I was finishing up in the kitchen, preparing snacks for the kids, when everyone started yelling for me to come in the living room. To my great surprise, I saw Sebastien De La Cruz, who is a personal friend of our family, standing in the middle of the court, belting out The National Anthem! We were so proud of him! I sent a text to his Mom to tell her what a great job he did, and settled in to enjoy the butt-whoopin’ that our boys gave to Miami!

If you missed Sebastien’s performance, watch this! He is a very talented young man!

So it was with great sadness that I woke up this morning to find out that while we were so proud of Sebastien and his performance last night, he had unwittingly become the target of racism.

Here is a sampling of Twitter comments during last night’s performance. Warning! Foul language, and pure hate follows:

Now, this may seem like a simple case of racism to you, but I have a very different theory. Nevermind the fact that Sebastien is a LEGAL, AMERICAN CITIZEN, BORN AND RAISED in America! Nevermind that his PARENTS were born and raised here, and quite possibly, his grandparents as well! The real issue here is immigration, and how the politicians see it as nothing but a political game!

I believe that our country is reaching the boiling point on many issues, and immigration is one of the hotbed issues that is part of the boiling cauldron. Sadly, the president is doing nothing but adding fuel to the already blazing hot fire! People are fed up with the politicians going around the law to serve their own “needs”, and in the process, a child is paying the price for the dissension they have caused!

Barack Obama had the potential to be one of the greatest presidents in American History. He could have been the person to unite this nation like never before. He is a black man, with a white mother.

Step outside of the white and black issue, and you have the Hispanic issue. Barack Obama and the Democrat party’s grandstanding on immigration reform has done nothing but further divide this great nation. Rather than obeying the law, the Democrat Party, along with some from the Republican side of the aisle, are doing everything they can to go around the law of the land. Rather than addressing the issue in a legal manner, they are

A “long-time Democratic Party political operative with direct experience at the highest levels of government” says that the harsh reality is that the “Democrats could give a sh*t about Mexicans. This whole thing, this whole issue has always been about votes first. Period. Always. And this time around it’s all about 2014.”

Just yesterday, Democrat Senator Tim Kaine argued for illegal immigration on the Senate Floor- IN SPANISH! To top that off, Chuck Schumer said, ‘illegal immigration will be a thing of the past‘! So what they are telling every citizen in America is that they- the politicians, and those who come here illegally, do not have to obey they law! Forget the fact that millions of people every year come here legally!

The more these politicians push to go around the law, the more anger they stir up among the American public! Yes, you will always have racists! My husband and I are both very white people with five very dark “Mexican” children! We have been the brunt of racist comments before- including from my own extended family!

So here we are- the land of opportunity, land of the free, home of the brave, yet we are a nation very much divided against herself! On one side we have a nation full of politicians (on BOTH sides of the aisle!) using an entire race for their own political gain, and many of the pawns in their sick, political game go right along with it, being played for a fool! On the other side we have people who are tired of the political games at the expense of our nation and those who want to play by the rules. In the middle, you have the racist idiots that can’t see how truly disgusting they really are!

We truly have reached a sad place in America!

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Abraham Lincoln

__________

Source: Hispanic News Network

Varin Tsai (CC)

The two things that started me thinking, were when Mr. Beckel said that we should stop letting Muslims into this country with student visas and also admitted that Muslims are indeed the enemy, something that Obama still refuses to admit, I agree with him on both counts. Our enemy are Muslims, so why wouldn’t we scrutinize them more than anyone else? Now if anyone else on Fox had said the same things that Mr. Beckel said, they would have been branded a racist on every Liberal outlet, but because he belongs to their club, he gets a pass, funny how that works.

“I think we really have to consider, that given the fact so many people hate us, we’re going to have to cut off Muslim students from coming to this country for some period of time, so that we can at least absorb what we got, look at what we’ve got and decide whether some of the people here should be sent back home or sent to prison,” As Mr. Beckel spoke those words while I was watching one of my favorite shows The Five, I immediately got up and grabbed a Q-Tip to clean out my ears, because I thought there might be something wrong with my hearing.

