Wednesday, May 31, 2006

CAN YOU SAY SEDITION

Fahrenheit Jimmy Carter

Bakr bin Ladin: FoCIn breaking news from CanadaFreePress, Judi McLeod reports: “Ex-U.S. President Jimmy Carter is in league with Osama bin Laden.

A paper trail shows that more than $1 million has been funneled from Bakr M. Bin Laden on behalf of the Saudi Bin Laden Group to The Carter Center.”

That’s an impressive bit of investigative journalism that comes your way, not courtesy of the New York Times and company, but from Melanie Morgan, Chairman, Censure Carter Committee.

“An investigation by the Censure Carter Committee into the financing for The Carter Center of Atlanta, Georgia founded by President Carter and his wife to advance his “Blame America First” policies reveals that over $1,000,000 has been funneled from Bakr M. Bin Laden for the Saudi Bin Laden Group to the Carter Center,” says Censure Carter.Com in a mainstream media-ignored recent media release.

“In fact, an online report accuses former President Carter of meeting with 10 of Osama Bin Laden’s brothers early in 2000, Carter and his wife, Rosalyn followed up their meeting with a breakfast with Bakr Bin Laden in September 2000 and secured the first $200,000 towards the more than $1 million that has been received by the Carter Center.” [Read the full story]


UPDATE: (via CensureCarter.com)

Today, Wednesday May 31st, Fox News Channel’s “The Big Story w/ John Gibson” will report on the revelation that former President Jimmy Carter’s “Carter Center” in Atlanta, Georgia has received over $1,000,000 in funding from the family of Osama Bin Ladin. The information was collected by the Censure Carter Committee - a project of the pro-troop non-profit group, Move America Forward.

The report will be broadcast at approximately 5:45 PM Eastern / 2:45 PM Pacific.

This is in addition to tens of millions of dollars in funding from Arab governments who are appreciative of Carter’s anti-Israeli stance and Carter’s opposition to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East including opposing Operation Iraqi Freedom and opposing the Bush Administration’s war on terrorism.

In 2005, Move America Forward discovered that ex-President Carter had ties to Iraqi Agent, Samir Vincent, who admitted to participating in the massive Oil for Food scam, as an Iraqi Intelligence Service agent who reported directly to Saddam Hussein. Carter was an avowed critic of sanctions against Iraq.

Carter’s associates even invited Samir Vincent to serve on the Board of Directors of their company, A World of Friends, Inc.

GENO'S SAYS: SPEAK ENGLISH

genos.jpg

If you know Philadelphia, you know Geno's. Best cheesesteaks in the world. Reader Willie S. sends word via the Philly Inquirer that Joey Vento, the grandson of Italian-born immigrants who owns Geno's, is taking a stand for assimilation and against illegal immigration. The Inquirer does its best to knock down Vento, but his blunt Philly style overrides the paper's wishy-washy open-borders slant:

How do you say cheesesteak with in Spanish?

Joseph Vento, the owner of Geno's Steaks, doesn't know. And he doesn't care.

Just read the laminated signs, festooned with American eagles, at his South Philadelphia cheesesteak emporium: This is America. When Ordering, Speak English.

Vento's political statement - from a man whose Italian-born grandparents spoke only broken English - captures the anger and discontent felt by many Americans about illegal immigrants...

...The Ventos rarely left their South Philadelphia neighborhood. Now, in a way, the neighborhood has left the couple's descendants. Geno's sits at Ninth and Passyunk, the hub of Little Italy turned home to thousands of Mexicans.

Some try to order a cheesesteak. And it bugs Vento if they can't ask for American cheese, provolone or the classic - Cheez Whiz - without pointing.

"If you can't tell me what you want, I can't serve you," he said. "It's up to you. If you can't read, if you can't say the word cheese, how can I communicate with you - and why should I have to bend?

"I got a business to run."

Vento, who lives in Shamong, put up the signs when the immigration debate seized national headlines six months ago.

With Geno's Steaks tattooed on his arm, Vento is used to publicizing things, especially what's on his mind. Speak English signs also poster his Hummer. He has driven through South Philadelphia blaring through the SUV's P.A. system denunciations of neighborhood business owners who hire illegal immigrants.

"I say what everybody's thinking but is afraid to say," Vento said.

Oh, man, I have half a mind to drive up for a "cheesesteak with" at Geno's right now.

genos002.jpg

genos003.jpg

Mmmmm.

***

Flashback...John Kerry demonstrates how not to eat a cheesesteak:

kerrybites.jpg

If Sen. John F. Kerry's presidential aspirations melt like a dollop of Cheez Whiz in the sun, the trouble may well be traced to an incident in South Philadelphia on Monday.

There, the Massachusetts Democrat went to Pat's Steaks and ordered a cheesesteak -- with Swiss cheese. If that weren't bad enough, the candidate asked photographers not to take his picture while he ate the sandwich; shutters clicked anyway, and Kerry was caught nibbling daintily at his sandwich -- another serious faux pas.

"It will doom his candidacy in Philadelphia," predicted Craig LaBan, food critic for the Philadelphia Inquirer, which broke the Sandwich Scandal. After all, Philly cheesesteaks come with Cheez Whiz, or occasionally American or provolone. But Swiss cheese? "In Philadelphia, that's an alternative lifestyle," LaBan explained.

Tuesday, May 30, 2006

THE DIFFERENCE A DAY MAKES

What happened in a day? After all, the AP ran a story titled “Democrats Eye November Landslide”. Of course, it was filled with caveats how this landslide might not even take Republicans out of power in the House. (Question: If they’re talking landslide, how is it that they might screw it up and not even retake the House? After all, landslides are pretty overwhelming events, characterized with lots of proof beforehand.) That headline is refuted by the Washington Times’ Donald Lambro’s article this morning. His article is titled “Takeover of House, Senate not likely”.

“The 2006 midterm elections are a political analyst’s nightmare. The national climate seems to portend big changes, yet race-by-race analyses reveal formidable odds against a Democratic takeover of either the House or the Senate,” veteran elections tracker Charlie Cook says in his latest National Journal election preview.

Charlie, there’s a reason for that. The generic ballot is worthless in predicting the outcomes of elections. It’s the equivalent of the right track/wrong track numbers. Secondly, there’s an anti-incumbent mood but it’s mostly people not liking other peoples’ incumbents.

It’s kinda like when people are asked about the economy and they say the outlook’s gloomy. Then they’re asked if they’ve got a job. The person says that he’s got a job and isn’t worried about losing it but he’s worried that other neighbors might lose their jobs. The gloom is based on the perception that the media is portraying, not reality.

Let’s admit something else here, too, Charlie. The generic Democrat is always more appealing than the reality Democrat. The generic Democrat is filled with all the things that that voter likes and doesn’t carry the baggage that a real Democrat will.

Finally, let’s remind ourselves of something hugely important in all this, namely that campaigns matter. Here in Minnesota, Amy Klobuchar hasn’t been an effective campaigner thus far. Can she turn it around? Possibly, though I doubt it. She talks too much in ‘bureaucratspeak’. On the other hand, Mark Kennedy talks in what might be best titled ‘mainstreetspeak’.

Ms. Klobuchar dodges issues like they’re the plague. Just think back to Friday night’s debate with Ford Bell. It was like pulling teeth before Ms. Klobuchar said she prefered a Canadian-style healthcare plan. It’s that type of thing that caused me to write something titled Does Klobuchar Stand For Anything? It doesn’t appear she does.

Klobuchar’s campaign website has a page titled Amy on the Issues. I predict that you won’t know more about Klobuchar’s stand on the issues any better after you’ve read it. Here’s a sampling of what’s found there:

Securing our Nation and Changing Course in Iraq

Whether it was their categorical (but false) assertions about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or their repeated (but unsupported) claims of Iraq’s ties to Al Qaeda, or their frequent (but untrue) assurances that America would go to war only with broad international support, or their constant (but divisive) attempts to “spin” the war by going after those who disagreed with them, the Bush-Cheney administration did not give honest information to the American people. This conduct has not only damaged America’s credibility throughout the world, but also undermined the American people’s confidence in our own government.

Klobuchar did say that she didn’t support going to war with Iraq. She devoted one sentence to that. She immediately launched into a “Bush lied, people died” diatribe.

This sounds like the typical response by Democrats. It’s certainly what Rahm Emanuel was peddling in his LA Times op-ed this weekend.

That’s why Democrats won’t retake control of either chamber of Congress.

