentially capitulating to “progressive” Democratic demands in exchange for meaningless, empty promises.

Abandoning American principles by caving in to “progressive” demands has never led to success for Republicans. Republicans have tried the surrender approach before and it has never worked.  The only way Republicans ever make gains is by standing by the principles of liberty and freedom that made America great.

Passage of amnesty legislation will not help the GOP win Hispanic voters. Passing amnesty in 1986 did nothing to help Ronald Reagan and his fellow Republicans in the 1988 midterm elections. The Republicans still lost. Hispanic voters kept voting for Democrats, as they continue to do to this day.

The facts show, Republicans like Boehner who support amnesty are helping “progressive” Democrats import more Democrats.

Since becoming Speaker, Boehner has blocked voting on immigration enforcement in Congress.  This includes a bill that would have freed up seven million jobs currently held by illegal aliens.  Not only is Boehner apparently willing to help “progressives” import more Democrats he also holds the morally reprehensible position of allowing unemployed American workers to suffer.

Less than a week after losing a fairly close election it is understandable that the losing side feels under siege.  Nevertheless, feeling under siege does not justify surrender.

The only real solution for Republicans is to employ the considerable talents of young Hispanic leaders within the Republican Party to reach out to Americans of Hispanic descent and explain to them why America’s founding principles are more in line with their values and beliefs than are “progressive” ideas.

If Republicans wish to remain a vibrant Party that seriously contends in future elections, this is the path.  The sooner Republicans begin the process the better.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/11/09/boehner-caving/

Workplace Rights for Illegals? Be My Guest (worker)

Today, U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis signed “partnership” agreements with representatives from Latin American countries in order to “protect the labor rights” of workers, both legal and illegal.  Says Solis, “No matter how you got here or how long you plan to stay, you have certain rights. You have the right to be safe and in a healthy workplace and the right to a legal wage.”   No need to rub your eyes, you read that correctly.  Just in case you don’t believe it, look at what California Labor commissioner Julie Su said earlier – “Nationwide, Latino workers suffer more minimum wage and overtime violations than any other ethnic group. My job is to make sure that the labor laws of this state are enforced, the right to minimum wage, to overtime for all hours worked and the right to protection against retaliation when workers stand up for their rights.”

Americans who are already terribly dismayed by a 9% unemployment rate and escalating violence at the borders find statements like this very disturbing, and rightfully so.  It certainly is disheartening to be searching (legally) for a job and come across business after business that has filled most of their labor with illegal immigrants.  Su is quick to remind us that companies nationwide are violating the “rights” of ILLEGAL aliens, denying them minimum wage, overtime, and general workplace protections.  She seems unable or unwilling to acknowledge the violations on the part of the ILLEGAL alien, who by definition is a criminal on our shores simply by being here.  They are not protected by our laws, our constitution and are not welcome to participate in the benefits of being American (though we know many do anyway).  Those privileges are not for people who break the law, they are for people who love America enough to put in the effort to actually become American – legally.

But hearing all this makes me think: perhaps we should be advocating for minimum wage and equal workplace rights for illegals.  Maybe we should be the ones front and center, protesting beside these non-English speaking, non-tax paying, non voting, non-citizens.  We should be advocating that employers be required to pay every illegal alien at least a minimum wage, health benefits, and overtime.  Employers who knowingly hire illegals to fill their positions should be required to provide the same workplace conditions as they would for real Americans.  They should be required to meet every OSHA standard and should be subject to special investigation by OSHA if they don’t.  I say special because illegal aliens are a disadvantaged sub-group in America.  Many don’t speak English (probably because they aren’t American) and are fearful of the authorities (probably because they aren’t American).  They are reluctant to report workplace violations, so OSHA should provide frequent and regular monitoring of businesses that choose to hire illegal aliens.  Furthermore, if an illegal alien decides to strike for better workplace conditions, their jobs should be protected, just like real Americans.  They should also have the right to unionize without threat of retaliation, as Su described.

