Wednesday, May 31, 2006

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.