“Democrats have a remote chance of winning,” Mr. Cook says. Making matters worse, the Democrats were able to recruit only second- or third-tier challengers in many key districts where the Republicans looked vulnerable.

As opposed to the GOP recruiting Michele Bachmann types to run in Republican open seats. Frankly, that’s a substantial disadvantage to the Democrats and it isn’t being talked about by the national media. That’s why you need to get your election analysis from blogs like this one and from the indispensible KvM, Bachmann v. Wetterling and MDE, though this list isn’t comprehensive by any means. A new blog that’s a surefire winner is Powerline BOTW Wizbang Politics, featuring Lorie Byrd and Alex McClure.

At the end of the day, Democrats will be crying in their beer and dreaming up nutty conspiracy theories as to how the Republicans ’stole the election.

MORE FROM THE DEMOCRATS' CULTURE OF CORRUPTION

Representative Nancy Pelosi must be very confused. While she continues to harp about the few Republicans caught in scandals, those of her own party keep getting caught. First it was William Jefferson, now it’s the most powerful Democrat in the Senate, Minority Leader Harry Reid. CNN.com has the story, claiming that Harry Reid accepted ring-side tickets to three Boxing matches in Nevada, provided by officials from the Nevada Athletic Commission. These gifts were provided while Sen. Reid was pushing legislation to increase boxing oversight, something that would undoubtedly hurt the Nevada Athletic Commission.

Senate ethics rules generally allow lawmakers to accept gifts from federal, state or local governments, but specifically warn against taking such gifts — particularly on multiple occasions — when they might be connected to efforts to influence official actions

Nonetheless, Sen. Reid defended the gifts, claiming that it was “research”. Research led him to accept the gift, and research required him to go on multiple occassions.

Two senators who joined Reid for fights with the complimentary tickets took markedly differently steps.

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, insisted on paying $1,400 for his ticket when he joined Reid for a 2004 championship fight. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nevada, accepted free tickets to another fight with Reid but had abstained from taking any votes or actions on the boxing bill because his father was an executive for a Las Vegas hotel that hosts fights.

It seems while Sen. Reid abused the ethics rules, two Republican Senators went out of their way to maintain professionalism, shelling out their own money for their ticket, or abstaining from voting due to a conflict of interest.

This is not the first accusation of scandal made against a DC Democrat, nor is it the first for Sen. Reid. Reid has been involved in the Abramoff investigation, though he has maintained his innocence and refused to return contributions made by Abramoff and his clients. It appears as though Reid had close connections to Abramoff, though the investigation is still underway and no formal charges have been made.

With the recent scandal involving William Jefferson accepting bribes, and all of Sen. Reid’s troubles, perhaps Pelosi and the Democrats better think think twice before throwing stones.

Cross-posted by The Gentle Cricket

UPDATE: On a satirical note…
Scott Ott: “Reid Enters 30-Day Clinic for Corruption Culture”

Assorted Babble by Suzie linked with Ring Side for Reid

Monday, May 29, 2006

FREEDOM IS NOT FREE

memcf.jpg

The National Moment of Remembrance takes place at 3pm local time today for one minute. Our minute-long tribute over at Hot Air is here.


La Shawn Barber
shares reflections.

Castle Argghhh! has a three-part Memorial Day series. Start here.

Take time to read the Mudville Gazette and Milblogs, where Wynton Hall issues a challenge:

Attention all enterprising milbloggers:

CNN's "victims or villains only” portrayal of our military notwithstanding, CNN has now graciously invited us, the unwashed peasantry, to submit photos, videos, and stories about our men and women in-country. How cool would it be to flood the CNN inbox with milblogger stories and photos, all of which would provide a markedly more positive and uplifting view of those who serve?

Let the revolution begin...

Op-For has President Reagan's tribute to the troops at Normandy. Dustin Hawkins has more memorable Memorial Day speeches.

Joe Malchow spotlights Memorial Day video of Zell Miller.

Val Prieto
pays tribute:

"I am humbled and ever greatful for those who gave their all so that a 4 year old Cuban child would be able to grow to be a free American man."

***

Haditha is casting a pall on this day, and it cannot be ignored. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, told CBS:

"[I]t would be premature for me to judge" the outcome of a Pentagon investigation into the killing of as many as a dozen Iraqi civilians by Marines.

But at the same time, Marine Gen. Peter Pace said he believes its critically important to make the point that if certain service members are responsible for an atrocity there, they "have not performed their duty the way that 99.9 percent of their fellow Marines have."


Time magazine , which initially reported accounts of the alleged atrocities to the military, has a new article up on an alleged cover-up:
With the U.S. struggling to hold on to public support for the war and no end to the insurgency in sight, the prospect of possible indictments has induced an aching dread among military and government officials. As the military launched another probe--into the April 26 killing of an Iraqi civilian by Marines--General Michael Hagee, commandant of the Marine Corps, headed to Iraq to address Marines on the growing crisis. Marine Corps public-affairs director Brigadier General Mary Ann Krusa-Dossin says the allegations "have caused serious concern at the highest levels" of the corps.

A military source in Iraq told TIME that investigators have obtained two sets of photos from Haditha. The first is after-action photos taken by the military as part of the routine procedure that follows any such event. Submitted in the official report on the fighting, the photos do not show any bodies. Investigators have also discovered a second, more damning set of photos, taken by Marines of the Kilo Company immediately after the shootings. The source says it isn't clear if these photos were held back from the after-action report or were personal snapshots taken by the Marines. The source says a Marine e-mailed at least one photo to a friend in the U.S. Almost as damaging as the alleged massacre may be evidence that the unit's members and their superiors conspired to cover it up...

...Members of Congress, as well as military sources, have confirmed the critical details of TIME's initial report--that after gunning down the five fleeing the taxi, a few members of Kilo Company moved through four homes along nearby streets, killing 19 men, women and children. The Marines contend they took small-arms fire from at least one house, but as TIME's story detailed in March, only one of the 19 victims was found with a weapon.

The day after the killings, an Iraqi journalism student videotaped the scene at a local morgue and the homes where the shootings had occurred. "You could tell they were enraged," the student, Taher Thabet, said last week. "They not only killed people, they smashed furniture, tore down wall hangings, and when they took prisoners, they treated them very roughly. This was not a precise military operation." A delegation of angry village elders complained to senior Marines in Haditha about the killings but were rebuffed with the excuse that the raid had been a mistake. TIME learned about the Haditha action in January, when it obtained a copy of Thabet's videotape from an Iraqi human-rights group. But a Marine spokesman brushed off any inquiries. "To be honest," Marine Captain Jeff Pool e-mailed McGirk, "I cannot believe you're buying any of this. This falls into the same category of AQI (al-Qaeda in Iraq) propaganda." In late January, TIME gave a copy of the videotape to Colonel Barry Johnson, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad. After reviewing it, he recommended a formal investigation. The ensuing probe, conducted by a colonel, concluded that Marines, not a bomb, killed the civilians but that the deaths were the result of "collateral damage," not deliberate homicide. Nevertheless, after reviewing the initial probe, senior military officials launched a criminal investigation.

A military source in Iraq says the men of Kilo Company stuck by their story throughout the initial inquiry, but what they told the first military investigator raised suspicions. One of the most glaring discrepancies involved the shooting of the four students and the taxi driver. "They had no weapons, they didn't show hostile intent, so why shoot them?" the military source says. Khaled Raseef, a spokesman for the victims' relatives, says U.S. military investigators visited the alleged massacre sites 15 times and "asked detailed questions, examined each bullet hole and burn mark and took all sorts of measurements. In the end, they brought all the survivors to the homes and did a mock-up of the Marines' movements." As the detectives found contradictions in the Marines' account, "the official story fell apart and people started rolling on each other," says the military source.

Military sources told TIME that the first probe is focusing on the unit's leader, who was at the scene of virtually every shooting that day in Haditha. Pentagon officials say the sergeant has served more than seven years in the corps and was on his first Iraq tour. At least two other enlisted men may be directly involved, Pentagon officials say, and perhaps as many as nine others in the 13-man unit witnessed the shootings but neither attempted to step in nor reported them later...

Lt Ilario Pantano, the Marine I mentioned Friday who was unjustly accused of murder, comments on Rep. John Murtha's rush to judgment. I also note that a GOP congressman, Rep. John Kline of Minnesota, is talking to the press before the official report is out:

Representative John Kline, a Minnesota Republican who is a retired Marine colonel, said that the allegations indicated that "this was not an accident. This was direct fire by marines at civilians." He added, "This was not an immediate response to an attack. This would be an atrocity."


