Over 12, 20, 30,  40 million cheerfully served under McCaineddy’s Golden Arches!

April 2, 2013: Ted Kennedy is long gone, but his ghost remains with us. With today’s post, we will return to the roots of contributor, S. J. Miller’s twelve part series dealing with the title subject. Her experience and involvement in the passage of “Proposition 200” in Arizona, made her uniquely qualified as no other, to present the facts on this timely issue. This republication of S. J. Miller’s lengthy series on the subject – is not the end of the story. It is being written as you read this lengthy treatise, and we are sorry to say that Ms. Miller is not around for a successful conclusion – one which excludes Amnesty in any form…

Once again, please keep in mind that this series was originally written and published in the early months of 2005, and therefore, some of the names of the players have changed, and some of the embedded hyperlinks may no longer be active, but as was stated in the 1932 MGM film, ‘Grand Hotel,’ “People come, people go. Nothing ever changes at the Grand Hotel!“ In other words – we’re still fighting the fight!

The series originally began publishing on January 24, 2005 and concluded, February 18th of that year. So long as Congress and whoever is the President continue to lolly-gag with this issue THIS presentation will never be out of date. (Editor)

SERIES OVERVIEW: After disasters like the Asian tsunami, and the Haitian earthquake, scam charities soon appear to capitalize on Americans’ sympathy and generosity. “How-to” Guides are often published to identify legitimate operators vs. scam artists.

With the emergence of immigration as a political issue, scam artists called politicians are seeking to exploit Americans’ sympathy and generosity. These politicians ally with illegal-immigration/ethnic groups such as LaRaza, MALDEF, LULAC and cheap-labor business groups (hotels, restaurants, agriculture). Trying to convince Americans of the need for “immigration reform,” they peddle little more than “bells and whistles” for appearance. Their deceptive and carefully-designed scams deliver victories for these special-interest lobbies, but are disastrous to Americans who suffer the negative impact and whose taxes subsidize this “cheap labor.”

Citizens new to the immigration issue may find themselves lost in the rhetoric advanced by those with a vested interest in injecting confusion to the debate. Columns in the series will introduce the essentials, followed by a description and exposure of various political sales-pitches, serving as a “How-to” guide for Americans to recognize and protect themselves from these self-serving con-artists.

First and foremost, don’t make the mistake of believing that these politicians and their allies want to “inform” you. Their goal is to completely shut down reasoned and informed public debate on immigration. One of their favorite methods is to create enough confusion that voters eventually throw up their hands in frustration and leave the entire matter to them. Don’t fall for this tactic; today’s immigration fiasco is the result of “leaving the entire matter to the politicians.”

The less you understand, the more likely you are to abandon the outraged letters and phone calls to your elected officials, and that’s exactly what they want. Informed voters interfere with the special lobby interests who enrich politicians’ campaign funds. Some newspapers have the same agenda, producing news reports every bit as garbled as politicians’ confusing rhetoric.

The current immigration system isn’t “broken” or “failed;” it’s just unenforced. Not unenforceable, mind you, just ignored. Americans don’t want so-called “immigration reform, they want strict enforcement of immigration laws, an end to illegal immigration and amnesties, and an end to the rampant lawlessness engendered by politically-correct refusal to enforce our civil laws.

Since the Bush Administration “immigration reform” proposals are 100% scam, any “expose'” must by definition address the deceit of their “compassionate immigration reform.” With that caveat, “Bush-worshippers” proceed at their own fury.

I must emphasize that every elected office holder is NOT a pandering politician, nor is every pandering politician elected. A notable group of exceptions are US House members of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, (formerly) headed by Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO). They know the true impact of immigration and seek to protect the interests of the American people rather than elitist lobbies.

If your congress-member hasn’t joined this group, contact the local office to find out why. After hearing your first “Immigration Reform” Scam sales pitch, you’ll be glad you educated yourself.

Sandra J. Miller 

Part I: Call it by the rightful name – ’illegal alien’.

The law: US Code Title 8, Chapter 12, sub-chapter I section 1101 & sub-chapter II section 1325, defining improper entry to the US without inspection by an immigration officer as a crime. (New rhetoric from illegal-immigration advocates says “it’s not a crime to enter the US illegally.” That’s nonsense; it’s both a civil and criminal violation of US immigration laws.)

The immigration officer verifies the “visa” that insures the entrant is free of contagious diseases, is not a convicted criminal, can support himself financially, and does not threaten Americans’ safety and security.

• Immigrant: an individual who has received permission to enter and permanently reside in the US. The written permission document issued by the US government to the immigrant after successfully completing required health tests, financial checks, and criminal investigations is called a visa.

• Alien: an individual in the US who is not a US citizen. After entering the US, the “immigrant” becomes an alien.

• Illegal alien: Anyone in the US in violation of the law. The illegal alien has intentionally chosen to violate the law and lacks the evidence VISA that they have observed all US laws in entering and remaining in the country.

Most illegal aliens enter via the US-Mexico border, either alone or with a smuggler. Other illegal aliens entered the US legally under a student, tourist or other temporary visa (promising to leave at the end of their “visit”) and chose to remain after their visa expired. When the temporary visitor chose to “overstay” their visa, they became an illegal alien. Their original “legal” entry doesn’t give them upgraded status from the more common illegal border-crosser.

Both are illegal aliens, both are violating US immigration laws, and both are subject to deportation.

Sounds pretty straightforward so far, and it actually is.

The “confusion” comes from politicians and their allies who cry, “the immigration issue is very complex.” It’s nothing of the kind.

What’s “complex” is their strategy for convincing law-abiding American citizens and taxpayers that willful violators of US immigration law should be rewarded with legal status and “perks” paid by citizens’ tax dollars. These politicians and their special-interest lobbies deeply resent Americans who express their outrage over illegal immigration, and are desperate to stop public debate on immigration policy. They want to convince you that the issue is so “complex” that you, a simple American voter, will never understand it, throw up your hands in frustration, and leave the resolution to mass immigration lobbies and the politicians they control with campaign donations.

