THE DANGERS OF DOING 'NOTHING' ABOUT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

Posted by Bobby Eberle

In a recent statement to the media, the #2 Republican in the Senate, Trent Lott of Mississippi, said in reference to the immigration deal brokered by the White House and a select group of senators, that the “only thing that’s unacceptable is to do nothing.”

So… it’s unacceptable, even dangerous to do “nothing,” about illegal immigration? Let’s take a look at what doing “nothing” actually does for us.

Last year, the Congress passed a bill which the president signed creating close to 800 miles of security fencing along America’s southern border. The “grand bargain,” as it’s being called in the Senate, calls for hundreds fewer miles of border fencing. Hmmm… let’s see… this means by doing “nothing” and not passing this terrible immigration bill, we actually get MORE border fence. That doesn’t sound unacceptable or dangerous to me.

Next, let’s look at employer enforcement. There are numerous laws on the books right now to crack down on the hiring of illegal aliens. What’s lacking, of course, is the political will to enforce those laws. For some reason, the White House and some members of the Senate want America to believe that with the new bill will come a new courage to enforce those laws? Show of hands… how many believe that??? So, by doing “nothing,” we still have laws against hiring illegal aliens and still have an administration with no spine for enforcement. I guess it’s not really dangerous or unacceptable to not pass the bill in this case either… let’s just enforce the laws we have.

How about economics? The White House says there are jobs Americans simply won’t do… that we NEED cheap labor and this Senate bill is the way to go. First of all, this is ridiculous. Pay a real wage for the hard work, and Americans would do it. Oh… prices would rise, you say? How much are we paying now in taxes for health care, social services, education, and more for illegal aliens? Imagine not having to pay all those extras taxes… I’d pay a little bit more for my oranges if that were the case.

In addition, the “temporary” worker plan does more than provide for cheap labor to come into America. According to the bill, each “temporary” worker is allowed to bring his spouse and children with him. Thus, the temporary worker has now become a permanent family in America which will likely draw more social services. The bill has yet to address the problem of “anchor babies,” so if these temporary workers have children in America, those children are now U.S. citizens. That doesn’t sound very temporary to me.

Then, there is the concept of deporting those who continue to break the law. As I noted in a previous posting, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said that “illegal immigrants living in the United States who don’t try to gain legal worker status will be forced to leave.”

“The people who don’t apply and don’t get the Z visa are going to be hunted down and they’re going to get deported,” Chertoff told FOX News. “So there’s a very clear choice: You can either bring yourself into the system and find, you know, safety, pay your fine, and work within the law, or you can stay outside the law and we’re going to focus our attention on those people and deport them.”

Now, one has to ask… How many of the 12-20 million illegal aliens will decide it’s better to keep the status quo than go through the hassles of a Z Visa? It will likely be millions. What the administration and Senate “leaders” are saying is that with the passage of this bill, America will deport the law breakers. Wait a second… Didn’t they say it was impractical to consider mass deportation? Isn’t that what they are saying they will do if the new bill is passed? Ok, then let’s go after law breakers now and deport them! We don’t need a new bill to do that, do we?

We have the laws in place, both old and recent, to increase the level of Border Patrol Agents, to construct hundreds of miles of security fencing, and to punish employers for illegal hiring practices. We can deport law-breakers now, and we have a system that allows for legal immigration. Add a strong dose of political cajones, and not passing this bill doesn’t seem so “dangerous” or “unacceptable” to me.

PRESIDENT BUSH AND "EMPTY RHETORIC"

By Michelle Malkin

The Founding Fathers: They meant what they wrote

President Bush attacked immigration enforcement proponents for engaging in "empty political rhetoric"--and the NYTimes was all too happy to report on it:

President Bush today accused opponents of his proposed immigration measure of fear-mongering to defeat it in Congress, and took on his own conservative political base as he did so.

“If you want to scare the American people, what you say is the bill’s an amnesty bill,” Mr. Bush said this afternoon at a training center for border enforcement agents located in this town in Georgia’s southeastern corner. “That’s empty political rhetoric, trying to frighten our citizens.”