A Senate panel
will investigate the incident at Haditha.

Allah Pundit (also here) and the Telegraph have more on survivor accounts. The NYTimes also has more, with this caveat:

Four people who identified themselves as survivors of the killings in Haditha, including some who had never spoken publicly, described the killings to an Iraqi writer and historian who was recruited by The New York Times to travel to Haditha and interview survivors and witnesses of what military officials have said appear to be unjustified killings of two dozen Iraqis by marines. Some in Congress fear the killings could do greater harm to the image of the United States military around the world than the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.

The four survivors' accounts could not be independently corroborated, and it was unclear in some cases whether they actually saw the killings.

The Marine who died at Haditha that day after a roadside IED exploded was Marine Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas.

terrazas002.jpg


The El Paso Times
reported in November:

Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, a Mountain View High School graduate who had been recognized for bravery under fire before he was killed Friday in Iraq, was remembered as a family- oriented man who always had a smile on his face.

Despite success in school, Terrazas, 20, felt it was his duty to join the Marines, following a family tradition, said Rosario Terrazas, the Marine's paternal aunt who spoke for the family Monday.

"He felt that that was what he needed to do in his life (join the Marines) to protect his family and his country," Rosario Terrazas said. "He made us very proud of him. ... I was pushing him toward college, but he said that wasn't his route."

Terrazas said her nephew always looked on the positive side of things and looked forward to family fishing trips. "He was going to do his four years (in the Marines) and he wanted to attend school to get into some kind of law- enforcement agency," she said. "Then he wanted marriage and kids."

The family was told that Miguel Terrazas was driving a Humvee that crashed after it was hit by an improvised explosive device set along the road, his aunt said. It was Terrazas' second tour in Iraq.

During his first tour, Terrazas received a commendation for bravery.

On Aug. 18, 2004, after an ambush that started with the detonation of an improvised explosive device, he quickly moved to high ground and accurately reported the battlefield situation, according to the commendation. As the designated marksman, he shot an escaping insurgent, disabling him and ending the threat to his fellow Marines.

Rick Moran:

Is the war effort going to be further undermined because of the actions of 13 out of the hundreds of thousands of honorable men and women who have sacrificed so much, given so much, endured so much in this cause? Can the lickspittles who couldn’t give a good goddamn about the Iraqi people or our military and who only want to hang George Bush and see this incident as another way to attack their political enemies be prevented from making Haditha a code word for failure?

Not if I have anything to say about it.

Sunday, May 28, 2006

MYTHS AND HALF-TRUTHS ABOUT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

MYTH: America has lots of room to double the population (The U.S. Census Bureau says that the U.S. population will double this century).

TRUTH: The open spaces one sees from an airplane are not where the 260 million new immigrants and their families will settle. They will settle in the already overcrowded urban areas of the country just like they always have. Much of America's open spaces are occupied by food production for our own people and to sustain tens of millions of people in other countries. Open spaces are also part of our national heritage of parks and wilderness. A U.S. Census spokesman recently said we shouldn't be very crowded even at twice the population because we still will have only about a fourth the density of England. This irresponsible "trick" statement averages our open spaces, much of which is farmland, parks, and otherwise uninhabitable land, into the equation. In the sections of the country where most Americans live, we are already very much as crowded as are Europeans. And do we want to live like Europeans who centuries ago destroyed most of their wild areas.


MYTH: Americans won't do the work that illegals do.

TRUTH: Prior to 1965 when the disastrous Immigration Bill was passed, there was very little immigration. In fact, between 1925 and 1965, there was even a period of net emigration out of the United States. During this time, our grass was getting cut, our meat was being packed, our children were being watched and our houses were being cleaned. The idea that somehow we suddenly can't run a country without an unlimited supply of foreigners is absurd.

Those in favor of foreign labor are corporations who are addicted to cheap labor. They are the ones who are benefiting. But their benefit comes at the American tax payer's expense when you consider that the American tax payer is virtually subsidizing the labor costs of the greedy corporations by supplying the illegal foreign workers and their families with welfare, free education, free medical, WICs, housing assistance, etc. -- something the corporations won't do.

Americans won't allow themselves to be exploited like illegals do, but they WILL do the work that illegals do for fair compensation and benefits. If Americans did the work that illegals do at higher pay, would that benefit the consumer? You bet it would in the long run. But many Americans who do not care about America's future are consumers who favor the idea of exploiting illegal workers because it keeps commodity and service prices down in the short term.


HALF TRUTH: illegals eventually become assimilated Americans.

TRUTH: Many do. But Most third world illegals come to the U.S. for personal economic reasons. Most do not come to cherish our democratic system. Many so called "immigration rights" groups "fan the fire" with their rhetoric which encourages immigrants to preserve their culture and language at tax payers expense. Among some of these groups, the word "assimilation" is considered xenophobic. When ultimately illegal immigrants and/or their children do become voting citizens, many vote in blocks (Mexican-American, El Salvadoran-American, Guatemalan-American, etc.), not for the good of America, but for personal economic gain usually at the expense of another group.


HALF TRUTH: Illegal aliens are better off in the U.S. doing lousy menial jobs than they are in their own country.

TRUTH: That may be true for the Illegal aliens in the short run (and businesses that hire them), but for many "undocumented immigrants" (Mexicans make up the majority), the "American legacy of exploitation of immigrants" remains in the minds of their children for many generations to come creating resentment of America and hinders assimilation of even their American born offspring. Resentment of America has created anti-American organizations such as MECHA whose nationwide college and high school members must pledge their support to forcefully take back what they call "Aztlan," the U.S. Southwest ceded in 1846 to the U.S. in the Mexican War.


HALF TRUTH: Illegal aliens pay taxes that benefit the economy.

TRUTH: Most illegal aliens do not receive a typical paycheck with tax deductions -- they are paid in cash and do not pay taxes. Even when they do pay taxes (only possible if they use fraudulent social security numbers or government assigned ID tax numbers), their meager income is not enough to pay for medical expenses and all the expenses for all the children they give birth to. You don't have to look at statistics -- just visit the maternal ward at the L.A. county hospital. There, illegal immigrant women are having thousands of children per year free of charge and can't afford them once they give birth, and that doesn't stop them from having even more children -- most learn how to work the system so that they receive cash assistance and food stamps.

A basic principle in economics is this: The more people that assimilate into the system the better -- if it creates a larger tax base. But here in California it hasn't. For example, the feds had to bail out the L.A. County hospital system several years ago and the county hospitals are now again headed for another crisis. The evidence shows that the net results are that illegal immigrants cost the taxpayer significantly more than they pay in taxes.


HALF TRUTH: Illegal aliens have a good work ethics.

TRUTH: It depends on what one means by "work ethic." If it means that illegals will allow themselves to be exploited, then they have a good work ethic. If it means that a group of day laborers would be consciences in the assembly of precision built automobiles, it might get an argument. But it is irrelevant if an illegal alien has a good work ethic -- they are working illegally!


MYTH: Illegal aliens don't affect politics because they can't vote.

TRUTH: Just by being counted in the census, illegals give political power to special groups. Many illegals fraudulently vote anyway and there is strong evidence that some key elections have been upset by illegal voters. Politicians represent the "people" even if those people are illegal aliens. Since the number of representatives in congress is fixed, any increase in population in California, for example, due to illegal immigration will require more representation for that group while taking away representation from people in other states. Most politicians that represent areas of large illegal population, vote in the interest of illegal aliens since they are the ones they represent. On the state level, it is clear that politicians like Governor Davis, California Speaker of the House Antonio Villaraigosa, California Senator Hilda Solis, California Assemblyman Gilbert A. Cedillo, etc., all want laws changed in the interest of illegal aliens.


MYTH: illegals go to illegal unlicensed medical clinics run by unlicensed quacks because they have no other alternative and because they are afraid of being deported.

TRUTH: Illegals know that they won't be deported simply for seeking medical help -- thousands go for free medical help every day. Obviously, the thousands of illegals who give birth in our county hospitals do not seem to be worried about deportation after their free delivery. The real reason many unsophisticated Hispanic illegals don't go to "free" medical facilities is because they actually trust "curanderos" ( type of witch doctors popular in Mexico) over licensed medical doctors.


HALF TRUTH: Illegals come to the U.S. for jobs to support their families, and wives and kids in there homeland.