The “moving target” has always been a most effective tool, adding new ambiguous phrases to replace the clear, legal and straightforward terms listed above. By constantly adopting new deceptive terms in the name of “political correctness” and “sensitivity,” they hope to confuse rather than clarify. The “moving target” succeeds when the public spends more time and effort in futile attempts to keep track of the endless parade of new “hype” than education on the actual issues.

Anyone using the following terms is an “immigration reform” scam artist:

• “undocumented persons” – removing “illegal” masks that the alien is a lawbreaker and sounds so much better!

• “illegal immigrants” – an oxymoron. Immigrants obey US laws by applying for and receiving a visa to enter the US. How can someone who obeys the law be “illegal?” Just one more term to confuse voters.

• “migrants” – irrelevant to the immigration debate. An immigrant isn’t automatically a migrant. As well, a US citizen can be a migrant, totally removing them from the immigration issue.

That they intentionally use terms that confuse rather than clarify is automatically suspicious. They’ll stop at nothing to stop public discussion of immigration issues. Those who insist on using clear and accurate terms will be intimidated with accusations of “racist,” “xenophobic,” “hate-mongers,” “anti-immigrant,” and “bigot” and the rest of their tired litany.

In their attempts to manipulate American immigration policy and Americans’ opinions, Hispanic-rights groups like MALDEF and LaRaza have dictated that the term “illegal alien” is a “racial slur.” Baloney! “Alien” and “illegal alien” are terms found in federal immigration law describing both the individual and the violation. Americans need not apologize for insisting that lawbreakers be called exactly what they are.

A recent “letters to the editor” column contained a new politically-correct euphemism for those who choose to violate our immigration laws: “unofficial immigrants.” An obvious illegal alien advocate urged that US borders should remain open to “unofficial immigrants,” allowing them to “steal” taxpayer-funded services reserved for Americans. I was amazed that the newspaper printed my reply exposing as ridiculous his refusal to “call an illegal alien an illegal alien.”

• Does he leave his car unlocked, keys in the ignition, gas-tank on “F,” for use by “unofficial drivers?”

• Does he leave his house unlocked to enable easy access by “unofficial residents?”

• Does he stock the refrigerator and pantry to feed “unofficial residents” while they’re taking “unofficial possession” of his belongings?

• Does he leave his wallet in public with credit cards available to “unofficial cardholders” who may want to use them?

• When his bank is robbed, does he dismiss the loss of his money as an “unofficial withdrawal?”

The current non-enforcement of US immigration laws means we have no idea who enters the US. The illegal alien may intend to steal jobs, health care, education, housing, and welfare benefits or may be your garden-variety “unofficial terrorist.”

Part  II: ‘We’re a nation of immigrants‘ and other emotional propaganda

January 25, 2005 – I live in California and this place is getting more and more like Mexico daily. You can call it illegal immigration if you like to be politically correct.

Unfortunately, in the real world it is simply just an invasion. We as American citizens better put a stop to it soon or we are literally going to lose are country by merely being out numbered/overrun systematically.

I am ashamed of Mr. Bush for many reasons, but the one element that is most disturbing is his unrelenting objective of giving are jobs, culture, and ultimately are country away to Mexico. Mexico is an outright enemy of the legal citizens of this country, unfortunately for us they are the amigos of the Bush administration. We may be in some serious trouble.

Ron Lingren, Huntington Beach, CA

Like the phrase in the title, much of what you’ll hear about immigration is long on emotion and short on facts. The rhetoric may come from newspapers, TV, radio talk shows, public speeches, internet websites or from individuals, classroom teachers and professors.

You can reply to some (newspaper articles and editorials, radio talk show, individual comments) while not to others.

The list below includes those you’re most likely to hear. Just as you learned with previous “buzz terms,” recognizing them is a warning – you’re being scammed.

If you’re so inclined, reply to the rhetoric: send a letter to the editor of the newspaper, e-mail the author’s website, or telephone your members of Congress. Share your comments with friends or family members.

If it’s a speaker, ask questions. I’ve found it amusing to ask the speaker exactly what they mean. It’s surprising how often they simply parrot what someone else said and have no idea what the phrases mean.

If you can’t reply, let the phrase “ring a bell” for your experience. That means you’re becoming informed!

Several axioms to remember:
The immigration issue is not a level playing field. Despite the hype about “poor, oppressed people of the world,” the mass-immigration advocates get lots of money from US government funding, large corporations, private foundations, and even foreign governments.

The ordinary American citizen gets none of that. While citizens’ activist groups are springing up all over the country, we’re mostly shoestring operations. We don’t get the public grants and corporate contributions that ethnic advocates receive. What we lack in money, we must make up for in perseverance, knowledge and guts.

Despite their advantage, these groups don’t welcome public debate. Their choice is to persuade you with emotion and manipulation rather than with facts. They generally depend on emotion just for that reason – they can’t find facts to support their case.

This is an issue that calls for reasoned and informed discussion, not inflammatory rhetoric and accusations, and you have every right to insist on facts. Clear, relevant facts. Truthful would be nice too.

If they can’t or won’t provide verifiable facts, they’ve proven how flimsy their position really is.

Don’t take it personally if your insistence on facts gets you accused of being a “racist” or “bigot,” because that tactic has been effective in the past. You aren’t “racist” to insist that immigration policy be open to public discussion and debate, and that’s what these groups really oppose. Recognize that they resent your participation and questions, and don’t let them intimidate you.

But speaking of emotion, an Hispanic activist friend asked me to “plug” her personal hot-button immigration issue. It’s actually true of many ethnic groups, but affects more Hispanic people just because of their greater US numbers.

Hispanic “community leaders” would have us believe that ALL Hispanics support illegal immigration. Newspapers, advocate groups and politicians also use terms like “Latino,” “Hispanic,” “immigrant,” “illegal” interchangably, hoping we’ll assume that all Hispanics are illegals and/or immigrants. Naturally, they want their influence to appear as powerful as possible. Haydee’s objection is not only emotional, but furious:

“How about the lumping of American citizens of Hispanic descent with illegal aliens? The catch phrases are “The Hispanic Community” and “The Hispanic Vote.” Both are big lies since American Hispanics are the least of Americans to want illegal aliens here to compete with them for jobs.” “The tricky words are: “We must not be anti Hispanic.”

