ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: FACT SHEET

If The President & Congress Do Not Address These Concerns, Then The Republicans Will Lose My Vote!

And here’s our rebuttal to tonight’s Presidential Address…

via New Media Alliance:

1. Claim: “Illegal immigrants do the jobs that Americans won’t.”

False: Americans will perform any legal job necessary to support themselves and their families. As an illustration, recently 70 US citizens were dismissed from an Alabama construction site by a foreman who said the dismissal was “because the Mexicans had arrived”. Linda Swopes, who operates Complete Employment Services in Mobile AL said: “I assure you it is not true that Americans don’t want to work. We had been told that 270 jobs might be available, and we could have filled every one of them with men from this area, most of whom lost their jobs because of the hurricane.” The identified Mexican illegal immigrant workers were simply willing to work for less money than were US citizens.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/
20060410-123506-1297r.htm

2. Claim: “Illegal immigrants help the American economy.”

False: Illegal immigrants to the US cost the country at least $10 billion more than they contribute to the economy. The CIS (Center for Immigration Studies) advises that if amnesty is put into place, these costs to the American economy (and the American taxpayer) will triple. The average illegal immigrant family uses $2,700/year more in services than it pays in taxes. In 2002, this amounted to a $10.4 billion drain on the federal budget. Some of the greatest federal costs included: Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalrelease.html

3. Claim: “Illegal immigrants are just hard-working people who want jobs.”

False: The US Justice Department reported that in 2003, alone, 270,000 illegal immigrants had served prison time. The Federation for American Immigration Reform reports: “In March 2000, Congress made public Department of Justice statistics showing that, over the previous five years, the INS had released over 35,000 criminal aliens instead of deporting them. Over 11,000 of those released went on to commit serious crimes, over 1,800 of which were violent ones; including 98 homicides, 142 sexual assaults, and 44 kidnappings. In 2001, thanks to a decision by the Supreme Court, the INS was forced to release into our society over 3,000 criminal aliens who collectively had been convicted of 125 homicides, 387 sex offenses, and 772 assault charges.”

The Federal Bureau of Prisons estimates that fully one-third of current prison populations are comprised of non-citizen illegals.

Islamic terrorists, including Mexicans with terrorist ties, have entered and are continuing to enter the US via our unsecured borders.

The violent MS-13 Salvadoran gangs have illegally immigrated across the US-Mexico border. MS-13 has also vowed to kill local police, Border Patrol agents and US citizen-members of the Minutemen project, within the US.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/27/114208.shtml?s=ic
http://www.tucsonweekly.com/gbase/Currents/Content?oid=oid%3A60078
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7244879/site/newsweek/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-01-05-gang-grows_x.htm
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050328-125306-7868r.htm

4. Claim: “Illegal aliens help keep cost of goods down”

Misleading and false: Although marketplace agricultural products are estimated to be somewhat lower than they would be if US citizens were performing the jobs illegals carry out, the cost to US taxpayers in free services to illegals vastly outweighs any savings to the US consumer. And illegal immigrants are no longer solely operating in agriculture but, have expanded out into multiple industries. In Los Angeles, 49-year old construction worker Michael Williams (jobless for 3 months) said outside of a Home Depot: “You have a lot of illegal aliens here. It takes food off the table.” The spread of illegals into other industries is increasing geometrically.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/
economy/2006-04-10-immigrants-economic-impact_x.htm

5. Claim: “Illegal immigrants are being denied [their] civil rights”

False: Civil rights pertain ONLY to citizens. The Merriam-Webster online Dictionary defines civil-rights as: “The nonpolitical rights of a citizen; especially: the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to U.S. citizens by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution and by acts of Congress.” If one is not a citizen of the country, civil rights do not apply.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/civil%20rights

6. Claim: “Illegal immigrants are law-abiding citizens”

False: First and foremost, by the very nature of illegal immigrants being in the country “illegally”, they are neither following nor abiding by US law. Also, illegal immigrants are increasingly using bogus or stolen Social Security numbers. The crime of Identity Fraud being affected by illegal immigrants has become a growing and sever problem. Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) commented: “If the government bothered to look, it could find abundant evidence of illegal aliens gaming our system and the unscrupulous employers who are aiding and abetting them.”