TRUTH: Many do. But record numbers of those wives and kids are sneaking over the border to join their breadwinner in the U.S. But most alarming, is the record numbers of dead-beat dads that find an easy escape from their responsibilities in their homeland and in fact abandon their families. There is also strong empirical evidence that even illegal aliens who had good jobs in their homeland still want to be in the U.S. -- most of the world's people want to come to the U.S. because it is a very good place to be for many more reasons than just for a job.


MYTH: Pete Wilson's attitude towards illegal aliens stifled trade with Mexico. Governor Davis will change that.

TRUTH: Trade from California to Mexico increased 84.5 percent between 1992 and 1997 and did more trading with Mexico than any other state including Texas - all during the central years of the Wilson administration.


MYTH: Proposition 187 is unconstitutional because governor Davis says so.

TRUTH: Maybe 187 is unconstitutional. But it is not for the governor of California to decide that. That decision must come from the U.S. supreme court. Davis has preempted the supreme court and snubbed his nose at the voters of California by deciding on his own that 187 is unconstitutional -- contradicting a statement he made to the voters "I'm a governor, not a judge."


MYTH: The cost of not educating undocumented children is higher than the cost of educating them.

TRUTH: This kind of statement is absurd. It assumes that disallowing illegal alien children into our schools and/or deporting them is not an option. The idea that undocumented children are being punished for the bad deeds of their parents is ludicrous. Undocumented children already have citizenship in another country that is responsible for their education. California schools have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding who gets to go to school. This policy is a powerful magnet that attracts illegals to California. The costs are enormous. Undocumented children are being rewarded, not punished.

Few disagrees that if the current rate of illegal immigration continues, a school a day will have to be built to accommodate the undocumented children and citizen children of undocumented parents.


MYTH: Record public school enrollment on a national level of 17.5 percent from 1983 to 1997, is a result of Baby Boomers.

TRUTH: Current Population Surveys (such as reported in the January 1999 Backgrounder) shows that 15.9 percent of the school-age population growth in 1997 had immigrant mothers. In California, officials say a new school each day -- or a new classroom an hour -- is needed to keep up with the growth (Since immigrants are just as likely (even more likely) than natives to go to public school, it's clear that nearly all the increase in public school enrollment over the past 15 years is due to federal immigration policy, not the Baby Boom generation.


MYTH: Issuing California driver's licenses to illegal aliens will make our roads safer because they would be trained to drive safely and would have insurance.

TRUTH: Giving illegal aliens driver's licenses will only make enforcement of our immigrant laws more difficult -- it would make it harder to detect them. It also "throws in the towel" and sends the wrong message to illegal aliens that they can change the law by breaking the law. Society must assume that anyone who would break the law and drive without a license, would continue to break driving and other laws even if they were licensed and most would not be any safer drivers. Moreover, it is laughable to think that these illegal aliens are going to run out and buy car insurance (one of more profitable documents now being sold to illegals, are fraudulent "proof of insurance" documents).


MYTH: Lack of academic achievement and high school dropout rates are caused by the poor economic conditions of immigrants.

TRUTH: This belief is another one of those "just accept this as truth" cliches." Poverty in itself does not cause school dropouts. This was proven in a report in Scientific American magazine (Indochinese Refugee Families and Academic Achievement, February, 1992). The article showed that many refugees from Southeast Asia with large families arrived in the U.S. with little more than the clothes on their backs and with no exposure to Western culture or knowledge of the English language. Yet their children display stunning scholastic achievement in American schools. In the U.S., the effect of poverty on education has been focused mainly on two ethnic groups, Black and Hispanics. Ironically, these groups have the most representation by their "leaders" who's livings depend on bringing high visibility to the children's penurious conditions -- instead of emphasis on the hard work it takes to succeed in academics.

But for the sake of argument, if poverty of immigrants is the cause of their lack of academic acheivement, why would the U.S. want to import poverty.


MYTH: Since illegal alien farm workers come to the U.S. for "jobs Americans won't take," they would not present a problem if they were given temporary visas to allow them to work the fields and then return to Mexico (or other country).

TRUTH: Millions of illegal alien workers who could be doing all the farm work that "Americans won't do" are already in the U.S. Almost all illegals who come to work the fields do not make a career of low paying, hard working farm jobs. The belief that only pitiful third world laborers can be content in doing menial farm work is obviated when it is seen that almost all of these workers sooner or later "head for the city" for the better jobs.


HALF TRUTH: Illegals are enjoying the fruit of the recent great American robust economy.

TRUTH: While many Americans are benefiting from a robust economy, government data shows that record numbers of Americans are falling into poverty in spite of overall good economic conditions -- and in spite of 35 years of record government spending on social programs. This down slide can be directly linked to illegals flooding the low scale job market -- virtually importing poverty faster than it can be irradiated. Had there not been any massive illegal immigration in the past 20 years, poverty in much of America may well have been reduced significantly.


MYTH: Employers are solely responsible for illegal immigration because they attract illegals by providing low paying jobs.

TRUTH: Illegals are directly responsible for their illegal presence. Blaming the entire problem on employers for illegal immigration is like blaming a women for her own rape because she dressed to sexy and the rapist couldn't resist her.


HALF TRUTH: Hispanic immigrants are family oriented and very religious catholics.

TRUTH: The vast majority of illegal entries from across our southern border are unsophisticated, poor, and uneducated, who do not necessarily hold to strong family values or the Catholic faith. This is evident by U.S. statistics showing that while unwed teenage pregnancy in the U.S. is decreasing as a whole, Latina unwed teenage pregnancy is on the rise. The illegal immigrants of today are not all the honest, hard working, American dream seekers. This is evident by record numbers of dead-beat dads who walk away from their responsibilities to their children by leaving their homeland and simply crossing the border.


MYTH: If the U.S. pumps money into Mexico and other third world countries for the purpose of improving their economies, it will create jobs thus eliminating the need to illegally immigrate to the U.S.

TRUTH: The only way that the improvement of other countries' economies would appreciably stop illegal immigration to the U.S., is if those countries' economies were to become as strong as that of the U.S. Thousands of visa over stayers from non-third world countries like Canada, France, Israel, are also part of the illegal immigration problem and those countries have good economies. The U.S. is not the only country to which illegal immigrants seek to immigrate. Countries all over the world are experiencing illegal immigration driven by "wanting a better life." As soon as Third World countries become even only a little bit more prosperous than their neighbors, they rush to keep strangers out. Mexico, for example, does not tolerate its border violations by Guatemalans. Malaysia recently announced that in the case of repeat offenders, it will flog illegal aliens, their employers, and anyone who smuggles them into the country. In early January, 2000, over 35,000 illegal Zimbabwean workers were tossed out Of South Africa. So forget it! The U.S. should be concerned with improving its own economy and strictly enforcing its immigration laws.


HALF TRUTH: Immigrants make good entrepreneurs.

TRUTH: The common belief that immigrants are natural entrepreneurs may have its roots in the observation of the thousands of illegal alien third world style illegal street venders now found in most large U.S. cities. This belief has been obviated by a wall street article in which recent data shows that native born Americans are more likely to be successful entrepreneurs. (Immigrant Entrepreneurs Slide From Their Top Spot, The Wall Street Journal, January 12, 1999).

IS THE U.S. SENATE INCOMPETENT OR DECEITFUL?

The so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act” (“CIRA”) being debated in the United States Senate is quite possibly one of the most far-reaching and dangerous pieces of legislation to be proposed in many years. It is unfortunate that it bears the names of two Republican Senators, Senator Hagel and Senator Martinez as sponsors and authors of a compromise supposed to improve it, but perhaps the publicity the bill is getting will cause the constituents of those Senators to reassess their support. Are these Senators and others in the Senate who are backing this bill unaware of the provisions of the bill or are they trying to dupe us with their politically correct statements designed to appeal to our charitable good nature? If the Senators don’t know the provisions of the bill or understand the impact of the bill, they are incompetent. If they know and understand, but are misleading the country, they are deceitful beyond words.

A little more than a week ago, Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, wrote an analysis of CIRA, stating that this bill, if enacted would be the most dramatic change in immigration law in 80 years, allowing an estimated 103 million persons to legally immigrate to the United States over the next 20 years. To put that into better perspective, that amounts to one-third of the current U.S. population.

Did any of the Senators sponsoring this proposed legislation tell us that they are proposing that over the next 20 years, immigrants equal to one-third of our current population would be allowed in? Not that I heard. And if they didn’t tell us this, what could be the reason? Perhaps they are too busy in front of the television cameras or raising money to read the proposed legislation. They leave such mundane tasks to their staffs or interest groups while they focus on perpetuating themselves in office.