Why not give our illegal alien guests the same workplace rights as the average unionized, American worker? I say go for it.  The reason American businesses turn to illegal labor in the first place is because arbitrary minimum wage laws, OSHA regulations, and union labor strangleholds have astronomically driven up the price of labor.  Illegal aliens are illegal (gasp!), and so obviously not concerned with fulfilling the law in their work.  So let them have their “American” workplace rights.  Conservatives worry that this is “backdoor” amnesty…and maybe it is.  However, why not engage in a little “backdoor” protection of our borders and drive out illegal aliens by making them just as costly as the average American citizen?  If a business has to pay the same amount for an educated American citizen as it does for an illegal alien who doesn’t even speak English, who do you think they would rather hire?  Of course, we would prefer that they could simply hire the American citizen a low but fair wage, but decades of Democrat “compassion” have made that nearly impossible.  Maybe the best route to go is to make the hiring of illegals equally as costly.

The Obama Administration has made it more than clear that they have no intention of defending Americans and American businesses from the current, debilitating onslaught of illegal, uneducated labor.  They have all but surrendered certain patches of sovereign American soil in some places along the border and prosecuted Arizona for their audacity in taking the issue into their own hands.  If our own government won’t protect us, the citizens, but will  protect illegal aliens, perhaps its time for a new strategy.  Maybe we need to cure the problem using their own medicine – stifling regulations and crushing burdens of compliance and oversight.  Let the illegals “enjoy” the privilege of being a regular American employee in the work place today.  Not only may it drive employers back to good, old-fashioned American labor, the Tea Party may find some partners in these newly  outraged (non)Americans.

Hey, at this point, it doesn’t sound so crazy.

These are Not the Charts Obama is Looking For

Both Gallup and Rasmussen have completed surveys that show that the President is losing his bid for re-election with so many groups, so many ways and oh so quickly.

Gallup has the President sliding to just 38% approval, his worst showing ever in the Gallup survey. When looked at as a trend, the imagery worsens.

Rasmussen Reports also summed up their daily results saying, “This is the lowest Approval Index rating yet measured for President Obama. The previous low was -24 reached yesterday and also in September 2010. Additionally, the level of Strong Approval matches the lowest yet recorded.”

When digging into the numbers, the picture does not improve. To win an election in America, you have to win the swing vote. Obama hasn’t only lost the middle, has become the polarizing figure he railed against when he stood George W. Bush up as a straw man to beat in the 2008 election.

What should be especially of concern to the Obama campaign, is how even his attempts to buy votes is being rebuked. On August 18th, Obama’s Department of Homeland Security was directed to halt all deportation proceedings against illegal immigrants who are attending school, have family in the military or are primarily responsible for other family members’ care, and allow them to apply for work permits. Obama had failed to deliver the highly unpopular DREAM act and may have been hoping to buy-off the Hispanic community with a the gift of not enforcing current law. How did that community react? Unfavorably.

Presidential job approval is an important barometer, but with the entirety of the main stream media declaring the Republican field “weak”, certainly this won’t hurt his chances for another four years in the White House.. or will it?

Even Ron Paul, largely thought to be a fringe candidate, is only a few points under Obama in the polls and within the survey’s margin of error. Obama is in trouble whether he admits it or not.

Attack after mudslinging attack isn’t working, the president’s policies are failing and a string of broken promises may be coming home to roost.

 

 

Immigration – What Part Of “Illegal” Does Obama Not Understand?

What Part Of “Illegal” Does Obama Not Understand?

Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, “Improper Entry by Alien,” any citizen of any country other than the United States who:

  • Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or
  • Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
  • Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;

has committed a federal crime. And the last time I looked, committing a federal crime is illegal.

So, with the above cited statute in mind, let’s see what the Obama administration is proposing. The Obama administration said Thursday (18 August 2011) that it will halt deportation, proceeding on a “case-by-case” basis against illegal immigrants who meet certain criteria. Obama has said he does not have authority to halt all deportations and said he must follow the laws as Congress has written them. But Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said she does have discretion to focus on “priorities.” She said that her department and the Justice Department will review cases to see who meets the new criteria.” This ‘case-by-case’ approach will enhance public safety,” she said. “Immigration judges will be able to more swiftly adjudicate high-priority cases, such as those involving convicted felons.”

Officials said that by launching the “case-by-case” review, they are refocusing deportation efforts on convicted felons and other “public safety threats.” Those who have not committed crimes could be allowed to remain in the U.S. The policy change outline ways for those facing deportation, but having no criminal record, to remain in the U.S. and even apply for a work permit.