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/14411281.htm

7. Claim: “Illegal immigrants only want to become US citizens”

False: Although many illegals are demanding US citizenship, and to be given special consideration ahead of those who have applied legally, a marked number of Hispanics do not want it. But, they do demand the “same rights” as US citizens. Many Hispanic groups, including (but not limited to) MEChA, the Mexica Movement and LULAC, are supporting and working toward the re-conquest (“reconquista”) of the United States. These groups are, also, becoming increasingly militant.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:zb7zb5AZ1w8J:transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0603/31/ldt.01.html+Reconquista+movement&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=20&client=firefox-a

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060416-122222-1672r.htm

8. Claim: “Illegal aliens are honest and contribute little to crime”

Misleading: Many are hard working. However, in Los Angeles, alone, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens. “A confidential California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in southern California is illegal.”

http://www.city-journal.org/html/
14_1_the_illegal_alien.html

9. Claim: “The claim that illegal immigrants drain US services is a myth”

False: From the L.A. Times and Rice University’s Professor Donald Huddle: “Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops but 29% are on welfare.” And as far back as 1997, according to Huddle, the cost of illegal immigration to the American taxpayer was a net (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay) $69 Billion.

http://www.freedomalliance.org/
view_article.php?a_id=642

10. Claim: “Illegals do not drive down US workers’ wages”

False: As already presented, illegal immigrants from Mexico are working for far less money than US citizen workers and on a regular basis. An 18 April 2006 article in WSJ by Professor of Economics and Social Policy at Harvard University George J. Borjas (“For a Few Dollars Less”) quotes Paul Samuelson: “…an increase in supply [of workers] will, other things being equal, tend to depress wage rates.” Although Samuelson’s conclusions were, for years, disputed, recently they have been proving to be accurate.

Borjas writes: “My Harvard colleague Lawrence Katz and I recently examined the impact of the 1980-2000 immigrant influx (and particularly Mexican-origin immigration) for U.S. wages. The results are that, in the short run — holding all other things equal — immigration lowered the wage of native workers, particularly of those workers with the least education. The wage fell by 3% for the average worker and by 8% for high school dropouts.” He further concludes: “These effects imply sizable reductions in annual earnings for low-skill workers. In 2000, the typical high school dropout earned $25,000, so that immigration reduced his earnings by $1,200, even after all capital adjustments take place. Mr. Katz and I also examined how much was due to Mexican immigration. We calculated what the wage effects would have been had there been no Mexican immigration between 1980 and 2000. We found that Mexican immigration, which is predominantly low-skill, accounts for all of the adverse impact of immigration on low-skill natives.” In NRO (National Review Online), Borjas continues with: “In fact, immigration may have depressed the wages of low-skilled workers by 5 to 8 percentage points.”

Note: WSJ article is via “subscription only”.

http://www.nationalreview.com/issue/
borgas200604250622.asp

SAME OLD, SAME OLD

By Michelle Malkin

Here's the White House official speech preview (hat tip: Kathryn Lopez) of the platitudes, non sequiturs, and recycled rhetoric I've been deconstructing the last five years:

On the President’s vision for comprehensive immigration reform:

“We are a Nation of laws, and we must enforce our laws. We are also a Nation of immigrants, and we must uphold that tradition, which has strengthened our country in so many ways. These are not contradictory goals – America can be a lawful society and a welcoming society at the same time. We will fix the problems created by illegal immigration, and we will deliver a system that is secure, orderly, and fair.”

On Border Security:

“Since I became President, we have increased funding for border security by 66 percent, and expanded the Border Patrol from about 9,000 to 12,000 agents. . . .we have apprehended and sent home about six million people entering America illegally.

“Despite this progress, we do not yet have full control of the border, and I am determined to change that. Tonight I am calling on Congress to provide funding for dramatic improvements in manpower and technology at the border."