“Hispanics enrich our culture and they add to diversity.” These are illegal aliens, and they have nothing to do with American Hispanics! Maybe you can work that in – I don’t care how you put it as long as you make a point of it. It’s time these “Hispanic community leaders stop forcing American Hispanics into the illegal immigration quagmire.“

And talk about timing! As I prepared this column for submittal, the Arizona Republic published a letter with similar sentiments from Luis Martinez of Casa Grande, AZ:

“I just love the “indignation” of the so-called Hispanic leaders (I always wondered how you become a Hispanic leader; is there a test?) about a plan to ensure English remains state government’s language.

What is wrong with requiring that the state’s paperwork and forms be in English? This is a small step against the “balkanization” of America that others are so intent on.

Those who are objecting to this are the same “leaders” who always object to anything that will prevent illegal immigration. I am afraid they forget which country they live in and which flag waves overhead.

Memo to state Rep. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix: As a Hispanic, I am neither insulted by nor upset about this measure. Please take your phony indignation elsewhere.“

And now for the list, representing the input of more than 400 e-mail friends who were gracious enough to share their experience and their replies. The purpose is introducing you to the various phrases so you’ll recognize them as scams when you hear them in speeches and in the media. Other columns in the series contain more overworked mantras where they best apply. Rebuttal is also included to demonstrate how ludicrous the political hype really is. Whether or not you ever use the rebuttals yourself, your recognizing them shows the list has fulfilled its purpose.

A. The Factoid (Pseudo-fact) Collection
We’re expected to believe they’re true just because they’ve been repeated so often.

”They’re otherwise law-abiding people” and “…they’re unlawful aliens but otherwise lawful citizens” (from Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales in testimony to Congress).
Say what? Is this the opinion of a would-be US Attorney General? Is it too much to ask of President Bush that he limit his nominees to people who both understand AND obey ALL US laws (including immigration laws)?

“Unlawful aliens” is just another euphemism for “illegal alien,” about which we read in Chapter I. USC Title 8, Chapter 12, sub-chapter I, section 1101 makes mincemeat of this gabble: how can an alien also be a citizen?

The laws they’ve broken just by being an illegal alien include illegal entry to the US, obtaining false or fraudulent documents (needed to “work hard to make a better life”), obtaining employment with false or fraudulent documents, and likely identity theft(more about that in Chapter 9). Quite a rap sheet for “otherwise law-abiding people.”

”Borders are artificial lines in the sand,” “human migration is natural” and “There are no boundaries in nature” (Mother Jones)
We’re people, not Arctic caribou, lemmings or Canada geese. There’s an important difference (although in some cases there’s room for doubt). “No boundaries in nature?” Has Mother Jones ever heard of the Amazon River, the Pacific Ocean or the Gobi Desert?

”The US-Mexican border is the largest violation of human rights”
This baloney is from the Mexican government, no less! The Mexican government doesn’t feel the same about their sourthern border; it’s highly fortified and guarded, requiring laser ID cards. Very representative of the Mexican government’s hypocrisy regarding borders and immigration.

”Enforcement of immigration laws by local police destroys the ‘trust’ that has been established within the ‘immigrant community. ”
Of course the “immigrant community” has established rapport with law enforcement – they’re law-abiding people who are in the US legally. But this mantra speaks of the “illegal alien community,” and as commented by the assistant to a police chief, “If the illegal community is so cooperative, why does 3/4 of our violent crime occur there?”

B. The Boo-Hoo Collection
(designed to exploit Americans’ sympathy for those less fortunate).

”We’re a nation of immigrants”
Remember the definition of “immigrant” from Chapter 1. We are a nation of immigrants, all of whom received legal permission to enter and permanently reside in the US. We’re NOT a nation of illegal aliens.

”Immigrants built this country”
Again, IMMIGRANTS built the country; illegal aliens did not.

”How can we call ourselves a great nation of freedom and equality if we treat our fellow immigrants like animals?” and “Immigrants are hunted like animals by the Border Patrol“

“fellow-immigrants?” I’m not an immigrant.

“…like animals?” Why the need for the Border Patrol to hunt immigrants down at all, let alone “like animals” when “Immigrants” voluntarily arrive at designated entry points with documented proof of prior permission to enter the US. This makes even less sense than their usual gabble.

The phrase “the Border Patrol hunts immigrants” recalls the pictures we’ve all seen of circa-1900 people sailing into New York Harbor with the Statue of Liberty in the background. Contrast that with the visual image conveyed by the phrase “The Border Patrol hunts illegal aliens” and you’ll recognize the attempts to manipulate you by exploiting your sympathy.

”We’re all God’s Children,” “No one is illegal in the eyes of God“and “We claim to be a nation of Christian values, yet we treat the poor immigrant like garbage…”
God’s children? A nation of Christian values? Not according to the ACLU, we’re not! Not only are we not God’s children nor does the nation espouse Christian values, but the suggestion itself sends the ACLU into hissy-fits and violates the “establishment” clause of the First Constitutional Amendment providing “separation of church and state.

A perfect example that “the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing.” The various “hate America” groups should really get together and coordinate their PR hype. Lies are so much more believable if they’re at least consistent.

”There’s no such thing as an illegal human being”
The author of this clearly hasn’t read Title 8, Chapter 12 of the United States Code.

”Forced to live in the shadows” and “Living in a climate of fear. ”
This isn’t true, but it should be. Anyone who breaks the law SHOULD fear apprehension and punishment. Without fear of swift and certain punishment, civilized society reverts to anarchy.

Anyone who believes these two is so removed from reality to need sequestering from sharp objects. Illegal aliens blatantly make public speeches, demonstrate for their “rights,” speak openly to news reporters, and enter federal buildings with their phony Mexican “matricula consular ID.” They know their chances of apprehension and deportation are minimal.

“They have such a hard trip north”
After researching how my ancestors arrived from Europe, this impresses me NOT. Six weeks of bouncing around the Atlantic in the hold of a ship, arriving in Castle Garden or Ellis Island with fears of being rejected and sent back? Then after being “processed” and emerging to the streets outside, facing the gauntlets of pickpockets and swindlers that awaited arrivals of “greenhorns.” My great-grandmother even gave birth aboard ship! And these were true immigrants, who entered legally!