Mr. Beckel also said, “If the FBI could not deal with this fellow in Boston with all they had on him, it seems to me that we ought to give time for them to clear up their problems with the current Muslim population here and then let students come back in.”

Mr. Beckel is correct. There are now 75,000 foreign students from Muslim countries attending college in the U.S. and 20,000 more on the way in the fall. According to unofficial inquiries made to the Department of Homeland Security, agencies involved in screening students after they receive visas are said to be backlogged on making contact with the new U.S. arrivals. The big problem here is that some of these foreign students never enroll in a U.S. college once they get here. When their visa runs out, they stay here illegally without identification or residence notification.

There was also another time I found myself agreeing with Mr. Beckel, it was during the Amazing Race controversy. On the show, the twisted metal of the downed plane is treated as any other prop, with a bright “Amazing Race” “Double-U-Turn” signed planted in front of it, signifying to contestants the next phase of their scavenger hunt.
“There are 850,00 American Vietnam veterans alive today, and you owe them an amazing, big apology,” Beckel said, noting he once worked for CBS, and had even been against the war for “policy” reasons.

That’s three times I found myself agreeing with a Liberal, that’s more than I agreed with a Liberal in my sixty years on this earth, so I naturally had to question my Republican thinking. Then it dawned on me, I wasn’t the one who was changing, it was Mr. Beckel who was coming over to my side. I guess after all those years working on Fox, his head is finally getting out of the clouds and he is finally coming down to reality. Good for you Mr. Beckel, every Liberal has to wake up and smell the coffee and realize that Liberal policies just don’t work. Keep up the good work Mr. Gutfeld, Mr. Bolling, Miss Perino, Miss Tantaros, Miss GuilFoyle, you will have him voting Republican in 2016.

My latest book “What Kind Of Society Are We Leaving Our Kids.”    Available Here.

This is one man’s opinion.

Joe Dan Gorman nails it yet again, with his in-depth analysis of leftist propaganda on Jihadists, phobias, abortion, Planned Parenthood, and Janet Napolitano. In case you’re wondering, Napolitano has no clue how to do her job, except the part where she spews disjointed jargon in Congressional hearings. And the new inconvenient truth – successful terrorist attacks in four years under Obama is FIVE, and in seven years after 9/11 under Bush is ZERO.

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 21^st 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.

There are many in the US who would like us to simply adopt those here illegally offering them citizenship. Others say offer a migrant worker program for those who wish to remain residents of their homeland and find a way to put the others in the country onto a citizenship track. Still others want to send those here illegally back. After all, just by skipping the immigration lines that others are in they are cheating the system.

The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia have a problem with illegal immigrant workers and they have high unemployment, especially with young, unskilled men. Like the United States companies have hired undocumented workers at low wages with hope that they can avoid a government inspection. Unlike the United States, the governments of the UAE and Saudis have a plan and they’re not messing around.

This week the UAE issued a two-month amnesty to illegal residents who leave the country voluntarily. Those without passports can obtain out-passes and leave the country without penalties and those with passports and an airline ticket with a scheduled departure will have fines dismissed.

The UAE is increasingly tackling the issue of undocumented immigrants in the country and launched a ‘No to Violators’ campaign to educate UAE residents about illegal immigration. Anyone who hires or houses an illegal immigrant could face two months in prison or a $27,777 fine, and employing a foreigner who is not in their sponsorship part-time carries a $13,888 penalty.

The UAE’s Ministry of Interior spokesman warned that if a person is arrested after the expiration of the amnesty deadline, he will face tough legal action.

In a similar effort Saudi Arabia is stepping up efforts to lower unemployment among its citizens by fining private sector firms that employ more foreigners than Saudis.