President Bush, meet the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

President Bush, meet Article IV, Section IV of the U.S. Constitution:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

President Bush, meet your oath of office in accordance with Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Talk about "empty rhetoric," President Bush.

HUGO CHAVEZ AND THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

Jealousy is an ugly thing. And jealousy is especially ugly when you have freely elected leaders from a country that prides itself on a dedication to freedom and individual liberty being openly jealous of a dictator.

Such is the case with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.

Hugo the Horrible has now accomplished in Venezuela what Democrats only wish they could accomplish here at home. He has silenced a broadcast outlet that was critical of his regime. Sunday night Venezuela's most popular television station went off the air. Why? Because Chavez decided that their broadcast license would not be renewed. Radio Caracas Television was the only TV station in Venezuela that was broadcast nationwide ... and Radio Caracas Television was critical of Hugo Chavez.

Are you starting to get the picture here?

Chavez says he is "democratizing" the public's airways. He also said that this TV station was a threat to his country. Wow! Now doesn't that sound very much like the things that the left is saying about talk radio in the U.S.?

What Chavez accomplished by edict the left in this country hopes to accomplish through legislation and regulation.

Just be patient, my friends on the left. Your time is coming. The impotent Republicans pose no threat to you in 2008. In the meantime, just sit back and admire your friend Hugo.

We should note that Venezuelans are protesting Chavez' actions. He'll tolerate some protests --- but let's hope these people know just how far they can push it. My wife and I were being shown around Caracas many years ago when we noticed some demonstrators. It was quite a spectacle to watch ... until the gunfire started. Our guide rushed us into a building to keep us safe.

How soon before Chavez answers these protestors with gunfire?

Hold on another second here. We can't let this segment go without mentioning that Hugo Chavez is the hero of such great Americans as Cindy Sheehan (see below), Danny Glover, Harry Belafonte and others. Great Americans all. Coming soon, don't miss Michael Moore's exciting documentary on the evils of Radio Caracas Television!

CINDY SHEEHAN TURNS IN HER CARD

By Michelle Malkin

Cindy Sheehan bids adieu on The Daily Kos:

I was the darling of the so-called left as long as I limited my protests to George Bush and the Republican Party. Of course, I was slandered and libeled by the right as a “tool” of the Democratic Party. This label was to marginalize me and my message. How could a woman have an original thought, or be working outside of our “two-party” system?

However, when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode and the “left” started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used…

The most devastating conclusion that I reached this morning, however, was that Casey did indeed die for nothing…

I am going to take whatever I have left and go home.

And "home" would be...Caracas?

I hear Cindy's squeeze Hugo has just acquired a few TV stations in need of far Left propagandist news directors...

***
More on the turmoil in Venezuela from Fox News producer and eyewitness Nora Zimmett. FNC's Adam Housley blogged the protests.

***

Matt at Blackfive remembers Casey Sheehan the right way.

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not."
- Thomas Jefferson

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE


1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. "Free" men do not ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved.
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.
15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
17. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
19. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their jobs safer.
20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
23. Enforce the "gun control laws" we ALREADY have, don't make more.
24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
26. "A government of the people, by the people, for the people..."

PLEASE PASS THIS 'REFRESHER' ON TO FREE CITIZENS

BORDER SECURITY: LET'S GET SERIOUS

by Wayne Simmons

If we can’t control the flow of people across our borders, no “reform”of our immigration laws will really fix anything. Illegal aliens will still come across, terrorists will get in and bring with them all manner of weapons. While congress whiles away its hours talking about complicated amnesty laws and visa regulations that no one will ever understand -- much less follow -- it’s time for Americans to measure and understand the threat that porous borders pose. I have some experience with that issue, having worked for a CIA paramilitary organization for more than 20 years, trying to prevent drug smugglers from bringing their deadly wares across those same borders.