On the Importance of a Temporary Worker Program to relieve pressure on the border:

“The reality is that there are many people on the other side of our border who will do anything to come to America to work and build a better life. They walk across miles of desert in the summer heat, or hide in the back of 18-wheelers to reach our country. This creates enormous pressure on our border that walls and patrols alone will not stop. To secure the border effectively we must reduce the numbers of people trying to sneak across."

On enforcing our laws:

“. . . we need to hold employers to account for the workers they hire. It is against the law to hire someone who is in this country illegally. Yet businesses often cannot verify the legal status of their employees, because of the widespread problem of document fraud. Therefore, comprehensive immigration reform must include a better system for verifying documents and work eligibility . . .

“A tamper-proof card would help us enforce the law – and leave employers with no excuse for violating it. And by making it harder for illegal immigrants to find work in our country, we would discourage people from crossing the border illegally in the first place.”

On the President’s opposition to amnesty:

“. . . we must face the reality that millions of illegal immigrants are already here. They should not be given an automatic path to citizenship. This is amnesty, and I oppose it. Amnesty would be unfair to those who are here lawfully – and it would invite further waves of illegal immigration."

On assimilation:

“. . . we must honor the great American tradition of the melting pot, which has made us one Nation out of many peoples. The success of our country depends upon helping newcomers assimilate into our society, and embrace our common identity as Americans. Americans are bound together by our shared ideals, an appreciation of our history, respect for the flag we fly, and an ability to speak and write the English language.”

On the tone of the debate:

“We must always remember that real lives will be affected by our debates and decisions, and that every human being has dignity and value no matter what their citizenship papers say.”

Too little, too late.

BUSH SPEAKS TONIGHT

President Bush will make his address to the nation tonight on the issue of what the politically correct among us refer to as "illegal immigrants" or the "immigration" problem. The "immigrant" word seems to have stuck. It's just a nicer way of saying "gate crasher." The proper phrase is not "anti-immigrant" because these people aren't immigrants. Immigration is a legal procedure, and those who ignore the legalities and just flow across the border in violation of our laws don't earn that label. If these home invaders are immigrants, than we could just as easily apply the same name to an invading army. Call them what they are, and please don't cloak them with the same respect do most of our ancestors who followed the law and waited in line to get here.

By the way ... apparently talk show hosts like me are part of the problem. Over the weekend I read the words of some columnists who made references to "anti-immigrant talk radio." Secondly, instead of "anti-immigrant," what's the matter with the phrase "pro-sovereignty?"

We're really going to have to wait until after Bush's little speech tonight before the real discussion starts, but there are a few points I would sure like for him to cover.

1. We're supposed to have a military capacity in this country to fight two separate wars in two separate areas of the globe at the same time. Now we hear that we don't even have enough troops to put on the Mexican-American border. If we can't stop the Mexicans from invading the U.S., we sure as hell can't stop Kim Jong Il from invading South Korea. Sup wid dat?

2. Does your idea of a path to citizenship put these illegals who have flooded our country ahead of those who have followed the rules and who have gone to our embassies and consulates, filled out the proper paperwork, and then have waited for their return phone call? If so, aren't we, the great country of the rule-of-law, rewarding these people for ignoring those laws?

3. Are you willing to place harsh penalties on American employers who hire illegals? We know that these employers of illegals are huge supporters of the Republican Party. Can you put your oath of office to defend the borders of this country ahead of those campaign contributions?

4. Do you have the courage to tell Vicente Fox that his open support and encouragement of the Mexican invasion is not making him any friends in this country, and that it will no longer be tolerated?

5. Are you willing to take a principled position and stand up to the sure-to-come demands from the left that non-citizen Mexicans and Hispanics be allowed to vote in local elections around the country?

Speaking of El Presidente .... Mexican president Vicente Fox called Bush yesterday to ask if he was militarizing the border. Well, duhhhhh. Pretty nervy guy, that Vicente. Let's see ... the Mexican government is openly encouraging the invasion of the United States by it's low-skilled workers. The Mexican government even prints instructions on how to cross the border, and to avoid being caught once in the US. There are reports -- too many to ignore -- of uniformed Mexican troops appearing along the border to assist Mexicans in getting across, even reports of illegals being ferried across the border in Mexican army troop carriers. And, to top it off, there are reports that uniformed Mexican troops have actually fired on U.S. Border Patrol agents trying to intercept Mexican drug smugglers. In the face of all this .... Vicente Fox calls Bush to ask if he's militarizing the border?