The policy, which will be implemented at the start of the new Islamic year on Nov. 15, will require private companies with majorities of foreign workers to pay a fee for each excess foreigner. “The aim of this decision is to increase the competitive advantage of local workers by reducing the gap between the cost of expatriate labor and local labor,” it said.

Roughly nine in ten employees of private companies in Saudi Arabia are from other countries; firms prefer to hire foreigners, many from South or Southeast Asia, because they will work for lower wages than locals.

There is no doubt that these countries are smaller than the United States. They also may be more able or willing to enforce these laws than we would. Still, would these plans work in the United States? Which one would be most effective? Our current administration has no willingness to jail or deport those here illegally so would fining the companies, the employers, be an option to which they might be open?

As we on the Right continue to ponder how we got handily beaten by a president with a dismal record, one of the areas that are salient in our rebuilding efforts rests with Hispanic voters.  About fifty thousand latinos turn eighteen every month, making this a key demographic Republicans must become competitive if we to survive as a political force.  Losing Latinos to Democratic candidates 73%-24% spells certain doom for the party.  This doesn’t mean we sell out on our principles.  Supporting full amnesty is a fool’s errand.  However, we may have to accept certain provisions on future immigration proposals. Provisions that create pathways to citizenship by creating benchmarks for immigrants who have served in the military, achieved a certain level of education, and don’t have criminal records seems like a good starting point concerning our outreach with Latinos.

Sen. Marco Rubio’s alternative Dream Act is another area where Republicans can debate whether it is sufficiently conservative, or in dire need of revision.  Regardless, if we continue with our perceived anti-immigrant ways, we are destined to become a nationalized version of the Republican Party of California, which was destroyed when Prop. 187 was passed in 1994.

The bill, detailed by Nancy H. Martis of the California Journal back in 1994, goes as follows:

Proposition 187 bans illegal immigrants from public social
services, non emergency health care and public education. Various state and
local agencies would be required to report anyone suspected of being an
illegal immigrant to the state attorney general and U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS). The attorney general would be required to
maintain records and transmit reports to INS. Manufacturing, distributing or
selling false citizenship or residence documents illegal under existing
state law would become a felony. The proposal’s fiscal impact would be
felt three ways, the legislative analyst estimates. State and local
governments would realize savings from denying certain benefits and services
to persons who cannot document their citizenship or legal immigration status,
and this could amount to $200 million annually, based on INS estimates.
However, the state, local governments and schools would incur significant
costs to verify citizenship or immigration status of students, parents,
persons seeking health care services or social services, and persons who are
arrested. This could total tens of millions of dollars annually, with
first year costs considerably higher, potentially in excess of $100 million.
Finally, there would be a potential loss of federal funds up to $15
billion annually in federal money for education health and welfare programs
due to conflicts with federal requirements.

It was introduced by Republican assemblyman Dick Mountjoy and endorsed by Republican Governor Pete Wilson – which made it a key issue during his ’94 re-election bid.  While the bill passed, it had an overwhelming negative effect on the electorate.  First, it was the death knell for Republicans concerning statewide elections.  We never became competitive again, until Governor Schwarzenegger won his gubernatorial/recall bid in 2003.  The bill was declared unconstitutional, and killed with legal action.  The election of 1988 is still the last contest where California went Republican.  An ignominious footnote since the GOP was able to carry the state in 1960, ’68, ’72, ’76, ’80, and ’84.

The effects of Prop. 187 are still felt today – with the complete collapse of the two-party system in the state.

As Michael R. Blood of AP reported on Nov. 10:

Democrats hold the governorship and every other statewide office. They gained even more ground in Tuesday’s elections, picking up at least three congressional seats while votes continue to be counted in two other tight races — in one upset, Democrat Raul Ruiz, a Harvard-educated physician who mobilized a district’s growing swath of Hispanic voters, pushed out longtime Republican Rep. Mary Bono Mack.

The party also secured a supermajority in one, and possibly both, chambers in the Legislature.

 [...]

Republican voter registration has dipped so low — less than 30 percent — that the party’s future state candidates will be hobbled from the start.

