A DAY WITHOUT AN AMERICAN

“This flag bows to no earthly king” – U.S. flag bearer at the 1908 Olympic Games

I must ask the pro-immigration activists the following questions:

* As I see my American flag being flown upside down, burned, or conveniently thrown into trash cans following your demonstrations, am I not supposed to feel insulted?
* As you hold up banners & wear t-shirts emblazoned with the face of communist revolutionary Che Guevara, am I supposed to believe you want democracy?
* As I read signs that say, “Whitey go back to Europe” and “We will take back California for Mexico”, am I supposed to feel warm and fuzzy about your hostile intentions?
* As I read the e-mails of immigration activists conspiring to shut down the Los Angeles International Airport and the Los Angeles Port Authority on May 1st, am I not supposed to see that as an attack upon my country?
* Why should America grant you amnesty when there is such a pre-disposition on your part to be anti-American?
* How would you feel if Americans were exhibiting the same outrageous behavior in your native country?

Passing the Kennedy-McCain bill not only grants amnesty to the 11 million illegal aliens currently in this country, it opens the floodgates for their families to immigrate as well. Based upon numbers reported by CNN and Fox News, it is estimated that such a policy of blanket amnesty will result in the immigration of somewhere in the neighborhood of 36 million people. Taking the current US population of 295 million into account, the 26 million family members who will join the 11 million immigrants already residing in this country will add an additional 9% to our population! To make matters worse, the overwhelming majority of these new citizens will not speak English and as a result will live below the poverty level.

According to US census records, approximately 11% of Americans currently live below the poverty level & 21.2% of all Hispanics live below the poverty level. If we apply the 21.2% number to the 36 million citizens that would be granted amnesty under Kennedy-McCain, you have an increase of 7.6 million citizens who will be added to our nations poverty index. The incontrovertible result will be disastrous for the economy, taxes will go through the ceiling to pay for welfare and subsidies, and crime will skyrocket due to the fact that the majority of crime is committed by individuals living below the poverty level.

Americans have an obligation to do what is right for its country, its citizens, and its economy. Americans have the right to dictate its future, not the 11 million illegal immigrants who have slipped across our border in order to demand entitlements. Americans CAN live a day without 11 million illegal aliens, and if challenged to do so, I assure we will not only do so but we will prosper from the experience.

The anti-immigration argument is NOT about racism; it’s about self-determination for America’s future. However, Latino activists are trying to twist the argument into the myth that it’s about self-determination for their future.

Let’s examine one more set of statistics & apply it to a model for self-determination. If there are 11 million illegal immigrants in this country at present, and 74% are of Mexican descent, then 8.14 million of the illegal immigrants are Mexican. If these same 8.14 million people stood in mass outside of the Mexican capitol and demanded democratic change in their government, they would soon be joined by millions more disenfranchised Mexican citizens, and positive changes would absolutely occur in their favor. However, this will not happen, and somehow the immigration advocates see the whole debacle as America’s responsibility to solve.

While immigration advocates expect America to solve its problems, I hear little or nothing from these activists on the subject of the impact of integrating 36 million immigrants with the 284 million legal citizens who already reside here. The issue od such an impact is ignored by immigration advocates because their goal is not about becoming a part of America, it’s about exploiting the benefits that they will receive from enjoying our form of government. The only “correction” in the pro-immigration message I have seen thus far has been a change in their PR strategy. Instead of burning our flags while their own national flag is held in high esteem, suddenly every protester is issued an American flag to wave in front of the liberal media & we are supposed to believe that all of the previous week’s anti-American sentiments have magically melted away.

Shame on Kennedy, McCain and every other politician who is willing to whore out this country by putting the interests of illegal aliens ahead of American citizens in their quest to gain the Hispanic vote. Clearly, our elected officials cannot be trusted on this subject. The overwhelming majority of Americans are adamantly against any variation on amnesty for illegal aliens & our cries of protest have fallen on deaf ears.

In my humble opinion, I feel that the best solution to the whole immigration issue is to have the politicians draft various immigration proposals and hold a special national ballot initiative that allows the American voters choose what they feel is in their best interest. I’m pretty certain most Americans would use their vote to keep their country a place that wraps itself in the flag rather than lighting it on fire.