My neighbor expressed even more contempt. “My ancestors came from Africa in the hold of a slave ship. That was no walk in the park.“

Remember that illegals CHOSE the “hard trip north” when they CHOSE to come illegally. They had the option of obeying the law as millions have done before them, and CHOSE not to take it. The illegal choice should always be more inconvenient and difficult than the legal one. Immigration is one of the few examples where that’s still true, and it should remain that way.

C. The Perry Mason Collection
(“Objection Your Honor, assumes facts not in evidence.”) The idea here is to hang you with a personal guilt trip for things someone else did or that never even happened in the first place. Remember that all their attempts to rewrite history don’t change the facts.

“Why Mexicans and not other immigrants….” “Why are we singling them out?”
Who’s singling out Mexicans? The law applies to ALL illegal aliens. Mexicans seem to be those demanding special preference over everyone else; that’s why the ‘M’ in MALDEF. “We’re just like Nazis in how they treated the Jews.”

Again, facts not in evidence. Illegal aliens are ejected from the US after the crime of illegal entry into the country; most Holocaust Jews were native born citizens of Germany and Nazi-occupied countries.

Nazi death-camp survivors are outraged at this comparison. It’s especially hypocritical considering MEChA’s alliance with Palestinian terrorists and other anti-Semitic groups who claim the Holocaust never even happened. Again, they hope you don’t notice that they contradict their own propaganda.

”This is a racist policy of the (conservative) right!”
Americans and/or conservatives are no more uniform in views than Hispanics. Not all conservatives favor immigration law enforcement; those in “cheap labor businesses” encourage illegal immigration. Nor are all its’ supporters conservatives; insistence on immigration law enforcement and opposition to amnesty crosses US political party lines. The 80%+ of Americans who oppose illegal alien amnesty and want immigration laws enforced far exceeds those in the so-called “conservative right.”

“This is a fiscal policy of thrifty taxpayers” would be accurate.

“This was once our land! Why shouldn’t we have a right to settle in it?” or “The gringos stole the land from us, and we have a right to be here.”
That land I currently own once belonged to someone else doesn’t give the former owners the option of arbitrarily cancelling their purchase agreement at their whim and resuming occupancy. Land wasn’t stolen from Mexico by the US, no matter how much the “reconquistas” (reconquerors) try to rewrite history. Mexicans lost the so-called “right to settle in it” when their government accepted $28 million in pre-Civil War (1848-1852) sales payments. A lawful land transaction was duly recorded and remains intact today.

Part  III: Amnesty – Don’t Use the ‘A’-word!

“Amnesty” is a political hot potato. Voter opinion polls consistently show 80%+ opposition to illegal alien amnesties. Even without a thorough understanding of the illegal immigration issue, their opposition to illegal alien amnesties is adamant.

Q. What is an illegal alien amnesty?
A. The US government publicly admits to Americans that they’ve so badly bungled their job of enforcing immigration laws that the vast number of illegal aliens are too many to apprehend and deport, and hollers “olly, olly outs in free.” Illegals already here are now eligible for a resident visa without being accountable for their offense of illegal entry.

Sound the warning bells and wave the red flags!!! When was the last time the government honestly came clean and admitted bungling their job unless they had a hidden agenda(although where immigration is involved it’s already well-known)? Every citizen should smell a rat (otherwise known as amnesty).

It’s much like declaring bankruptcy. The debtor (the US government) promises better immigration law enforcement in the future if the creditor (the public) will just give them another chance. Does the creditor (the public) believe them?

Q. Who wins?

• Illegal Aliens receive a “get out of jail free” card. Their past intentional violation of US laws is forgiven and forgotten, allowing them to bring up to 21 family members.

• Immigration Lawyers do a land-office business after an illegal alien amnesty.

• Cheap-labor businesses anticipate an abundance of workers.

• Politicians make lots of political points with ethnic and cheap-labor groups, often increasing campaign donations. To “unsuspecting” citizens, they claim they’ve “ended illlegal immigration,” because the illegal alien population is reduced to zero! It’s all an accounting trick.

Q. Who loses?

• Foreign applicants. The already-lengthy immigration process becomes longer as government priorities place amnesty seekers first. “Legalizing” those who sneaked in always takes priority over new immigrant applications (the rationale being ‘they’re already here’), but during amnesty times “immigrant processing” virtually nonexistent.

• American taxpayers. The deluge of newly-amnestied and largely unskilled people generates increased applicants for social services and increases Americans’ tax burden.

Been there, done that.
The 1986 “one-time only” amnesty was an unmitigated disaster with only 3.7 million illegal aliens were pardoned. Just as opponents predicted, the US was soon flooded with illegals lining up for the next amnesty, and 19 years later the illegal alien population exceeds 15 million. Like many former bankrupts, the government demonstrated worse bungling with their “second chance” and the illegal alien “debt” quickly increased to higher levels.

Many of those who suckered us back in 1986 are asking Americans for a “second chance”: Senators John McCain (AZ), Senator Ted Kennedy (MA), Congressman Dave Dreier (CA) with a few new players like President George Bush and Congressman Chris Cannon (UT).

But they do recognize that Abraham Lincoln was right when he said “…you can’t fool all the people all the time.” Knowing they won’t get away with another “amnesty,” they choose another name and tell you that it’s not the same at all. Again, they hope to confuse and frustrate voters with these euphemisms so that we’ll abandon our opposition.

Three “red warning flags” apply here:

(1) Don’t automatically believe the politician who tells you “it’s not an amnesty.”
(2) No matter the tag the politicians attach, an amnesty is still an amnesty.
(3) The louder and more insistently the politician assures you that “it’s not an amnesty,” the more certain you can be that it IS an amnesty.

Q. How can Americans identify an amnesty?
The best place to start is Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary:

• amnesty: the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals

• pardon: (a) a release from the legal penalties of an offense (b) an official warrant of remission of penalty.

Illegal aliens have committed the crime of illegal entry into the US. Any “immigration reform” plan that applies to people already in the US is a potential AMNESTY. For them to remain requires a pardon from the deportation penalty that applies to their offense. If the “immigration reform” plan exempts an illegal alien from deportation, it’s an AMNESTY!