The primary job of these senators is to represent their states and their constituents, which carries with it an obligation to inform themselves about legislation they are proposing or voting on. Since Mr. Rector’s paper created a great deal of interest when it was published and quickly circulated among conservative senators, it appears that many were not aware of the major dislocation that was about to be inflicted upon the country by these solons. If this is an example of how our senators operate, we should insist that every bill have an attachment whereby the senators certify that they have actually read the entire bill.

If these legislative wizards say that they actually read the proposed legislation, then the next question should be “Why didn’t you tell the American voters that your bill gives amnesty to 10 million illegal immigrants and quintuples the rate of legal immigration into the United States?” Any senator who candidly explains the ramifications of this bill in such terms is probably insuring his or her early retirement.

Mr. Rector in his research paper concluded that the CIRA legislation would “transform the United States” socially, economically, and politically, saying that “within two decades, the character of the nation would differ dramatically from what exists today.” Very few of our senators are telling us that our nation would be transformed dramatically if this legislation is enacted. Thankfully there are people and organizations who actually have read this flawed bill and tell us truthfully what the impact will be if it is passed.

If anyone thinks CIRA would benefit the nation, they need to read Mr. Rector’s analysis. Can any nation absorb an influx of one-third of its population in 20 years and survive as a nation, with substantially the same culture, institutions and traditions it had prior to such a massive inflow? Let’s stop kidding ourselves about allowing oppressed peopled to have a “better life” and other such emotion-laden phrases and think about what is really being attempted by some in the U.S. Senate. Whether this bill is the product of ignorance or deceit, its effect will be the same on all of us. When Mr. Rector says that “the character of the nation would differ dramatically from what exists today” he is being a little diplomatic and charitable. I think Merle Haggard could have put it a little more plainly—our country’s future will be “rollin’ downhill like a snowball headed for hell.”

Randall H. Nunn is a Staff Writer for The New Media Alliance. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

Saturday, May 27, 2006

ANCHOR BABIES: ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR ILLEGAL ALIEN FRAUD

Mexico does not allow foreigners to birth a child that then automatically becomes a citizen. In fact NO nation allows that.

In fact, Mexico doesn’t allow a foreigner — even if they become a citizen, to be an elected official, a Judge, law officer or firefighter! Yet, in our nation, a woman can sneak into this country, have a baby at the expense of the US taxpayers, get food stamps, health care and education for their children, ALL FOR FREE to her. Then when the first one becomes 21 years old, they can petition to allow the mother (and the father if he shows up, illegally) to become United States citizens. All the while honest people in other nations wait years and years to be allowed to come here, and more years to become citizens. [See “Anchors away,” by Mona Charen below] Of course, how do we prove these are the parents? Will the US taxpayer have to pay for DNA testing? Remember, these are no honest people we are dealing with, these are folks who sneaked into our nation, use phony Social Security cards, steal social services from honest, needy citizens. Will there will a black market in “parents”, where a 21 year old sells the right to be his parent, so they can become citizens — how about $5,000 or $10,000 to cut in line? What would another lie mean, or more violations of our laws?

If President Bush wants a “comprehensive” immigration plan (it is not an immigration plan, that we already have. It is an amnesty plan he is pushing in the US Senate — to create rules to allow law breakers to be rewarded for violating our laws) than it must also fix the “Anchor baby” problem and end the “right” to petition to allow law breakers to validate criminal activity by giving their parents petitions for citizenship.

The point here is that there are so many esoteric issues in this matter. Whether criminals, folks that use phony Social Security cards, (and that is a criminal offense) should be allowed to collect Social Security — if they have been violating the law for ten years or more? You even see Senator Kennedy argue, amazingly, that illegal aliens don’t have to be paid minimum wage! Any further evidence needed of the hypocrisy of the Left — Kennedy WANTS illegal aliens exploited, there is no other explanation for this.

President Bush says it would be “too cumbersome” to enforce our current laws and deport more than 12 million illegal aliens. Yet, he wants to create a system where the IRS has to investigate each illegal alien for back taxes, the FBI for criminal records, etc.

What do you think? Forward this article to your friends, let them comment on it as well.

“Anchors” away
By Mona Charen
Townhall.com May 19, 2006

In 1970, six percent of all births in the United States were to illegal aliens. In 2002, that figure was 23 percent. In 1994, 36 percent of the births paid for by Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid, were to illegals. That figure has doubtless increased in the intervening 12 years as the rate of illegal immigration has risen.

Any child born in the United States automatically becomes a U.S. citizen. He or she is instantly eligible for panoply of social services, food stamps and other forms of aid. When the child reaches the age of 21, he can petition to have his parents and siblings declared permanent residents.

The so-called “anchor baby” phenomenon is a hidden trap door beneath any guest worker program, because a significant number of guest workers will have babies while in the United States and will thus elude any effort to send them home. (There are other problems with guest worker schemes: the difficulty of enforcement, the creation of permanently alienated subgroups such as Europe has created of its Muslim immigrants, and the problem of uprooting even the non-citizen children of guest workers who have spent years in the United States.) [READ THE FULL ARTICLE]

Steve Frank is the publisher of California Political News and Views and a Senior Contributor to CaliforniaConservative.org. He is also a consultant currently working on gambling issues and advising other consultants on policy and coalition building. Read more of his work here or at his blog.

SENATOR DEMINT'S TOP TEN REASONS TO OPPOSE THE SENATE BILL ON IMMIGRATION

From the office of Senator Jim DeMint, (R-SC):

Washington, D.C. - Today, Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C) announced his intention to vote against the Senate immigration compromise that would grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Senator DeMint also released his “Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the Senate Amnesty Bill”.

“We will never solve the problem of illegal immigration by rewarding those who break our laws,” said Senator DeMint. “We must stop illegal immigration by securing the border and creating a temporary worker program that does not reward illegal behavior with a clear path to citizenship and voting rights.”

“This bill fails to do that. Instead, it guarantees amnesty with only the promise of border security and enforcement. We tried the same formula in 1986, and it only made the problem worse. This puts those here illegally in front of those waiting to enter the right way, and that’s the wrong message for a nation of laws to send.”

Top Ten Reasons to Oppose The Senate Amnesty Bill

1. Rewards Illegal Behavior with Clear Path to Citizenship and Voting Rights – Amnesty

As noted by former Attorney General Ed Meese in the New York Times on May 24, 2006: “Like the amnesty bill of 1986, the current Senate proposal would place those who have resided illegally in the United States on a path to citizenship, provided they meet a similar set of conditions and pay a fine and back taxes. The illegal immigrant does not go to the back of the line but gets immediate legalized status, while law-abiding applicants wait in their home countries for years to even get here. And that's the line that counts. In the end, slight differences in process do not change the overriding fact that the 1986 law and today's bill are both amnesties.”

2. Creates Temporary Worker Program That is Neither Temporary Nor Work-Based

The bill’s guest worker program would allow millions of illegal immigrants to qualify for permanent green cards within four years. Additionally, the Senate approved Senator Kennedy’s amendment that each year would allow up to 200,000 immigrants who cross the border illegally and work just 6 days a year (including self employment) to qualify for a permanent green card.

3. Unprecedented Wave of Immigrants - 66 Million Over 20 Years

This bill is estimated to skyrocket the number of immigrants, from its current level of 19 million over the next 20 years, to an unprecedented number. Heritage Foundation: “...[O]ur estimate of the number of legal immigrants who would enter the country or would gain legal status under S. 2611 … [would be] 66 million over the next 20 years.”

4. Insufficient Border Security

The Senate rejected an amendment by Senator Isakson that would have prohibited the implementation of any guest worker program that grants legal status to those who have entered the country illegally until the Secretary of Homeland Security has certified to the President and to the Congress that the border security provisions in the immigration legislation are fully funded and operational.

While the Senate adopted Senator Sessions’ amendment to increase “real fencing” by 370 miles and add 500 miles of vehicle barriers, the House passed a bill requiring at least 700 miles of “real fencing”, a more likely needed amount to secure the 2,000 mile long border.

5. Terrorist Loophole Disarms Law Enforcement

Heritage Foundation reported May 24, 2006: “The Senate’s immigration reform proposal … would restrict local police to arresting aliens for criminal violations of immigration law only, not civil violations. The results would be disastrous. All of the hijackers on (9-11) who committed immigration violations committed civil violations. Under the bill, police officers would have no power to arrest such terrorists.”