THE LIMBAUGH LAWS ON IMMIGRATION

The “Limbaugh Laws” for immigration. Be sure to read the whole message, especially the last paragraph. From Rush Limbaugh’s radio show on April 6, 2006.

I want to call this proposal the Limbaugh Laws.

If you immigrate to the United States of America, you must speak the native language. You have to be a professional or an investor. We are not going to take unskilled workers. You will not be allowed.*

There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools, no special ballots for elections, no government business will be conducted in your native language.

Foreigners will not have the right to vote nor will they ever be allowed to hold political office.

According to the Limbaugh Laws, if you’re in our country, you cannot be a burden to taxpayers.

You are not entitled, ever, to welfare, to food stamps, or other government goodies.

You can come if you invest here, but it must be an amount equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage. If you don’t have that amount of money you have to stay home. If you do come and you want to buy land you will not be allowed to buy waterfront property in the United States. That will be reserved for citizens naturally born in this country. As a foreigner, you must relinquish individual rights to property.

You don’t have the right to protest when you come here. You’re allowed no demonstrations, you cannot wave a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies or you get sent home.

You’re a foreigner. You shut your mouth or you get out, and if you come here illegally, you go straight to jail and we’re going to hunt you down ’til we find you.

These are the Limbaugh Laws.

I can imagine many of you think that the Limbaugh Laws are pretty harsh. Well, let me tell you this, every one of the laws I just mentioned are actual laws of Mexico, today. I just read you Mexican immigration law. That’s how the Mexican government handles immigrants to their country.

A big hat tip to Steve Frank, who writes:

“The issue is illegal aliens, not immigration. But, what if we treated immigrants and illegal aliens like Mexico does? Why not? Unless you consider Mexico a racist and discriminatory nation.”

More Limbaugh:
If You Don’t Secure the Border, You Don’t Have a Country

RELATED:
Rethinking The Statue of Liberty
Mexicans Make A Run For The Border:
What Will Washington Do About It?
Immigration Protest in LA: Photo Essay
DNC Action Plan: Diversify The “Diversity”

POLITICALLY-TIMED IMMIGRATION RAIDS

By Michelle Malkin

I speak regularly with dedicated men and women who work for the Department of Homeland Security, and especially agents from across the country who work for the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

I can tell you based on my reporting over the last five years that the Bush administration's belated efforts to look tough on immigration enforcement at worksites amount to a cynical, politically timed effort to salvage the White House's guest worker program dreams and schemes. I'm referring to this story linked prominently today on Drudge and spread elsewhere:

Federal immigration authorities rounded up more than 1,000 illegal immigrants at dozens of sites and charged nine individuals of the firm that employed them, federal law enforcement officials announced. Seven current and former managers of IFCO Systems, which has offices in several states, were arrested and charged in connection with the employment of illegal immigrants, said U.S. Attorney Glenn Suddaby in Albany, New York.

Suddaby said two lower level employees were also charged in the case.

Wednesday's action against IFCO Systems -- an industry leader in the manufacture of wooden pallets, crates and containers -- came as Homeland Security and Justice Department officials prepared to announce steps to toughen internal enforcement of the nation's immigration laws.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and other Bush administration officials and a federal prosecutor will appear at the agency's Washington headquarters Thursday. They will announce the new strategy aimed at employers and disclose the results of the enforcement actions targeting IFCO Systems.

Customs officials said agents made more than a thousand arrests in nearly 40 locations including Houston, Texas; Cincinnati, Ohio; Phoenix, Arizona; and Albany, New York.

Well, this is all sounds good and tough...until you look at the Bush administration's record for the last several years. Don't be fooled.

For those covering DHS Secretary Chertoff's press conference today, ask him to explain this:

Via Edwin S. Rubenstein. Sources: GAO, "Immigration Enforcement: Weaknesses Hinder Employment Verification and Worksite Enforcement Efforts," August 2005. Figures 3, 4, and 5. (1999-2004.); Dept. of Homeland Security, 2003 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, September 2004. Table 39. (1997-1998); Dept. of Homeland Security, 2001 Statistical Yearbook, Table 61. (1992-1996).