Amnesties only apply to lawbreakers; people who haven’t committed an offense don’t need a pardon!

Not only is the deportation penalty clearly specified in federal law, the added bonus is that it actually makes sense! Imagine that! When someone steals something they shouldn’t have (i.e. US entry), the penalty is to take it away (i.e. deport them).

As we expose the “scam terms” for AMNESTY, don’t forget our lesson from Chapter I: Anyone using these terms to describe “immigration reform” is a scam artist!

“guest-worker plan.” Ask the question “Is entry limited to the “worker?” If not, it’s an amnesty disguised as “guest-worker” legislation. If the true intent is obtaining temporary workers, allowing families to accompany the worker destroys any incentive for the “guest worker” to ever return home. It not only burdens the American infrastructure to provide free health care, education and social services, but offers automatic citizenship to any children born during the “guest-worker’s” stay.

For this very reason, the Bracero program operated between 1943-1962 was an effective guest-worker plan. Only workers came to the US; families remained in Mexico. The braceros were screened for criminal background, supervised while in the country. Workers’ expenses were paid from administrative fees charged to the employers who used their labor. That they weren’t eligible for public assistance should be patently obvious.

But its resumption is rejected by President George Bush because he claims “family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande.” While governor of Texas, he used slightly different phrases: “Hell, if they’ll walk across Big Bend we want ’em.” (1) Clearly, George W. Bush doesn’t care why they come.

“path to citizenship.” Let’s see if I have this right. Offering an “upgraded” reward (citizenship rather than only legal residence) for lawbreaking will make lawbreaking less common? Someone is out in la-la land with this one.

“earned legalization.” This is a hoot. For breaking the law, the violator “earns” the reward of legal US residence. Who in government thinks up such drivel? Do these people drink during the workday?

“regularization.” What on earth does this mean? It’s just another meaningless term to evade admitting it’s really an “amnesty.

The “reality” of amnesties.
No matter what “limitations,” “exclusions,” “provisions,” “safeguards” or “restrictions” politicians claim they’ve included, they’ll never be enforced. The “stipulations” are strictly “window-dressing” to soothe voters’ outrage and convince them that “nobody is caving in to lawbreakers” (even though that’s exactly what’s happening).

Politicians who support and vote for amnesties know in advance the “limitations” won’t be enforced. The louder the claims that this “not an amnesty” immigration reform plan will “crack down” on illegals and the employers hiring them, the more certain you can be that “safeguards” will never be enforced.

For example, legislation may require that the illegal alien must have documents proving they’ve been present and worked in the US for at least 3 years, giving a political rationale for “they’ve been living and working in the US and proving to be “law-abiding citizens.” This “safeguard” is laughable; illegal aliens can easily obtain “documented evidence” of anything.

Of course, the non-enforcement won’t be acknowledged until a major disaster blows the lid off the entire can of worms.

Remember that 6 months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, automatically-renewed student visas for the now-dead terrorists’ arrived at their flight schools. That’s when Americans learned how worthless the supposed student visa “safeguards” really were. The “safeguards” were part of the law, but INS stopped enforcing them many years before.

That’s how we’ll learn that the provisions of the “not an amnesty” immigration reform plan weren’t enforced. Excuses might include staff shortage, political pressures from Congress and the White House, unrealistic time deadlines, or heavy workload from unforeseen high applicant levels. There wasn’t time to check criminal backgrounds, so upper management directed that all applications receive automatic approval.

More about George Bush’s “guest worker plan” that’s “not an amnesty” will appear in Chapter VII, The “Compassionate Immigration Reform” Scam.

(1) Boy Genius: Karl Rove, the Brains Behind the Remarkable Political Triumph of George W. Bush, Lou Dubose, Jan Reid & Carl Cannon, Perseus Books.

Part  IV: Greedy Employers Need Amnesty, too!

Have you heard this “immigration reform” proposal lately?

“My fellow Americans, we need an amnesty for employers who hire illegal aliens. They’re goodhearted employers who only want to make a better life for their employees. But they want to come out of the shadows and be law-abiding employers, and amnesty will allow them to do that! We want to give them every chance to obey the law.”

Of course not! I doubt that even politicians could keep a straight face at such swill; hysterical laughter would literally bring down the House. But don’t be fooled; amnesty for employers hiring illegals is part of every amnesty or “guest-worker” plan.

What’s universally overlooked in debate on amnesty for illegal aliens is that violating employers will also receive amnesty for their past illegal hiring practices. But D.A. King hit a bulls-eye by identifying the real movers and shakers behind giving amnesty to illegal aliens: “It comes from, and is designed to benefit the people who sell us beer, toothpaste, newspapers and housing. The many who pull the strings of the ruling few. (1)

Employers who hire illegal aliens also commit a federal crime. The “Immigration Reform” con-artists want to concentrate our attention on gaining sympathy for the “poor, desperate” illegal aliens. “Disconnect” notwithstanding, they aren’t so delusional as to expect our sympathy for employers who knowingly hire illegals, year in and year out.

And let’s be clear why employers hire illegals. We hear their excuses that “illegals work harder” or “I’ve tried to hire Americans, but couldn’t find anyone…,” but the answer is easy: Money. Radio callers even report that illegals demand wages of $10.00 hourly, more than many legal Americans are paid!

The money an employer saves isn’t totally in wages; the “cash, off-the-books” feature offers jackpot savings in dollars and responsibility. Workers’ compensation insurance, unemployment taxes, Employers’ Social Security and Medicare taxes (7.65%) are only a few examples of costs such employers evade.

We all know how on-the-job accidents are handled: the illegal employee is dumped at the local hospital emergency room with a story of being hurt while working at home. The hospital staff knows both the true story and the real employer, but nonetheless obligingly labels the patient as “uninsured.” They know that sooner or later a federal politician will deliver “federal money” to “reimburse hospitals for medical care that federal law requires them to provide.”

“Federal Money?” That’s taxpayers’ money used to pay local hospitals to treat illegals working for employers violating the law.