6. Social Security Benefits, Tax Credits for Illegal Work

The Senate rejected Senator Ensign’s amendment that would have prevented Social Security benefits from being awarded to immigrants for time that they worked illegally in the United States. If the immigration compromise bill before the Senate were enacted into law, an estimated 12 million illegal workers would be able to use their past illegal work to qualify for Social Security benefits.

Provisions in S. 2611 would require newly legalized immigrants to file tax returns for work they performed while in the U.S. illegally. And while some would be required to pay back taxes, many others could qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit, which has a maximum payout of $4,400 per year.

7. Costs Over $50 Billion A Year to Federal Government; States Foot The Bill for Immigrant Health Care

Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation described the bill as a “fiscal catastrophe,” and has said the measure would prove to be the largest expansion of government welfare in 35 years. According to Rector, the bill would increase long-term federal spending by at least $50 billion a year.

The Senate bill does not reimburse state and local governments for health care and education costs related to the millions of undocumented immigrants. While the underlying bill creates a state impact assistance account for future temporary workers, it is an unfunded account.

8. Hurts Small Business

The Senate approved an amendment by Senator Obama extending Davis-Bacon “prevailing wage” provisions for guest workers, but not American citizens, in all occupations covered by Davis-Bacon (currently limited to federally paid work). Small businesses would be forced to pay inflated wages to guest workers above the pay American citizens receive for performing the same work.

9. Gives Some Immigrant Workers Greater Job Protection Than American Workers

As reported by Robert Novak of Chicago Sun Times on May 24, 2006: “The bill supposedly would protect American workers by ensuring that new immigrants would not take away jobs. However, the bill's definition of ‘United States worker’ includes temporary foreign guest workers, so the protection is meaningless… Foreign guest farm workers, admitted under the bill, cannot be ‘terminated from employment by any employer ... except for just cause.’ In contrast, American ag workers can be fired for any reason.”

10. Weak Assimilation/English Requirements

The Senate approved Senator Inhofe’s amendment to make English the national language and require those seeking citizenship to demonstrate English proficiency and understanding of U.S. History. However, a far weaker amendment by Senator Salazar gutted the Inhofe amendment, leaving it in doubt, and also giving immigrants the right to demand the federal government communicate with them in any language they choose.

DO IT YOURSELF BORDER PATROL

The Minutemen began a fence-building project in Arizona today--and they didn't ask Mexico's permission. Chris Simcox issued a statement announcing the construction project now underway:

Chris Simcox, President of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (“MCDC”), today announced plans by the MCDC to work with local Arizona land owners to build border security fencing on private land along the border with Mexico.

At present, six private land owners have partnered with the Minutemen for the commencement of construction of border fencing on their land. Surveillance cameras on the fencing will be monitored via computer by registered Minutemen across the country. We have chosen a fence design that is based on the Israeli fences in Gaza and on the West Bank that have cut terrorist attacks there by 95% or more. In order to be effective, a fence should not be easy to compromise by climbing over it with a ladder, cutting through it with wire cutters, ramming it with a vehicle, or tunneling under it undetected. No fence can be a 100% impenetrable barrier—but a good design will be time-consuming enough to get through that Border Patrol agents can be alerted to get to a point of attempted intrusion before the intrusion can be completed. We thank Colin Hanna and We Need A Fence.com for the design concept.

Simcox says those involved in the planning hope to keep costs near $150 per foot.

Two construction companies to date have offered to inaugurate groundbreaking, coordinate volunteer construction crews and donate the use of the necessary heavy construction equipment.

The groundbreaking will begin in Arizona on Memorial Day weekend, unless in the interim President Bush deploys National Guard and reserve troops to immediately secure the out-of-control southern border.

The fencing will be built with privately donated funds, engineering and labor and will be used as an example to educate the public about the feasibility and efficacy of fencing to secure America’s borders from illegal incursion by aliens and international criminal cartels. A non-profit organization dedicated specifically to this purpose will facilitate and administer donations for construction of the fence. Monetary and in-kind contributions for this effort will go directly into building materials for this private, volunteer fencing project.

Wanna help? Go here.

SENSENBRENNER: HOUSE REPUBLICANS FIRM ON IMMIGRATION BILL

The AP’s Suzanne Gamboa that Jim Sensenbrenner, (R-WI), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, remains firm in a number of his demands. Here’s some details from her article:

“This will set up a very difficult House-Senate conference committee because the approaches taken by the House and Senate on this issue have been 180 degrees apart,” said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, chairman of the Judiciary Committee and principal author of the more stringent House bill. “Amnesty is wrong,” he told a news conference.

Yesterday I wrote that the House, Senate Moving Towards Each Other, based on several quotes, including this Sensenbrenner quote
“I don’t think anything is a deal-breaker,” Sensenbrenner, who will lead House negotiators, said in a CBS appearance. “We can’t have legal proceedings to deport 11 to 12 million people, that is evident.” I’ll take Mr. Sensenbrenner at his word that there won’t be “legal proceedings to deport 11 to 12 million people”.
That said, I think it’s clear that there won’t be an eagerness on his part to establish an earned citizenship program right away.

My best guess is that he’ll demand that there be proof that the border is sealed off before the earned citizenship program would start. I’m also betting that he’ll demand that the silly Dodd Amendment be eliminated and the Sessions Amendment be strengthened in conference. The Dodd Amendment simply says that we must consult with the Mexican government before we build the wall and the vehicle barriers. That thing’s history already. There’s no way that Sensenbrenner will consent to that. I suspect that Sensenbrenner might, at most, agree to a provision that says we’ll notify the Mexican government when and where we’ll build the barriers and walls.

We’ll almost certainly see the Sessions Amendment, which provides for 370 miles of triple-layered walls and 500 miles of vehicle barriers, strengthened to a number much closer to the House’s 700 miles of triple-layered walls.

Bush, walking down the White House Colonnade with British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Friday morning, ignored a shouted question about whether the House and Senate will be able to compromise. But he did say that an effective measure would protect U.S. borders, make employers responsible for people they hire, create a temporary worker program, deal with the illegal immigrants already in the U.S. and “honor America’s great tradition of the melting pot.”

If you read between the lines, you see the outlines for a compromise coming out. Notice that the President is saying that securing the border and holding employers accountable is as much a priority of his as the temp worker program and dealing with illegal immigrants. I don’t think that that’s the type of thing that Ted Kennedy, John McCain and Dick Durbin want to hear.

Friday, May 26, 2006

EARNING CITIZENSHIP

Illegal immigrants hop the border fences and head for the storm drains on their "path to citizenship:"

Armando Reyes climbed over the border fence and prepared for the dash into San Diego. But his smuggler instead led him and four other migrants through a patch of reeds to a stinky drainage pipe, and ordered them inside.

The black sludge reached Reyes' chin as he crawled through the shoulder-width tube. Rats scurried by. Terrified of losing his way in the darkness, Reyes reached for the illegal immigrant in front of him and clutched his sneaker.

The stocky 28-year-old from Oaxaca had followed the smuggler into a vast labyrinth of drainage pipes under Otay Mesa, a booming commercial area of San Diego 15 miles southeast of downtown.

The 23-mile network leads to about 500 manholes scattered across about three square miles. From those openings into the bowels of the city, mud-covered migrants crawl out into streets, busy intersections and parking lots, creating a dizzying guessing game for U.S. Border Patrol agents.

"They're popping up all over the place," said Joe Perez, the agent in charge of the area.

The migrant traffic below truck-clogged streets and new office parks underscores the persistence and desperation of people faced with crossing one of the most heavily fortified sections of the border.

Illegal crossings will soon get even tougher. President Bush is sending 6,000 National Guard troops to the border, Congress is mulling its own enforcement plans and starting next month this busy frontier across from Tijuana will be monitored by remote surveillance cameras.

So the underground beckons.

The tunnels channel rainwater out of flood-prone areas, but when the waters aren't running, the waves of migrants flow, a phenomenon that has bedeviled agents for years and has gotten worse recently as aboveground routes have become more heavily patrolled.

The cat-and-mouse game took an ironic turn last month when migrants even surfaced outside the offices of the U.S. Border Tunnel Task Force. Those manhole covers — one in a secured parking lot — were welded shut after that, one of them also topped with three 35-pound bags of rocks and gravel.

But six more manholes, all potential escape hatches, lie within a block of the federal facility.

"They're all interlinked, so you never know where they'll come up," said David Badger, a Border Patrol supervisor.