As Rubenstein points out, this means that from 1997 to 2003, worksite arrests under the Bush administration fell by a factor of some 97 percent since 1997--and plunged by another 2/3rds by 2004.

Where have they been all this time?

As for getting tough on employers, Rubenstein also notes these stunning statistics: "[O]f the 3,064 workforce investigations closed [in 2004], fines were imposed in just 3 (three!) of them – one out of one thousand. . By contrast, fines were imposed in about 11 percent of closed investigations in 1997."

Notices of intent to fine employers:

1997: 865
1999: 417
2000: 178
2001: 100
2003: 162
2004: 3

Based on my reporting and interviews with ICE agents, I can also tell you that this week's dog-and-pony show will result in very few of the arrested illegal aliens actually being deported. Despite what the administration claims, "catch and release" is still the order of the day.

Just ask local and federal law enforcement officers in the Galveston, Texas, area, where in January of this year, following a collaborative effort between local police and area ICE agents, some 62 illegal aliens were caught at a day labor site...and released after local open-borders activists from LULAC kicked up a fuss and Washington ordered its local ICE agents to cave in. It happens every day.

More Bush-era catch-and-release background:here and here and here. and here. Must-read from indefatigable deportation analyst Juan Mann here.

You want "comprehensive immigration reform?" Then stop talking about making existing problems worse by piling on a new guest worker/amnesty program.

Clean our own house first.

***

Blogger reax:

La Shawn Barber is "glad to read any story with the words 'illegal immigration' and 'arrest' in it." She links to a justifiably cynical Dan Riehl .

Previous this month:

The mess at DHS

AZ GOVERNOR VETOES ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION BILL: THE TWO FACES OF NAPOLITANO

Illegal Immigration critics are complaining that Arizona’s governor is playing politics when she announced a state of emergency last year in response to illegal aliens and then she vetoes a new bill that would aid law enforcement in curtailing rampant illegal immigration.

Gov. Janet Napolitano vetoed a bill that would have made the presence of illegal immigrants in Arizona a felony offense. She claims she was responding to the wishes of local police chiefs and sheriffs who want immigration arrests to remain the responsibility of the federal government.

The new bill would have expanded the state’s trespassing law to let local authorities arrest illegal immigrants anywhere in Arizona, one of the country’s busiest illegal entry point. The legislation passed through the state legislature but was summarily blocked by the Democrat governor.

In a letter to lawmakers, Napolitano said she opposes automatically turning all immigrants who sneaked into the state into criminals and that the bill provided no funding for the new duties. But critics say she’s being disingenuous with her statements. One police commander claims she fails to mention that entering the US illegally is already a crime, albeit a misdemeanor. In addition, reentry into the US once an alien is deported is already a felony in the US.

Besides illegal aliens, the bill would have put more teeth into Arizona law to deal with human smugglers and de facto slave-traders.

“It is unfortunate that the Legislature has once again ignored the officials who are most directly affected by illegal immigration and instead has passed yet another bill that will have no effect on the problem but that will impose an unfunded burden on law enforcement,” Napolitano wrote in a press release yesterday.

However, when she declared a state of emergency in Arizona last year, following the lead of another Democrat governor — Bill Richardson of New Mexico — Gov. Napolitano spent millions on her deployment of National Guard troops on the Mexican border. Political analysts believe she declared the emergency in order to criticize the Bush Administration as did Gov. Richardson.

In fact, Richardson declared a state of emergency and then deployed a whopping 54 New Mexico National Guard soldiers to aid the beleaguered local law enforcement officers. One police chiefs said he’s seen more guardsmen deployed for a snowstorm than for Richardson’ “state of emergency.”

Supporters tough border security said the new bill would have provided Arizona with an opportunity to start gaining control of its vast border problems by providing a second layer of enforcement to catch the tens of thousands of immigrants who slip past federal agents each year.

Republican Sen. Barbara Leff of Paradise Valley, who proposed the bill, said the governor has painted herself as tough on illegal immigration by declaring a state of emergency at Arizona’s border, but has taken little action to back up her rhetoric, according to the Washington Examiner.