As with the illegal alien, the penalty against employers is tied to their motive for violating the law. Added to legal costs, the $1,000 fine negates the financial savings of hiring illegals; prison time is an added deterrent. It would be a highly effective penalty if it were enforced.

Proof of the federal government’s lack of interest in enforcing immigration laws is the statistic: 13 prosecutions in 2002 (1 employer per each 4 states)! Recent headlines of action against Tyson Chicken and Wal-Mart appeared for only one reason–they’re really news. That’s the rarity of enforcement against violating employers, and why illegal immigration continues.

To illustrate, a recent Chicago Tribune article told of the hardships and backbreaking conditions suffered by illegal aliens working in the Smithfield meat processing plant in Tarheel, NC, all carefully designed to manipulate readers’ sympathy for illegal aliens. That writer Stephen Franklin didn’t mention any investigations by OSHA, FLSA or US Immigration authorities is for good reason – there was none! (2)

So let’s be clear on the true purpose of “immigration reform;” it’s to protect the employers who hire illegals. You can bet “immigration reform” bills won’t reach the Oval Office without an employer amnesty.

Even if it’s not in the original bill, there’s always the old trick of sneaking it in as an amendment. Analyses of bills is on their original content; “last-minute” amendments are used to evade such review.

So before allowing yourself to be persuaded into an amnesty for the “good-hearted people who want a better life,” remember that they’re just a front for the employers who hire them to fatten their wallets. Do you really support an amnesty for such bottom-feeders?

So let’s see how an amnesty benefits the employer:
Q. What is an employer amnesty?

The US government publicly admits to Americans that they’ve so badly bungled their job of prosecuting employer violations that the vast number of employers hiring illegal aliens are now too many to identify and prosecute, and hollers “olly, olly outs in free.” Employers’ past offenses are now erased; they’ll never be held accountable.
If citizens will just grant another employer amnesty, the US government promises they’ll do a better job of handling employer violations in the future, promising “severe crackdowns.” Just as they did in 1986. Are we really that gullible?

Q. Who wins?

Criminal Employers. They’ve hired illegals at cut-rate wages and cut-rate working conditions, pocketed fatter profits and literally “passed the buck” to taxpayers for their employee costs. In the process, they’ve given Americans’ jobs away for only one reason: greed.

Politicians make lots of political points with employer groups like National Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers, nursery & landscaper owners, agri-business employers, hospitals, restaurants and hotels. Political points often translate to campaign donations.

Q. Who loses?

Law-abiding Employers. Employers who want to hire Americans and pay fair wages can’t compete with the “predatory employers” above. They’re put in the moral quandary of hiring illegals themselves to survive. Sometimes they’re forced to close their businesses, eliminating free market competition that leads to monopolistic business conditions.

American taxpayers. The deluge of newly-amnestied, largely unskilled people generates a huge pool of eligible applicants for social services, increasing Americans’ tax burden. Employers who hire illegals do so to evade taxes and other business costs (workers’ compensation taxes, unemployment taxes, Social Security/Medicare taxes), shifting them to American taxpayers instead. The worker injured on the job goes to the hospital emergency room and treated at public cost rather than his employers business insurance.

Unskilled workers don’t make higher wages just because they’re now legal. What IS different is that their legal status now makes them eligible for publicly-funded benefits, and we KNOW who pays for that.

Former IRS Commissioner Donald Alexander reveals his estimate of $311 billion in uncollected taxes (3) lost in the “shadow” economy. (Do you notice that news of how disastrous things really are so often come from “former” government officials?) American taxpayers foot the bill here as well; government’s higher costs are paid by citizens by either higher tax burdens or interest on money borrows to meet current costs.

Been there, done that.
The 1986 “one-time only” amnesty was an unmitigated disaster, with an unknown number of employers pardoned. Because the promised “crackdown” never happened, amnestied employers resumed hiring illegals and the employment of illegal aliens is now epidemic. The 20 million+ illegal aliens reported by Barron‘s writer Jim McTauge are working somewhere!

The major difference in amnesties for illegals vs employers is that employers are “repeat-offenders.” Employers pardoned in 1986 are still hiring illegals. When the promised federal “crackdown” faded into oblivion, new employer-offenders joined “repeat offenders.”

Do we really believe that ANOTHER employer amnesty will convert repeat-violator employers who have made clear their intention to continue hiring illegals?

Of course they won’t! The only deterrent they’ll comprehend is consistent prosecution, fines and jail time. Employer amnesties only perpetuate lawbreaking. Isn’t it amazing how amnesties affect both illegal aliens and employers identically–the lawbreaking continues.

Q. How can Americans identify an employer amnesty?

Merriam-Webster‘s definitions apply to employers just as to illegal aliens:

amnesty: the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals

pardon: (a) a release from the legal penalties of an offense (b): an official warrant of remission of penalty.

Employers knowingly hiring illegals have violated the law, carrying a penalty of $10,000 and/or 1 year in jail per offense.

Any “immigration reform” bill is a potential AMNESTY. If the “immigration reform” plan exempts an employer from penalties of past violations, it’s an AMNESTY!

The Conspiracy of Silence on Employer Amnesties
Why doesn’t all the “immigration reform” rhetoric mention employer amnesty? You can be sure it’s no coincidence but carefully designed that way.

It’s mind-boggling that so many groups of people who talk for a living can maintain such a complete and effective silence when they choose. The White House is silent. “Immigration panderers” in Congress are silent, as are the American Immigration Lawyers groups, the Chamber of Commerce, the Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the ethnic advocates of illegal aliens (MALDEF, LULAC, LaRaza and the others).

Absolutely nothing. Zilch. Zip. Yet there’s no doubt they know that “employer amnesty” will accompany amnesty for illegal aliens.

A Washington DC-based expert group has publicly disclosed the information on their website. NumbersUSA, an educational and research institution on US population growth, found “employer amnesty” in every major amnesty or “guest worker” legislation introduced during the 108th Congress (2003-2004):

• Senator John Cornyn’s “guest worker” Bill (S 1387)

• Senator Craig & Congressman Cannon’s AgJobs Amnesty (S 1645, HR 3142)

• Senator McCain & Congressmen Kolbe & Flake’s “guest worker” Bill (S 1461, HR 2899)

• Senator Chuck Hagel’s guest worker” Bill (S 2010)

• Senator Kennedy & Congressman Gutierrez’ Jackpot Amnesty (S2381, HR4262) (4)

Those in the “conspiracy” hope that if they maintained total silence on the “employer amnesty” feature and talked long and loud enough about good-hearted people, securing our borders, chasing terrorists, and the American Dream that simple American voters would be fooled, and they’d slip another one by us.