Another sign of the times:

 Today, whites make up a little more than 40 percent of the population, while 2 in 10 residents are Asian and about 1 in 3 is Hispanic, according to the census.

[...]

Romney “implemented a winning election strategy for 1980,” University of Southern California professor Patrick James said in a statement issued by the school. “If you look at the demographics and voting proportions, the Reagan coalition would not win a majority today.”

Independents now outnumber Republicans in 13 congressional districts in California, a trend analysts predict will continue.

California counted more registered Republicans in 1988 than it does today, although the population has grown by about 10 million over that time. You’d have to go back to that year to find a Republican presidential candidate who carried the state, George H.W. Bush.

Surprisingly, Democrats continued to make gains in the state even at a time of double-digit unemployment, with polls showing that voters are unhappy with Sacramento and Washington. And it could get worse for the GOP. Republicans are trailing in two other House races in which the vote counting continues.

[...]

Still, Democrats believe they have the state’s demographics on their side with a message that appeals to a younger, more diverse population.

More than half the young voters in the state, ages 18 to 39, are Hispanic, according to the independent Field Poll. Thirty-five percent are Asian. If you look into a classroom in the Los Angeles area — tomorrow’s voters — 3 of 4 kids are Hispanic.

We shall see how California Democrats exert their new power.  If you’re a mentally competent person, I wouldn’t suggest taking a bet that the economic situation will improve.

While Heather MacDonald wrote in National Review that  while “a March 2011 poll by Moore Information found that Republican economic policies were a stronger turn-off for Hispanic voters in California than Republican positions on illegal immigration,” Califronia proves that such perceived anti-immingrant measures can lead to disastrous results.

Then again, she did touch upon our image problem with Latinos:

Twenty-nine percent of Hispanic voters were suspicious of the Republican party on class-warfare grounds — “it favors only the rich”; “Republicans are selfish and out for themselves”; “Republicans don’t represent the average person”– compared with 7 percent who objected to Republican immigration stances.

I spoke last year with John Echeveste, founder of the oldest Latino marketing firm in southern California, about Hispanic politics. “What Republicans mean by ‘family values’ and what Hispanics mean are two completely different things,” he said. “We are a very compassionate people, we care about other people and understand that government has a role to play in helping people.”

And a strong reason for that support for big government is that so many Hispanics use government programs. U.S.-born Hispanic households in California use welfare programs at twice the rate of native-born non-Hispanic households. And that is because nearly one-quarter of all Hispanics are poor in California, compared to a little over one-tenth of non-Hispanics. Nearly seven in ten poor children in the state are Hispanic, and one in three Hispanic children is poor, compared to less than one in six non-Hispanic children. One can see that disparity in classrooms across the state, which are chock full of social workers and teachers’ aides trying to boost Hispanic educational performance.

Yes, we have work to do.  The fact that entitlement reform will be part of our outreach strategy makes me more optimistic we can win them over, or at least enough to win an election.  Republican immigration policy needs to be smart and comprehensive.  We can start by not passing anymore legislation that takes states off the table in national elections.

Originally posted on The Young Cons.

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/

Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people why today’s American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer. Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States , people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented.

Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home.

They had waved goodbye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into
one culture. Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity.

Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father fought along side men whose parents had come straight over from Germany , Italy , France and Japan … None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan. They were defending the United States of America as one people.

When we liberated France, no one in those villages were looking for the French American, the German American or the Irish American. The people of France saw only AMERICANS. And we carried one flag that represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country’s flag and waving it to represent who they were.
It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl.

And here we are with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country. I’M SORRY! That’s not what being an American is all about. I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900′s deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice
in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life. I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags.

 I wouldn’t start talking about dismantling the United States just yet.

GOD BLESS AMERICA !!

 This is one man’s opinion.

Where I live we’ve already had extensive experience with small scale unilateral amnesty for illegal aliens without actual legal authority. Ours came courtesy of a “morally sensitive” police chief who knew much more about illegal aliens than the elected officials who hired him.