Other border cities have wrestled with similar situations, most notably Nogales, Ariz., which is linked underground to Nogales, Mexico, by two large storm-drain tunnels patrolled regularly by heavily armed agents.

Unlike Nogales, the drainage system under Otay Mesa doesn't extend into Mexico. But most of the tunnel outlets are just a quick run from the border. Illegal immigrants typically traverse the pipes, many of which are 2 to 3 feet in diameter, at night, sometimes crawling for hours. Vehicles waiting on deserted streets then whisk them to stash houses.

Border Patrol agents have arrested hundreds of migrants exiting storm drains in the last year but don't know how many get through. Some estimate that thousands make it.

Mexican President Vicente Fox cheers (hat tip: Allah):

Mexican President Vicente Fox praised Mexican immigrants for pushing Washington on immigration reform on Friday, the last day of a U.S. trip during which he drew Republican barbs over the issue.

"We know about their contributions to this economy and to this country. We know about their loyalty to those who they work for," Fox said in a speech.

On Thursday, the U.S. Senate backed an immigration bill that would give millions of illegal immigrants a chance to become American citizens.

"They fought for it. They earned what they got yesterday," Fox told a California Chamber of Commerce audience.

NOTE TO FOX: THEY'RE YOUR FUCKING CITIZENS!!!!!!

Mark Steyn is not clapping:

Aside from the entitlement explosion and the national security issues, this bill is a cynical corruption of the integrity of US sovereignty and citizenship. My wife and the kids had their Green Cards stolen the other day. Cost of replacement of legal permanent resident cards: $1,040. Fine for 20 years of law-breaking within the United States: $2,000, less Social Security and EITC entitlements. Hmm. I told the missus to hold off filling in the form for the replacement card. Having been rendered inadvertently undocumented, she may at last be in the winning category.

MEET THE FOCKERS

Meet The Fockers

By Greg Tinti

The Senate just passed the immigration "reform" bill with a vote of 62-36. In light of that news, meet the Republicans that voted for this monstrosity:

Bennett (R-UT)
Brownback (R-KS)
Chafee (R-RI)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
DeWine (R-OH)
"Little Pete" Domenici (R-NM)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

Super. To paraphrase George Will, for this we need a Republican Senate??

Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin has a round-up of news coverage.

And Allah provides the requisite snark.

California Conservative: "Two words: Dios mio."

SENATE PASSES AMNESTY BILL FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS


studentsprotest_LAAP reports: “Legislation to secure U.S. borders and offer millions of illegal immigrants access to the American dream cleared the Senate on Thursday, a rare election-year reach across party lines and a triumph for President Bush. The 62-36 vote cleared the way for arduous summertime compromise talks with the House on its version that focuses on border enforcement — with no guarantee of success.” (Photo credit)

Two words: Dios mio.

Our “elected leaders” in Washington have gone bandito, exercising a total disregard for the clear majority will of the American people. How should legal voters (and taxpayers) respond to this recklessness?

“Why not say to those undocumented workers who are working the jobs that the rest of us refuse, come out from the shadows,” said Arizona Republican John McCain, a key architect of the bill.

Barf. Newsflash to McCain: They’re not your amigos, and they’re still not going to vote for you.

UPDATE:
Michelle Malkin: “Any hope now rests with the House.”

Chris Simcox, President of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (“MCDC”), issued the following statement on the passage today of an illegal alien amnesty bill by the U.S. Senate:

“The vote to give amnesty to millions of illegal aliens by the United States Senate today, should it pass into law, would ensure that the status quo is maintained: the borders would remain wide open and the attractive nuisance of endless welfare and social programs at the expense of the American taxpayer would remain. Those climbing over the backs of those waiting patiently to abide by our laws; and instead breaking the law, illegally entering this country, and committing document fraud; those not paying taxes; and those hiring illegally would be granted full amnesty. American citizens would, of course, still be subject to prosecution for document fraud and tax evasion. This sends the message that if you play by the rules, you suffer; if you enter the United States illegally, you are not subject to the rule of law.

“The American people do not trust the government to grant amnesty now and secure the borders later. We already went down that road in 1986, and the borders remain wide open still today.

“Their constituents are watching, and these Senators will pay the price come election time. We are now focusing our attention on the House of Representatives where we do not expect amnesty to pass. The House is more respectful of their voters, as they stand for re-election every two years. The arrogance and cavalier disregard of the will of the American people by this Senate will not be forgotten—there will be an accounting. The American people are still sovereign in this country, not a gaggle of politicians pandering to their special interest donors.

“The existing border crisis is a dereliction of duty by those entrusted with this nation’s security, sovereignty and prosperity. The U.S. Senate just left America vulnerable to a tsunami of migrants at the border, to terrorist infiltration and to an unprecedented crime wave by drug smugglers, thieves, rapists, human traffickers and murderers who cross our frontier at will—and whose bravado and aggression will now increase with the Senate’s message of our apparent national weakness.

“But the Minutemen will remain on patrol, at our posts—and continue to build border fencing and barriers on private land with private donations until the U.S. government performs its most basic constitutional duty to these United States, and safeguards the people and protects the territorial integrity of America.”

UPDATE:
LaShawn Barber: “Republicans are funny”
(but we ain’t laughin’)

Thursday, May 25, 2006

AMNESTY PASSES

Vote was 62-36.

Here's the lowdown.

Any hope now rests with the House.

Start here.

***

News coverage:

Bloomberg
...

The Senate's 62-36 vote sets up a clash with the House, which in December approved legislation that emphasized strengthening barriers at the U.S.-Mexico border and didn't account for guest workers or undocumented immigrants.

The congressional debate on immigration has sparked demonstrations across the nation by people demanding immigrant rights, while creating an election-year breach between Republicans who want to focus on border control and those who back new immigration programs.

President George W. Bush, seeking to bridge that divide, has pledged to deploy National Guard troops on the border to boost security, while backing the creation of both a new guest-worker program and a path for undocumented immigrants to gain citizenship.

More than 1.1 million people were caught trying to illegally cross the U.S.-Mexico border in 2004 and an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants now live in the U.S.

Guest Workers

The Senate measure would allow as many as 200,000 low- skilled workers a year to come to the U.S. and do jobs for which companies can't find American workers. It also provides a path to citizenship for many of the undocumented immigrants if they pay a $3,250 fine and back taxes, learn English, and pass a background check.

The treatment of those in the country illegally was one of the most contentious points of debate among senators and will be an obstacle in negotiations with the House, lawmakers said.

``It is an amnesty bill, or a legalization bill, that I think is just fundamentally unfair,'' Pennsylvania Republican Rick Santorum told reporters. ``There are very serious problems with this legislation that I hope the House of Representatives will address.''

AP:

Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and the Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, both sided with supporters, a reflection of the bipartisan backing for a bill that was months in the drafting and survived several near-death experiences.

Conservative critics attacked the legislation to the end after trying unsuccessfully to pull it apart with amendments.

"This bill will not secure our borders," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., one of the most persistent critics.

"This is amnesty," added David Vitter, R-La., who tried last week to strip out provisions relating to citizenship.

Not so, said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, in a rebuttal to weeks of debate. "They have to pay a fine. They have to undergo a criminal background check. They have to pay back taxes, they have to learn English and they have to go to the back of the line," he said, referring to illegal immigrants who would apply for citizenship.

Still, Sessions, Vitter, John Cornyn of Texas and others echoed a view widely held among House Republicans, many of whom have vigorously denounced the Senate bill as well as Bush's call for a "comprehensive approach" to the issue.

WaPo:

"This is not the final scene of this blockbuster that we have on the Senate floor," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) warned before the vote began late this afternoon. "There is another act to go."

GOP Majority Leader John Boehner statement just received via e-mail:

The American people expect Congress to secure our borders and stop the flood of illegal immigration, and House Republicans responded by passing a strong border security bill that re-establishes basic respect for our immigration laws. Now that the Senate has passed a bill, we owe it to the American people to seek common ground on responsible solutions, while always stressing our most important priority is to secure our borders and stop illegal immigration.

"I'm committed to working with Chairman Sensenbrenner, Chairman King, and House Republicans to ensure we produce a strong bill that meets our commitments to the American people. I would urge House Democrats, who have constantly advocated troubling policies that encourage open borders and invite more illegal immigrants into our country, to join us in supporting a strong bill that addresses the concerns of the American people and makes our borders more secure."

GOP Rep. Mike Pence statement just received via email:

"The Senate has passed an amnesty bill. Amnesty by any other name is still amnesty. The American people do not support amnesty for illegal immigrants.