Obama promised to deliver immigration reform and create paths to citizenship for some of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living in the US. But after two years in office, he has yet to achieve any steps toward immigration reform. The announcement came to a surprise for many Latinos, influenced, many believe, by the protest by pro-immigration reform activists on Tuesday in front of President Barack Obama’s Chicago reelection campaign headquarters.

Illegals Voting

In 1996, Congress enacted the “Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act”, making it a federal crime for non-citizens to vote in any federal election (or state election, unless authorized by state law). As a penalty, ineligible non-citizens who knowingly vote may be deported. Additionally, a non-citizen who falsely claims to be a United States citizen is in violation of this law. However, there are many documented reports of non-citizen voting, and there is no evidence of prosecution of the aliens for their action. With nearly 19 million foreign-born residents who are not U.S. citizens in the country in the 2000 Census and an estimated 9-11 million illegal residents (many of them not also counted in the Census), the potential is enormous for non-citizens to affect the outcome of elections.

Here is just one example of illegal immigrants voting that can sway elections. In a 1996 congressional race in California that may have been stolen by non-citizen voting, Republican incumbent Bob Dornan was in a spirited race against Loretta Sanchez. Sanchez won the election by just 979 votes, and Dornan contested the election in the U.S. House of Representatives. His challenge was dismissed after an investigation by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform turned up only 624 invalid votes by non-citizens who were present in the U.S. The investigation could not detect illegal aliens who were not in the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) records. There is a possibility that, with only about 200 votes determining the winner, enough undetected aliens registered and voted to change the outcome of the election. This is particularly true since the California Secretary of State complained that the INS refused his request to check the entire Orange County voter registration file, and no complete check of all of the individuals who voted in the congressional race was ever made.

The DREAM Act

The chief beneficiaries of the policy change will be immigrant students who would have been eligible for legal status under the Dream Act, which failed in Congress last year. This link provides a definition of the DREAM Act. On 17 June 2011, Obama ignored the will of American people by issuing an executive order that promotes benefits for illegal immigrants. A Federation for American Immigration Reform poll showed that only 38% of American voters favored the DREAM Act. Congress could not get it passed, so Obama, not getting his way, issued an executive order.

So now the DREAM Act is the law of the land. Despite failing to pass the U.S. Congress, the federal DREAM Act is now law. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told Congress she will stop deporting students who meet DREAM Act criteria. Under the policy change, approximately 300,000 deportation cases pending in immigration court will be reviewed on a case-by-case” basis. Now immigrants groups are concerned that “good” illegals will be deported, along with “bad” illegals who rob, rape, and murder. The DREAM Act proposes that some illegal alien criminals be allowed to stay in the country because their offenses, as the backers say, are “lesser.” No specific definition of the meaning of “lesser” was ever given.

Backdoor Amnesty?

From Merriam-Webster.com, we get the definition of “amnesty” – the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said the move amounts to the administration implementing an immigration overhaul “via executive fiat.” “This plan amounts to backdoor amnesty for hundreds of thousands – if not millions – of illegal aliens,” She continued, “We need to remind President Obama that we elected a president that serves beneath the law and did not anoint a king that is above the law.” “It is just the latest attempt by this president to bypass the intended legislative process when he does not get his way,” said Texas Republican Rep. Michael McCaul.

Ira Mehlman, member of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) said, “Congress cannot and must not allow the administration to usurp the constitutional authority that Congress has to make our immigration policies. It is the responsibility of the administration to carry out the laws written by Congress, whether the administration likes those laws or not, they are bound constitutionally to enforce them.” “Having failed in the legislative process, the Obama administration has simply decided to usurp Congress’s constitutional authority and implement an amnesty program for millions of illegal aliens,” FAIR President Dan Stein said.

Scrap All Laws With Less Than 100% Enforcement?

Does the Obama administration’s new immigration policy of selectively applying the law mean that WE get to use “case-by-case” evaluation of what laws we want to obey? If so, I want to SPEED to the nearest bank to ROB it. But, when I am hauled before a judge, I doubt if my “the Obama administration does it” defense will work. So much for inconsistency…

But that’s just my opinion.

Recent Entries »