Fox has a lot at stake here. Mexico is a country rich in natural resources and people. There is no reason Mexico can't be a thriving economic power unto itself -- no reason, that is, except for the rampant corruption throughout the Mexican government. The illegals streaming across the border into the U.S. give Fox relief on at least two fronts. One, they relieve the pressure for reform that could lead to jobs and opportunities in Mexico. Two, the illegal invaders represent about a $20 billion per year boost to the Mexican economy. That's "free," if you will, money just flowing into Mexico via wire transfers from the gate crashers living and working in the U.S. Oh ... and by the way ... that's $20 billion that's not being spent here to boost our economy.

Bush will take the position tonight that there is just no practical way that we can deport the 12 million illegal Mexican and Hispanic aliens now in this country. Fine .. I agree. We can't deport them. Logistically, it would be a nightmare and would most likely result in violence and riots in many American cities. We can, though, yank out the welcome mat. I've gone through this on the air and in the Nuze before, but just in case the president's speech writers wanted to take a look at my notes before they polished up Bush's remarks, (yeah ... right) ... here's just how to reverse the flow:

1. Harsh .. to the draconian level .. penalties against any employer who knowing hires any workers who are not in this country legally.

2. Punishment - though milder - of any employers who hire illegals because they didn't conduct due diligence in the hiring process.

3. Change the law to deny citizenship to children born to a woman who is in this country illegally.

4. No children of illegals in American government schools.

5. Deny all social welfare benefits to anyone who is in this country illegally with the one exception of life-saving medical care.

6. Confiscate a substantial portion of the monies earned in this country by illegal immigrants. We confiscate drug money because it was earned illegally, so why can't we confiscate the money earned by illegals? I'm not saying take it all. Leave them enough to buy some food and get a bus ticket to Matamoras.

Does all this sound harsh? Sorry ... I suppose it is ... but these people are criminals. They are NOT, as their signs proclaim, America. The idea here is to make them feel as unwelcome here as we possibly can. Yank out the welcome mat from under their feet. Make them prefer life in their own country to a life of deprivation here.

There's a letter making the Internet rounds. It was a letter to the editor of a newspaper in North Carolina, but I've been unable to track it down. Whoever wrote it ... it's brilliant. Here you go:

To the Editor: Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration. Certain people are angry that the U.S. might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and once here, to stay indefinitely. Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests. Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in your home you insist that I leave. But, I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors: I've done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hard-working and honest ... except for that part where I broke into your house. "According to the protestors, not only must you let me stay, you must add me to your family's insurance plan and provide other benefits for me and my family. My husband will do your yard work because he too is hard-working and honest ... except for that breaking in thing. "If you try to call the police or force me out I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my right to be here. It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself. I'm hard-working and honest .... ummmmm .... except for that breaking in thing. "Besides. What a deal it is for me! I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of selfishness, prejudice and being anti-housebreaker! Did I miss anything? Does this sound reasonable to you? If it does, grab a sign and go picket something. If this sounds insane to you call your senators and enlighten them because they are stumbling in the darkness right now and really need your help. (Name? _______________)

Well ... let's see what Bush has in store for us tonight. I'm virtually certain he is going to make the case for the 12 million illegals in this country staying. Add that to the past amnesties and we'll have about 30 million or so Mexicans and Hispanics in this country who came here illegally and later had their behavior cleansed for the sake of politics.

TOO LITTLE TOO LATE

By Michelle Malkin

Here we go again.

President Bush is continuing the homeland security dog-and-pony charade in his quest to deliver a massive "guest worker"/amnesty plan to the open-borders lobby. A few weeks ago, Bush's Department of Homeland Security put on a bogus performance of Get Tough Theater with a series of politically timed immigration raids...which, as I predicted, simply resulted in more catch and release of illegal aliens nationwide.