Fortunately for us Chief Charlie Deane — Virginia’s foremost practitioner of “ignoring while Hispanic” law enforcement — is voluntarily saying, “Adios, amigos” and retiring. I wish I could say the same for Barack Obama and his unilaterally declared amnesty for almost 2 million illegals.

Deane received quite the sendoff from his fellow travelers at the Washington Post. Members of the morally superior caucus find it newsworthy when someone they assume is conservative and therefore morally backward, say a police officer, turns out to share their enlightened views.

The WaPo editorial proclaimed: “When county officials wanted police to check the immigration status of residents and arrest those who were in the country illegally, he wasn’t afraid to push back at a policy he saw as bigoted and sure to cause problems for law enforcement.”

The Metro section concurred, “When the Prince William Board of County Supervisors jumped into the national immigration debate in 2007 and became one of the first places in the country to require the police department to question residents about their immigration status, Chief Charlie T. Deane thought otherwise.

“He feared cries of racial profiling and losing the trust of the county’s growing immigrant community. His stance angered his bosses on the county board and many residents who thought he was flouting the law…’When this was forced on us, we had no experience with it, and there were legal and moral implications,’ Deane said.”

The policy Deane refers to as being “forced on us” was in truth a law passed by an overwhelming majority of the county board of supervisors and a concept recently ratified by the U.S. Supreme Court.

What’s more, Deane didn’t simply express his opinion as a law enforcement official. He used his power as chief to actively sabotage the implementation of a law supported by the vast majority of citizens here legally.

Since Deane couldn’t persuade the board not to pass the law, he decided to obstruct enforcement until the 2008 election, hoping voters would elect Democrats who prefer coddling illegals. (Note to readers, don’t try this at home, obstruction of justice is a crime if you’re not the chief of police.)

Deane accomplished this by waiting until the entire police department went through training before allowing officers to enforce the law. This took months and is in direct opposition to the procedure in departments where the chief obeys his elected bosses.

Deane was forced to implement Plan B when stubborn voters re–elected Republicans who believe in the rule of law. Chief Sanctimony announced, “…we were going to focus on individuals who had committed crimes, and that we were going to protect crime victims and witnesses regardless of their status, and we were not going to do racial profiling, roadblocks, sweeps or employment investigations.”

This made it crystal clear to patrol officers and supervisors that they would be wise to avoid enthusiastic enforcement of the new law.

Simultaneously Deane began his viaje de apología. The Patron was concerned about the “climate of fear” in the Hispanic community, along with “bigotry and profiling.” He met with “immigrant rights groups” (think aiding and abetting associations) and even has an audiencia with the Mexican consul, who represents a government that actively encourages illegal aliens and works to undermine border enforcement.

But in spite of Deane’s best efforts some illegals were initially captured. The first report on the law’s effectiveness found, “In the majority of cases, [the arrest] was made during a call for service, second to that was traffic for stops (sic).”

So Deane works to dilute the law and restrict enforcement inquiries to individuals placed under arrest, which means illegals caught previously during “a call for service” or traffic stop, would go free in the future.

Progressives were fine with Deane’s unilateral decision that the intensity of law enforcement should vary depending on the individual’s national origin, because all the right people were in agreement.

But I wonder what progressive response would have been if Deane had decided to de–emphasize enforcement of domestic violence and homosexual bullying in the Moslem community because Islam has a different view of women’s roles and the Koran prohibits homosexual conduct?

Do you think worries about “Islamophobia” and encouraging cooperation with anti–terrorism efforts would have persuaded elite opinion to accept this type of arbitrary lack of enforcement? We all know the answer to that.

Charlie has his “Bridge Builder” award from the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and his gold watch from the WaPo. Now maybe my county will get a chief who believes his role is to enforce the law, rather than interpret it. Maybe it will set a precedent for the nation.

So that’s that. If you sneak into this country and do not commit a serious enough crime the government has decided it will ignore the laws and you can stay.