Our borders are more secure than they were before 9-11, but not enough to prevent smart, talented people from coming across pretty much any time they like, with anything they’d like to smuggle. People -- hundreds of them -- are out there who have the sort of training and experience I do, only from the other side. They are former KGB, Cuban intelligence and intelligence officers from many nations who now hire themselves out to drug smugglers. They can out maneuver our understaffed, underequipped and underfunded border patrolmen with relative ease. And, for a price, they will smuggle anything into the US: people, drugs, or nuclear weapons. What does it say about our border security that the Fort Dix Six weren’t caught at the border or by good intelligence work, but only by sheer luck and a sharp-minded Circuit City employee who saw the jihad rehearsal video and called in the FBI?

To defeat these smart, well-trained and funded adversaries we have to get serious about border security. The legislation that’s now being considered by Congress isn’t. At the start of each new Congress the U.S. House of Representatives and members of the Senate are required under the U.S. Constitution to take the oath swearing allegiance to America. In modern times there has never been an issue which more clearly defined the Constitutional obligation by members of Congress to protect American citizens against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And, in modern times, there has never been a Congress so willfully ignorant of what needs to be done.

On Tuesday, May 22, the Senate agreed to debate the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007, S-1348, which allows for a significant number, between 12 and 25 million, illegal immigrants to be granted legal status in the United States. With support from President Bush, the man I have taken many political bullets for over the last seven years, a cadre of Senate Republicans have essentially sold out the American people by crafting a bill that allows for the continuing unfettered onslaught of U.S. borders with virtually no meaningful enforcement of security. It is now up to the House of Representatives to kill this measure and pass a real border security bill later this year.

Proponents of the Senate “compromise” legislation claim that this act was crafted by a bipartisan coalition, and it’s the only thing that can pass this year. Though the measure’s title talks about “secure borders,” it doesn’t provide for them. It calls for 370 miles of triple-layer fencing along the Mexican border, combined with a three-tiered system for filtering out those who can stay and who must leave the country as well as more jail cells for those awaiting deportation. Nowhere in the bill is there any specific requirement for real security counter-measures. Measures that will help to deter drug trafficking, international cartels running contraband and human trafficking.

We will never hermetically seal our borders. And a security fence alone -- though it is a key element of real security -- cannot protect the United States. If our legislators are serious about protecting this country and its citizens the following must be part of any security proposal:

1. The tasking of satellites dedicated to scanning our southern and northern borders.

2. Serious fence and wall barriers along the borders with listening posts throughout the less densely traveled regions of our borders.

3. The development of the United States Border Intelligence Agency. This agency would be a fully budgeted, independent intelligence gathering agency tasked to develop intelligence for the protection of our borders as well as run independent or joint task force operations against our enemies trying to penetrate our borders. They would conduct covert espionage activities worldwide, seeking out, penetrating and thwarting the plans of the black-market intelligence operators who hire themselves out to terrorists, drug smugglers and all others seeking to enter the US illegally.

4. The creation and deployment of Rapid Deployment Response Teams (RDRTs) a new, highly skilled, highly trained paramilitary unit culled from our current Special Forces Units, capable of responding to any part of our borders within 15 minutes, fully armed and whose commander reports only to the chain of command of the newly formed United States Border Intelligence Agency.

Roman Emperor Hadrian, in A.D. 122, recognized that in order to prevent military raids by the enemies of Rome and to improve economic stability and provide peaceful conditions in the Roman Empire, he had to build Hadrian’s Wall to separate British land from Scottish. The first of three walls would be 75 miles long and would be built from quarried stone, standing and protecting the empire for 300 years. The wall would physically declare and mark the territories of the Empire. Over 1600 years later the United States is under siege by her enemies. Terrorists have already attacked and murdered over 3000 people.

Terrorist cells are moving without hesitation, conditions or consequences across our borders. We are facing economic devastation by illegal immigrants who are burdening our healthcare systems by hundreds of billions of dollars per year. They pay no taxes and are about to be given amnesty for tax avoidance and who knows what other criminal acts the may have committed.

President Bush and leaders of Congress have not learned from history. Without the implementation of the types of aggressive actions outlined above, which physically declare the territories of the United States, the enforcement of our borders and the security of our nation will be virtually impossible. It will only be a matter of time when the United States will be nothing more than a footnote, a very brief footnote, in history.