This new last-minute stunt to sprinkle National Guard troops on the border--temporarily, of course, to appease Mexican President Vicente Fox--is more transparent than the Scotch tape used to hold together our dilapidated border fences. (That's only a slight exaggeration.)

For all the new tough talk, these additional troops will be barred from actually doing what needs to be done: guarding the border. President Bush is already bowing and scraping to Mexico over the plan before he's even officially announced it. More details via WaPo:

Officials suggested their mission would be to play a supporting role by providing intelligence, training, transportation, construction and other functions, while leaving the actual guarding of the 2,000-mile line separating the United States and Mexico to the Border Patrol. The National Guard would be a stopgap force until the federal government could hire civilian contractors to take over administrative and support functions from the Border Patrol, freeing more agents to actually hunt for immigrants slipping into the country.

Hold up. It's been nearly five years since the Sept. 11 attacks. It's taken the Bush administration this long to acknowledge the need to hire more civilian contractors to relieve the Border Patrol of administrative and support functions?

Only now, on the day the Senate revisits his favored, faltering pet proposals for mass amnesty, does he find it important enough to send a show of military non-force down to the border--a show that was immediately emasculated to satisfy the "American is a continent, not a country" crowd.

White House spokeswoman Maria Tamburri said Bush made clear to Fox that "the United States considered Mexico a friend and that what is being considered is not militarization of the border, but support of border capabilities on a temporary basis by the National Guard."

The proper White House response to Fox should have been: If it's good enough for your southern border, it's good enough for ours.

Oh, and before the open-borders radicals start arguing that there are legal restrictions against National Guardsmen patrolling the border, please note: The few, thin numbers of Guardsmen who are at the border now in fact carry out some of these functions:

Soldiers scout the border from inside the trucks looking for illegal aliens crossing the border into the United States at night. They call the Border Patrol when they have them in sight and track them until they are able to come in and apprehend them or push them back into their own boundaries.

Watching and waiting for threats to come across the border may be tedious, but the Guardsmen on patrol are always patient and alert. After calling in a group of aliens and the Border Patrol responds, the Soldiers move on and look for the next group.

When surveying illegal aliens in the field, they pay attention to whether they are carrying bags or not. They refer to some of these individuals as “mules” when they come through with drugs in homemade rucksacks. Up to 80 pounds of marijuana are carried on an illegal alien’s back, according to Counterdrug officials here. Once they are aware they have been spotted, they may try to ditch the sacks.

See also here.

Where was the president's sense of urgency to fortify the border when national park ranger Kris Eggle was gunned down in 2002 by drug-runners on the Arizona-Mexican line?

Or when Mexican army incursions were plaguing the Southwest?

And when Border Patrol agents were being shot at?

Or when the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus called for increased troop deployments at the border last year?

Some Bush supporters are admonishing immigration enforcement activists to "tone it down" because the criticism will hurt Bush.

Maybe he should of thought of that all the years when he could have been raiding worksites and strengthening border protection for their own sake. Instead, he has chosen to offer a too little, too late, and all-too-expedient gesture of immigration enforcement as a phony bargaining chip to bribe his base into supporting a historically doomed, dangerous, and utterly unmanageable amnesty proposal.

Tone it down? No, crank it up.

What does he take us for?

You want the American people to buy into "comprehensive immigration reform?"

Message to Congress (since the White House still isn't listening): Drop the guest worker plan and the amnesty sham. Comprehensive immigration enforcement first. Enforcement now.

No more bull.

***

Grass-roots conservative blog reaction gives Bush two thumbs down. Way down.

Round-up at Polipundit
Right Wing News
Cavalier X
La Shawn will be liveblogging.
Scrappleface spoofs.
Bizzy Blog on more things Bush won't talk about tonight.
Scott Johnson on the flabbergastingly idiotic Hagel-Martinez bill.
Andrew McCarthy dispenses with the mass deportation canard.
John Derbyshire on the Bush speech: "milk-and-water leaky-bandaid stuff."

Related:

Tim Graham busts the Washington Post's Minutemen coverage
Tom Tancredo at Human Events Online: Come home, Mr. President.