“I don’t think the governor wants to do anything about this problem,” Leff said. She said the bill would have been a means to detain illegal immigrants until federal agents can pick them up.

The Democratic governor, accused by her Republican critics of being soft on immigration, has vetoed other immigration bills from the GOP-majority Legislature within the past year, including a proposal to give police the power to enforce federal immigration laws. She’s also provided services for illegal aliens and is a proponent of drivers’ licenses for illegals.

While immigrants provide the economy with cheap labor, Arizona spends tens of millions of dollars each year in health care and education costs for illegal workers and their families. An estimated 500,000 of the state’s population of about 6 million are illegal immigrants.

While defenders of illegal immigrants tell the American people that these unlawful workers pay taxes, some immigration experts say illegal are usually paid off the books by their employers so there are no federal or state tax deductions. And because of tax laws passed to help low-paid workers, they aren’t taxed even is they declare their wages to the Internal Revenue Service.

Up to 28 percent of the work force in the country is paid in cash, meaning as many as one in four don’t have federal and state payroll taxes withheld, which creates the kind of economic unpredictability that potential employers tend to avoid, according to economic experts.

Gov. Janet Napolitano’s veto of the new bill is an about face considering her past speeches in which she told voters she would have two state police squads focus on alien smuggling cases. Both plans offer millions of dollars to communities to thwart illegal entries, and money for combating gang-related border crime.

State police in Arizona already work near the border. An average of 27 state police officers are near the border at any given time, assisting federal authorities in looking for fugitives trying to leave the country and people attempting to bring ill-gotten cash and stolen vehicles into Mexico.

Advocates for state and local action said the idea will not fix Arizona’s vast immigration problems, but would discourage some people from sneaking across the border.

“If the federal government isn’t going to do the job and Arizona is footing billions of dollars a year for illegal aliens, it makes sense for the state to get involved,” said Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors limits on immigration.

Meanwhile, opponents of tough border security are already harping on racial profiling saying it would increase if officers unfamiliar with immigration law were to try and enforce it. They also say it could make investigating crime harder in immigrant communities, because fewer aliens would cooperate with police for fear of being sent home.

Whenever cornered during a debate over law enforcement, liberal-left activists will always bring up the “racial profiling” issue whether it’s germane to the discussion or not. It puts the proponents of law enforcement on the defensive since the debate then becomes one in which the debater must prove he or she is against racial profiling.

Meanwhile, the invasion of the United States continues. And Republicans aren’t going to stop it; and the Democrats (and some Republicans) will actually accelerate it.

Read more by this author on our site here. (Scroll down)

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.

RELATED:
Tucson Student Forced to Listen to
Pro-Illegal Immigration Propaganda

TIDE TURNING

Judging by the latest Rasmussen polling, it appears as though the Republican Senate hopes are improving. Let’s get to the improving numbers:

Republican Senator Conrad Burns still struggles below the 50% level of support in the latest Rasmussen Reports election poll. But, he has managed to arrest the steady slide provoked by his connections to indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Burns now leads State Senate President Jon Tester 47% to 44%. A month ago, Burns trailed Tester 46% to 43%. Two weeks ago, Burns had pulled even. Burns now trails State Auditor John Morrison 47% to 45%. That, too, is an improvement for the incumbent. In each of our previous two polls, Burns had trailed Morrison by five points.

I suspect that most of Burn’s improvement is due to the passing Abramoff storm, though part of it might be due to Republicans rallying around him after hoping that Marc Racicot would run instead. Now that that isn’t an option, they’re rallying behind their incumbent.

The latest Rasmussen Reports election poll of Washington state’s Senate race shows Republican Mike McGavick continuing to chip away at the incumbent’s lead. Democratic U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell now leads McGavick 48% to 40%. In March, Cantwell led 49% to 36%. The new poll is the third in a row in which the incumbent has lost a percentage point of support. And it’s the second poll in a row showing her at less than 50% support.