Contrast this to a young woman I know. Her uncle came to the United States from Egypt 30 years ago to attend college. A smart man, he was recruited by companies here and invited to stay in the U.S. He asked to bring his family over. It took many years but eventually he was allowed to sponsor his family. My young friend was five when her parents applied to immigrate to the U.S. with her uncle’s support. After a significant background evaluation and because of the U.S. family connection they were accepted and put on the waiting list.

From the State Department: If you want to become a lawful permanent resident based on the fact that you have a relative who is a citizen of the United States or is a lawful permanent resident, your relative in the U.S. will need to sponsor you and prove he/she has enough income or assets to support you, the intending immigrant(s) when in the United States.

My young friend’s parents, anticipating they would come to America, scrimped and saved in order that their children could attend schools where English was taught. They did not take vacation. They did not travel. They did nothing to jeopardize their place in line.

Finally, after 15 years on the immigration list they received a call that they could come to the States.

They have now been here five years. Both parents are working because part of their agreement with the country is that they not be a burden on the system. My friend and her brother have finished their undergraduate degrees, working their way through college, and are accepted in post graduate programs. They are shining examples of what our immigration systems should be.

These are the immigrants President Obama wants. But waiting 15 years? That’s a long time in anybody’s book.

If we do not close the borders, or at the very least, enforce our current laws our immigration system will continue to be muddled. Those who can, will come illegally knowing that this government will turn a blind eye to enforcing the laws.

To learn more about who Jose Antonio Vargas truly is, read Pulitzer Winner Breaks Law Daily.

Vargas, according to his own mini-autobiography published in the New York Times in June 2011, arrived in America at the age of 12 when his mother shipped him off to live with his grandparents who had immigrated legally from the Philippines. Vargas’ grandfather, “Lolo,” obtained fraudulent documents for him so he could travel and then attend school in the San Francisco Bay area. He remained unknowing of the fraud for 4 years.

“One day when I was 16, I rode my bike to the nearby DMV office to get my driver’s permit…” writes Vargas. “But when I handed the clerk my green card as proof of US residency, she flipped it around, examining it. ‘This is fake,’ she whispered. ‘Don’t come back here again.’”

Like any other teenager unaware of the situation his mother and grandparents had bestowed him, he was confused and proceeded to ask for an explanation from Lolo, only to learn that the document was in fact falsified and he was living in the United States illegally.

Vargas says he faced many challenges trying to assimilate and become as American as possible. He wanted to perfect English and lose his accent. He wanted to fit in and get a job in America. He again leaned on Lolo.

“Using the fake passport, we went to the local Social Security Administration office and applied for a Social Security number and card. It was, I remember, a quick visit. When the card came in the mail, it had my full, real name, but it also clearly stated: “Valid for work only with I.N.S. authorization.”

When I began looking for work, a short time after the D.M.V. incident, my grandfather and I took the Social Security card to Kinko’s, where he covered the “I.N.S. authorization” text with a sliver of white tape. We then made photocopies of the card. At a glance, at least, the copies would look like copies of a regular, unrestricted Social Security card.”

The New York Times editors failed to ask for more details about this, but should have. Social Security cards are blue. They have a specific design on them. Covering a portion with white tape would most certainly distort the image to look completely fake. Perhaps his first few employers like Subway and the YMCA should also have done a bit more digging.

Nevertheless, the fraudulent card was getting so easy to use that Vargas admits after a while, he began checking the citizenship box on I-9 forms (one of the documents federally required of new employees to ensure legal citizenship/immigration status). He claims he was nervous about getting caught – so he understood it was wrong – but that he kept doing it anyway.

Vargas attended San Francisco State University on a scholarship that Vargas admits “was not concerned with immigration status.” He sought out avenues to avoid bringing attention to the fact that he was breaking the law on a daily basis.

In early 2002, Vargas sought the help of an immigration lawyer who told him that to become a legal US citizen, Vargas would have to return to the Philippines for 10 years and then return legally with documentation.