They’ve been largely successful, wouldn’t you agree?

A true “guest worker plan” might provide the future cheap labor that business wants, but wouldn’t exempt them from prosecution, fines and jail for past crimes of hiring illegals. Here’s why that’s important:

Recall Bernard Kerick, the New York Police Commissioner nominated for the cabinet post of Homeland Security Secretary. He quietly withdrew his candidacy when his past hiring of an illegal alien nanny was publicly exposed.

Had any of the several amnesty bills passed Congress last year, Kerick’s past crime of knowingly hiring an illegal alien would have been pardoned; he could have remained in the running for Secretary of Department of Homeland Security. (There would still have been the matter of his two extramarital affairs, misuse of supervisory influence on behalf of his mistress, and conflict of interest with stock ownership in a DHS government contractor, but perhaps the Senate could have lived with those).

Until Congress and the President pass another “employer amnesty,” Lemick and other potential public office nominees will have their past offenses hanging over their heads. Do we doubt that there are thousands more like Lemick hiring illegals with impunity?

Opposition to amnesty for illegals is based on the prediction that amnesty breeds expectations for future amnesties. That illegals will continue to come in the continuing hope of amnesty. We know that prediction is true, because that’s exactly what happened after the 1986 “one-time amnesty.”

When we know that amnesty for illegal aliens rewards and perpetuates illegal behavior, it’s undeniable that amnesty for employers rewards and perpetuates their intentionally hiring illegals.

The “reality” of employer amnesties.
What we learned about “safeguards” with illegal alien amnesties is even more certain with “penalties” against employers who hire them. The harsher they are, the less likely is their enforcement.

Congressman Dave Dreier (R, CA) has introduced HR-98, crowing how the stronger penalties ($50,000 per occurrence and up to 5 years’ imprisonment) will deter employers from hiring illegals. Even if his bill passes, those penalties are strictly for show. Despite his long tenure (24 years), Congressman Dreier’s bare 11-point victory last November clearly showed voters’ fury with his abominable record on immigration law enforcement. He’s desperate to show at least an appearance of improvement, even if no actual substance.

Politicians who support and vote for these harsh penalties know in advance they won’t be enforced. The louder the claims that this “immigration reform” legislation will actually “crack down” on employers hiring illegals, the more certain you can be that the penalties are strictly window-dressing.

As with non-enforcement of laws against illegals, the non-enforcement of laws against employers won’t be exposed until it’s inadvertently exposed (perhpas by a “former” immigration official?) That’s when immigration officials will finally come clean and admit that the laws were never enforced because of political pressure or understaffed departments (or some other pretext).

That’s great for politicians who continue receiving “employer donations” in the meantime, but it’s not acceptable to Americans who demand “zero tolerance” to continued flagrant violations of immigration laws.

~ Resources ~
(1) D.A. King, Amnesty for Illegal Aliens and their Employers., MichNews, Jan. 12. 2005

(2) Stephen Franklin, Jobs that ‘Americans won’t do’ filled by desperate migrants.., Chicago Tribune, January 17 2005

(3) Illegals estimated to number 18-20 million. WorldNet Daily, January 3, 2005

(4) Comparison of Various Selected Guest Worker and Amnesty Bills in the 108th Congress., NumbersUSA

Part V – The ‘we can’t deport all 12 million illegal aliens…’ scam

You generally hear this one from government officials replying to angry citizens’ demands that laws be enforced. Variations include “We can’t send them back, there’s too many” ” and “We can’t stop them from coming so long as the economic disparity exists” (or “so long as we have jobs they’re willing to take”). The intent is to convince you that they’d like to help you, but it’s just beyond their control. There may be a dramatic gesture of throwing up their hands for emphasis at this point.

You may even hear the piteous whine that “The US can’t conduct mass roundups for 10 million illegals and deport them in boxcars” in their well-practiced attempts to promote guilt for the Nazi-like images they promote. Talk about manipulation. Of course, you agree that the US doesn’t want to be Nazis, and faster than you can say, “it’s not an amnesty, really,” you’ve set yourself up.

Next, you’ll hear that the only alternative is an amnesty. And you reluctantly agree, knowing you’re being conned but just don’t how it all happened.

This is baloney, and that’s why it’s called a scam.

It premiered in a Miami speech by Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge on Tuesday, December 9. “The bottom line is, as a country we have to come to grips with the presence of 8 to 12 million illegals, afford them some kind of legal status some way, but also as a country decide what our immigration policy is and then enforce it,” Ridge said at a town hall meeting at Miami-Dade Community College. (1)

Americans knew what that speech meant, and raised a ruckus with Secretary Ridge. Because we knew he was “testing the waters” for his boss, George W. Bush, the White House caught the heat as well.

What’s important to note here is that White House numbers on illegal immigration have now been recognized as (ahem) lies. Their standing annual count of 1 million illegal aliens entering was destroyed by Time Magazine – as their September 2004 coverage revealed the 2003 number to be 30 million, well known by the Administration.

Ridge’s “8 to 12 million illegals” has also been exposed as false by a non-Administration source, Robert Justich, a senior managing director at Bear Stearns Asset Management. His January 3 2005 estimate in Barron’s magazine is 18-20 million illegal aliens, double what the Bush Administration wanted us to believe in urging their “guest-worker plan” that’s “not an amnesty.”

Was anyone surprised that the same White House urging an illegal alien amnesty would “under-report” the illegal alien population?

Not when we recall the falsified “low-ball” White House estimate of $400 billion for George W. Bush’s 2003 “Medicare Rx/Reform” bill. Within three months, Congress learned from Medicare Chief actuary Richard Foster that he’d reduced by 33.5% his original number of $534 billion when White House aides threatened his dismissal if he didn’t. Their reason: the number had to be $400 billion because “that’s the maximum Congress would accept.”