Meanwhile, McGavick, the former Safeco CEO, has made his strongest showing yet, and is firming up support among Republicans (now 86%) and conservatives (79%). This is the first poll showing McGavick within single digits of Cantwell. In each of the previous five Rasmussen Reports surveys, he had trailed by 13-15 percentage points.

That’s hardly a welcome trend to the Democratic faithful. Cantwell is a mediocre senator and an ever worse campaigner. If McGavick is a decent campaigner, I’d be surprised if he didn’t win. Also hurting Cantwell is the ‘Christine Factor’. Democrats are quick to cite the President’s bad poll numbers but Gov. Christine Gregoire’s popularity is as low as President Bush’s. (I suspect that this same thing is worrying Debbie Stabenow in Michigan, where Gov. Granholm’s popularity was tanking even before the auto industry ills were announced.)

The son of former Governor Tom Kean (R) now has a seven percentage point advantage in New Jersey’s U.S. Senate campaign. The latest Rasmussen Reports election poll in the Garden State shows Republican Tom Kean, Jr. leading Senator Robert Menendez (D) 43% to 36%. Seven percent (7%) of voters say that they will vote for some other candidate and 14% remain undecided in this Democratic leaning state. A month ago, Kean held a two-point advantage, 41% to 39%.
Kean has solidified support among Republicans since our last poll while Menendez has lost ground among Democrats.

If this trend continues, I think this is a potentially big pickup for the GOP.

Stay tuned to this website for the polling you won’t find at the Washington Post or NY Times.

ROCK THROWING RECONQUISTADORES

By Michelle Malkin

From the Santa Barbara News Press, some not-so-peaceful, open borders students wreak havoc on an elderly couple's home:

A peaceful school-sanctioned protest march in support of illegal immigrants turned ugly Monday when students from Santa Barbara High pelted the home of an elderly couple with rocks and eggs.

The incident took place at the home of Joel and Eloise Gomez on East Canon Perdido Street after the couple exchanged words with some of the 300 or so students making their way back to campus, about one block away.

Off-campus student protests against a proposed law that would make felons out of illegal immigrants have taken place across Santa Barbara in recent weeks. But this one, conducted with police escort and with school officials close by, is the first that has involved any report of violence.

Mrs. Gomez, 70, said she and her 74-year-old husband heard the marchers approach, chanting "Sí, se puede" (Yes, we can) and other slogans.

"We were out there and there they come with their shouting and shaking their fists," she said. "We were just saying stay in school, learn English, you know? They didn't like this."

Mr. Gomez said he saw two girls pick up rocks and throw them at the house. One ripped through the screen and hit the front door, he said...

...Fifteen minutes later, said Mrs. Gomez, another group of girls returned.

"They all lined up there and at the command of one of the girls they threw eggs all of a sudden," she said. "They did their damage and ran like rats."

In all, nine eggs were lobbed at the home.

"I was going to go out there," said Mrs. Gomez. "I would have been pelted by eggs. Something told me just stay in."

Once the students had left, she added, two other girls knocked on the door to offer assistance, said Mrs. Gomez. Soon after, the couple called police.

And, again, lest you think the reconquista agenda is relegated to Mexican elites and fringe sympathizers in academia, pay attention to the last sentence:

"This is not just a movement that's happening in Goleta or Santa Barbara," he said. "It's a worldwide uprising of people that are standing up for themselves."

Mayor Marty Blum told the students that she thinks the city will soon vote to oppose any federal legislation that would make being in this country illegally a felony. "City Hall has already heard your voices," she said.

Freshman Jonathan Aguiar said he didn't learn anything from the speakers. "I knew it already."

The 15-year-old added, "It's not fair for the immigrants to be told they're criminals."

Phillip Kuzmanovski, 15, agreed.

"This state used to be Mexico," he said. "We can't make it illegal for them to be here."

Like they say:

***

Previous:

The signs you didn't see
Viva la Raza in D.C.
Welcome to Reconquista
Another American flag down
The American flag comes second
Free rides for student protesters
How 'bout media guest workers?
Welcome to reconquista
Teddy Kennedy is very happy
Bush's shadow boxing
Minutemen attacked
Bush's open-borders platitudes