Apparently, as an adult, fully aware of the consequences of his actions, Vargas chose NOT to obey the law. In fact, he downright ignored it. What he did next can only be described as intentional defiance of state and federal laws with complete disregard for morality.

“…I spent an afternoon at The Mountain View Public Library, studying various states’ requirements. Oregon was among the most welcoming — and it was just a few hours’ drive north,” remembers Vargas.

Using a false permanent address, some fraudulent documents, a photocopied Social Security card and his college ID, Portland, Oregon gave Vargas a driver’s license.

“I knew what I was doing now, and I knew it wasn’t right. But what was I supposed to do?”

As justification for his crimes, Vargas basically whines, “I was paying state and federal taxes…”

Perhaps Vargas should remember that simply paying taxes doesn’t make you American, nor does it make your actions justified. Perhaps Vargas should also consider that he was and continues to benefit from the taxes paid just like legal US citizens. Roads, fire protection, a federal military, etc. have all been available to him regardless of his being unlawful.

Vargas claims the license meant a great deal to him because it allowed him to drive, travel by plane and work. What is he doing now? How is he able to make it to all those television interviews to promote his new book? If he is using that license (or a new one since that license was set to expire last year), should he not be stopped by the TSA when trying to board a plane? Or perhaps the television shows or stations are flying him by private jet? Still, it begs the question, “how has he not been arrested for repeatedly breaking the law and being so open about it?”

Vargas has worked as an employee for the Washington Post, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Philadelphia Daily News and the Huffington Post, all with the help of falsified documents. He has also likely been paid as a freelance writer/contributor and has made documentary films, which aren’t free. I wonder if he’s ever filled out a 1099 form and turned it in to the IRS by April 15th? If so, I wouldn’t believe its truthfulness.

To see the beat down Lou Dobbs gives this guy, click here.

Obama has announced that his administration’s policy is to no longer enforce our country’s immigration laws. The new policy will encourage agents to suspend deportation proceedings and grant amnesty to those who meet the criteria of the Dream Act. So the administration is declaring that federal agents will ensure our laws are not executed faithfully. “This grant of deferred action is not immunity, it is not amnesty. It is an exercise of discretion so that these young people are not in the removal system,” said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. Hey Janet, can I get in on that “exercise of discretion” as well?

In September, 2011, Obama said, “I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce ….”

Speaking of “laws on the books that I have to enforce,” here is what the US Constitution says about the president’s role in law enforcement. In Article II (The Executive Branch), section 3, it states: “… he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed ….” The Constitution clearly says “the Laws.” It doesn’t say a word about laws he chooses, or about policies based on those laws.

Whatever happened to “no American is above the law?” Whatever happened to “equal treatment under the law?” Whatever happened to “justice is blind?” Oh, wait. I just realized that Eric Holder, an Obama appointee, heads our US Department of Justice, so Obama can act with impunity, but I can’t.

Since we now have proof that Obama is not enforcing ALL laws passed by Congress, will impeachment calls from the MSM and prominent Democrats be forthcoming? There certainly were calls when George W. Bush was president. The US Constitution, in Article II, section 4, states: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” So I guess the interpretation is now whether not enforcing a law rises to the level of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment, but the trial is conducted by the Senate.

Representative Cynthia McKinney (D – GA) was anxious to impeach George W. Bush in 2006. Will she be as anxious with Obama? McKinney, said (among other things) in her statement to Congress:

We have a President who has misgoverned and a Congress that has refused to hold him accountable. It is a grave situation and I believe the stakes for our country are high.

No American is above the law, and if we allow a President to violate, at the most basic and fundamental level, the trust of the people and then continue to govern, without a process for holding him accountable-what does that say about our commitment to the truth? To the Constitution? To our democracy?

The trust of the American people has been broken. And a process must be undertaken to repair this trust. This process must begin with honesty and accountability.

I am not willing to put any political party before my principles.