"This does not mean, however, that we cannot work together to find a solution to the problem of illegal immigration. The real rational middle ground can be found in a bill that is tough on border security, employer enforcement, and contains a no-amnesty guest worker program run by the private sector."

More statements...

Sen. Tom Coburn:

“The American people have been demanding that their elected officials take action to limit illegal immigration first by securing our borders, then by addressing guest worker reform. Unfortunately, this bill reversed those priorities. Rewarding illegal immigrants with amnesty without taking adequate steps to secure our borders is the wrong way to address this problem,” Dr. Coburn said.

“America is a welcoming nation that was built by immigrants, but it is also a nation governed by the rule of law. Rewarding illegal immigrants with a clear path to citizenship and voting rights is unfair to the millions of individuals who immigrated to this country legally. This approach will also make the problem of illegal immigration worse, which is precisely what happened after Congress passed a similar law in 1986,” Dr. Coburn said.

“It is impossible for Congress to accurately assess our need for guest workers before we have taken the steps necessary to secure our borders. It is important for Congress to understand that the public will not trust us on this issue until our borders are secure. Once we take that step, I believe the American people would support a compassionate and common sense plan for dealing with our need for guest workers and the 12 million illegal immigrants who are already here,” Dr. Coburn said.

The Senate today also voted to weaken a provision Dr. Coburn added in the Judiciary Committee that would have made it easier for federal officials to deport illegal immigrants who had committed crimes. Each year, the Oklahoma prison system spends an estimated $11.7 million to incarcerate illegal criminal immigrants.

Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas:

Congressman Lamar Smith (TX-21) expressed disappointment over the Senate-passed immigration bill that rewards illegal immigrants with amnesty and eventual citizenship. The "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006" passed the United States Senate on May 25, by a vote of 62-36.

"It's hard to justify legislation that would reward millions of law-breakers, attract more illegal immigrants, and depress American workers' wages," said Congressman Smith. "The Senate bill may be good for other countries and foreign workers, but it's not good for America and American workers."

Although the bill contains some enforcement measures, Smith questioned, "How can a government that has not enforced current immigration laws be expected to enforce new ones?"

Wednesday, May 24, 2006

IF IT WALKS LIKE A DUCK, AND IT QUACKS LIKE A DUCK THEN IT'S AMNESTY

MEESE: IT IS AMNESTY

***scroll for updates...958am EDT: Senate voting on whether to kill the McConnell amendment to the immig bill, which would require voting identification (hat tip: Nighthaven)...motion to table is not agreed to...1000am EDT: Here we go on cloture vote...clerk will call the roll...1020am cloture motion passes; Allah fills in details...Meese blogger conference call: "There are a lot of bombs in the bill" including an amendment to prevent local police arrests of suspected illegal aliens based on illegal immigration status ...John Hawkins' report...McConnell amendment dead?***

Ed Meese III, attorney general of the United States from 1985 to 1988 and Heritage Foundation fellow, calls out the amnesty-deniers this morning in the NYTimes. As the AG who presided over the Reagan amnesty of 1986, he (unlike most of the pols blubbering that their amnesty is not an amnesty) knows what he's talking about:

In the mid-80's, many members of Congress — pushed by the Democratic majority in the House and the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy — advocated amnesty for long-settled illegal immigrants. President Reagan considered it reasonable to adjust the status of what was then a relatively small population, and I supported his decision.

In exchange for allowing aliens to stay, he decided, border security and enforcement of immigration laws would be greatly strengthened — in particular, through sanctions against employers who hired illegal immigrants. If jobs were the attraction for illegal immigrants, then cutting off that option was crucial.

Beyond this, most illegal immigrants who could establish that they had resided in America continuously for five years would be granted temporary resident status, which could be upgraded to permanent residency after 18 months and, after another five years, to citizenship.

Note that this path to citizenship was not automatic. Indeed, the legislation stipulated several conditions: immigrants had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible. Sound familiar? These are pretty much the same provisions included in the new Senate proposal and cited by its supporters as proof that they have eschewed amnesty in favor of earned citizenship.

The difference is that President Reagan called this what it was: amnesty. Indeed, look up the term "amnesty" in Black's Law Dictionary, and you'll find it says, "the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for undocumented aliens already in the country."

Like the amnesty bill of 1986, the current Senate proposal would place those who have resided illegally in the United States on a path to citizenship, provided they meet a similar set of conditions and pay a fine and back taxes. The illegal immigrant does not go to the back of the line but gets immediate legalized status, while law-abiding applicants wait in their home countries for years to even get here. And that's the line that counts. In the end, slight differences in process do not change the overriding fact that the 1986 law and today's bill are both amnesties.

As rank-and-file immigration enforcement officials have reported over the years, the 1986 amnesty resulted in massive document fraud, increased illegal immigration, and abysmal non-enforcement of employer sanctions. Meese adds:

After a six-month slowdown that followed passage of the legislation, illegal immigration returned to normal levels and continued unabated. Ultimately, some 2.7 million people were granted amnesty, and many who were not stayed anyway, forming the nucleus of today's unauthorized population.

So here we are, 20 years later, having much the same debate and being offered much the same deal in exchange for promises largely dependent on the will of future Congresses and presidents.

Will history repeat itself? I hope not. In the post-9/11 world, secure borders are vital. We have new tools — like biometric technology for identification, and cameras, sensors and satellites to monitor the border — that make enforcement and verification less onerous. And we can learn from the failed policies of the past.

President Bush and Congress would do better to start with securing the border and strengthening enforcement of existing immigration laws.

Messe also recommends trying to "[improve] on Ronald Reagan's idea of a pilot program for genuinely temporary workers." But not, I would clarify, before enforcing existing laws and ensuring that all the existing temporary worker programs are, in fact, temporary.

Meese is scheduled to hold a blogger conference call this morning at 10:30am. I'll report back later.

1050am EDT: Meese and Heritage Foundation's Matthew Spaulding review 1986 amnesty...Meese advocates increased interior enforcemend, strengthened employer sanctions...possible private sector outsourcing for a bona fide temporary worker program after immigration enforcement takes place...more local-state-fed police cooperation...amnesty vs. mass deportation is a false choice...

***

David Orland is tracking all the latest developments in the Senate over at The Immigration Blog. The Senate is scheduled to hold a cloture vote today. David writes:

Simply killing the cloture motion would be a victory in itself. A defeat for Frist would mean more debate, and that's just what's needed.

Here's what I've told my representatives: no Senator who votes for cloture will have my vote in future elections and, should the bill pass, only candidates who advocate its repeal will receive my support.

Contact Senators here. A Certain Slant of Light has a list of 41 senators key to defeating the motion for cloture. Act now or forever hold your peace.

Tom Bevan looks at the Senate provision allowing illegals to pay back taxes before getting their pardon and asks: "Are We Going to Treat Illegals Better Than U.S. Citizens?"

Sen. John Cornyn has more:

Supporters of the ‘compromise’ immigration bill claim that it does not provide amnesty for those here illegally, in part, because illegal immigrants would have to pay "all back taxes."

But DID YOU KNOW that:

1. An illegal immigrant would not have to pay any back taxes until after the first eight years of amnesty? They could stay in the country for eight years without paying any back taxes at all. No back taxes would be required until "adjudication of an application for adjustment of status." In other words, they don’t pay any taxes until their application for a green card is approved—and even then there would be no penalties or interest charged.
2. Illegal immigrants would not have to pay "all back taxes" as the bill’s supporters claim? Rather, they would only be required to pay taxes owed for three years of past work.
3. Illegal immigrants under the age of 20 would not be subject to any back taxes? Illegal immigrants under the age of 20 are exempted from the bill’s employment requirements and therefore not subject to payment of any tax liability.

[Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (S. 2611), Pg. 351: "Not later than the date on which status is adjusted under this subsection, the alien shall establish the payment of all Federal and State income taxes owed for employment during the period of employment required under subparagraph (D)(i).."]

[Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (S. 2611), Pg. 347: "The alien shall have been employed in the United States, in the aggregate, for…at least 3 years during the 5-year period ending on April 5, 2006"]

[Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (S. 2611), Pg. 347: "The employment requirement in clause (i)(I) shall not apply to an individual who is under 20 years of age on the date of enactment…"]

***

Previous:

Read my lips: No new amnesty
Amnesty for all
The definition of amnesty
A White House betrayal
It's the fraud, stupid
Fraud, fraud, everywhere