This, instead, is about beginning the long road back to regaining the high standards of truth and democracy upon which our great country was founded.

I’m betting that none of today’s Democrats will remember anything McKinney said in her statement. Impeachment calls by McKinney, Democrats, and the MSM were based on perceptions and political disagreements, not on provable facts, as is what Obama is now doing.

I guess the question now is, “Does Obama think he is a king, an imperial president, and is above the law?” Dr. Charles Krauthammer said, “This [Obama's immigration policy] ought to be in the hands of Congress, and it is an end-run. What’s ironic of course is for eight years, the Democrats have been screaming about the imperial presidency with the Bush administration, the nonsense about the unitary executive. This is out-and-out lawlessness.”

Obama’s dismissal of our nation’s laws is, at best, an outrage. Congress should take immediate steps to stop Obama’s imperial and near dictatorial actions. And Democrats and the MSM should also oppose his acts. Otherwise when George Romney wins in November, he could have quite a few precedents to follow. And expect Democrats and the MSM to shout the loudest if Romney does anything they don’t like, such as follow any precedents Obama has set.

To paraphrase George Orwell, “Some citizens are more equal than others.”

But that’s just my opinion.

This policy basically institutes the highly contentious DREAM Act, which would create a path towards citizenship for illegal immigrants who attended college or served in the military. The DREAM Act has come before Congress on multiple occasions, but has failed to pass.

This policy is ridiculous for two reasons. One, it is unconstitutional. All legislative powers in this country are granted to Congress, not the president. This new immigration policy is an edict – the president telling the rest of the government what they shall and shall not do. It is disturbingly dictatorial.

Secondly, the very premise on which the law rests is paradoxical. The policy grants work visas to illegal immigrants who have led law-abiding lives since their arrival in the country. They are illegal immigrants; their presence in the country is in itself a crime. Furthermore, this policy, which basically grants amnesty to illegal immigrants, will be nothing but a magnet, drawing more illegals into the country. This not only undermines the economy and undermines our national defense, but seriously hurts legal immigrants who come to this country, work hard and obey the laws, in the hopes that they can gain citizenship.

Between 2010 and 2011, the U.S. population increased by 0.7 percent, after averaging 0.9 percent growth each year from 2000 through 2010, reported Mark Mather, PRB associate vice president for Domestic Programs.  We added just 2.3 million people from 2010 to 2011, compared with 2.9 million from 2005 to 2006, just five years earlier.

The current decline is a “significant departure” from recent trends but “it’s too soon to tell whether it will continue or is a short-term result of the recession,” he said.

The U.S. population is currently projected to reach “majority-minority” status (the point at which less than 50 percent of the population is non-Hispanic white) in 2042. But a sustained drop in immigration levels and fertility rates would slow the pace of minority population growth.

Drop in Immigration: Between 2010 and 2011, net migration was estimated at around 700,000, down from 1.4 million per year in 2000 and 2001. This decline contributes to slower growth in the Latino and Asian American populations, and has been linked to job losses in occupations often filled by recent immigrants, as well as stricter immigration law enforcement.

Population Aging:  Between 2010 and 2011, the number of children declined by 190,000, while the number of elderly increased by 917,000; just a decade ago we added more children than elderly. Also down sharply is growth in the number of working-age adults, including those in prime childbearing ages. With more baby boomers retiring and fewer people of reproductive age, births could decline further, and the United States could start to resemble elderly-heavy, slow-growth European countries, Mather noted.

Declining Fertility Rates: There were an estimated 4 million births between 2010 and 2011, down from 4.2 million at the recent peak of U.S. population growth between 2005 and 2006. The total fertility rate (TFR) stood at an average of 2.0 lifetime births per woman in 2009—down from 2.1 a few years ago—but preliminary data from the National Center for Health Statistics suggest that the TFR could drop below 2 births per woman in 2010. Births among Latina women, a group with historically high fertility rates, could drop below 2.5 per woman in the near future.