A month after Ridge, Americans were outraged to hear George W. Bush present his “guest-worker plan” that would “match willing workers with willing employers.” White House lines rang busy for nearly a week. Only after 5 days of busy signals on their fax line was I finally able to send my protest letter between 2-5 am.

During 2004, several others parroted the George W. Bush “guest-worker plan that’s not an amnesty,” always preceeding it with “we can’t deport 8-12 million illegals.” They included Homeland Security Undersecretary Assa Hutchinson, Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, and most recently Senator John Cornyn of Texas. Since I’m not a cable subscriber, I don’t watch Bill O’Reilly but friends who do tell me O’Reilly uses it as well. If that’s true, O’Reilly has joined the Bush “amnesty sales blitz” team.

Upon taking his new post as Chair of the Senate Immigration subcommittee, John Cornyn (R,TX) made it obvious that he’s a shill for the Bush “guest worker plan” in his January 13, 2005 comments to the Washington Times:

“The new chairman of the Senate Judiciary immigration subcommittee, Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, who sponsored a temporary-worker bill last year, said he will hold hearings and raise the profile of the issue. ‘I don’t believe amnesty is doable, nor do I believe that should be our goal, and I don’t hear the president suggesting that should be. Just to the contrary,’ he said. ‘On the other hand, I would say we have 10 million people living in this country outside of our laws. I don’t believe the American people would have the stomach for deporting 10 million people, nor do I believe our economy could sustain the loss of 6 million people who are currently in our work force.'” (2)

Nonsense! The “loss of 6 million” illegal aliens from the work force will help some of the 14 million Americans who can’t find a full-time job. They don’t all pick lettuce as Bush, Cornyn and their allies would have you believe (more about this in Part 10, The “Jobs Americans Won’t Do” Scam).

So committed is Cornyn to the Bush Administration’s propaganda that he stubbornly parrots the “10 million Illegals” number 10 days after Barron’s has exposed it as a lie. He may as well say, ” That’s our story and we’re sticking to it.” I expect Congressman Dave Dreier to be next to jump on the Bush “guest-worker plan” bandwagon.

“Self-deportation” alternative
Other names include “illegal alien unfriendly environment” and “zero-tolerance for immigration violations.”

Just like any other salesman, politicians peddling the “We can’t deport…” scam don’t tell you about a better product offered by their competitor. It comes from Congressman Tom Tancredo (R, CO), but “illegal immigration unfriendly environment” is mine.

A friend retired retired after 27 years’ Border Patrol service agrees, as does a gentleman from Overland Park, KS that I’ve never met, Carlos Ramirez. (3) So it’s true that great minds think alike!

The liberal hand-wringers will howl in horror at the concept of being “unfriendly” to illegal aliens, but it’s what hard-working American taxpayers are expected to observe:
(1) Enforce current immigration laws against violating employers.

The new Workplace Verification program (enabling applicants’ Social Security numbers to be matched against the holder’s name on SSA records) has been successful in the 6 “pilot” states, and is now available in all 50. It’s a voluntary program, but employers refusing to use the system reveal their intention to hire illegals.

Stop the “blind eye, deaf ear” sanctuary policies in cities and states like Houston, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco and the entire state of Maine! In Phoenix, it’s Operations Order 1.4, but kept very quiet from the public. A general rule of thumb is that any city where “day laborer centers” operate probably order their police forced to recognize “sanctuary.”

(2) Eliminate US attractions for illegal aliens.

a. public assistance program eligibility limited to citizens, with proof of citizenship required for applicants, similar to Arizona’s Prop 200 (and in progress in several other states)

b. proof of citizenship required for voter registration, and photo ID required at the polls. And despite the whim of Arizona’s governor Janet Napolitano, a sworn statement of citizenship is NOT acceptable. Sheesh!!!!

c. cease government funding of any private foundation or non-profit group that serves illegal aliens. Such private groups currently include Catholic Charities, Lutheran Social Services, American Friends Service Committee, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society and many others. Our tax money shouldn’t be spent to aid those who violate immigration laws.

A reader told of Plymouth, CA where Mercy Housing of Sacramento project of 7 subsidized homes at Hawksview Estates. The wholly-owned affiliate of Catholic Charities chose two employees of nearby Amador County wineries among the first resident. And you guessed it – 2003 tax filings for Mercy Housing of Sacramento show that 100% of their income came from government grants and contracts!

Of the first 7 Hawksview units, 6 were awarded to families whose head of household are non-English speaking Mexicans. No one would be surprised to learn they were illegals, but I wouldn’t even bother asking Catholic Charities such a question; I have no doubt of their response: “We help anyone in need regardless of immigration status.”

Applicants for subsequent housing units reported they only learned about the program upon seeing the first units under construction. The question of how the “first families” learned about the new housing units available will never be admitted, but likely circulated in the “illegal alien underground.”

That public tax money provides assistance and “support services” to illegal aliens is an outrage! If wine industry employers’ costs increase, they should be passed to industry customers – that’s the way a free market works. I’m not a wine-drinker, but it’s clear that my tax money subsidizes cheap labor for the wine industry. Can anyone doubt that this example is repeated in hundreds of cities and industries nationwide?

d. end the current “auto-citizenship by birth” custom of giving citizenship to children of illegal aliens born in the US, making them eligible for all publicly-funded welfare benefits. American citizenship should be granted, not stolen. Legislation is pending in Congress to achieve this – contact your congressman to support it.

e. federal laws barring acceptance of ANY foreign issued ID cards, such as the Mexican matricula consular. Despite warnings by the FBI, Justice Department and Homeland Security Department, US bankers have pressured the Treasury Department to recognize these notoriously fraud-prone-cards for opening bank accounts. These cards aren’t even recognized by Mexican banks, nor by 22 of their 32 Mexican states!

f. no government reimbursement to hospitals rendering non-emergency medical care to illegal aliens. If these hospitals feel compelled to provide full-service medical care to illegals, let them seek reimbursement from private donations.

g. US financial and identification systems available only to those in the country legally.

What NOT to do is to make illegals’ life easier, such as some individuals feel is warranted:

“They’re here to work, and need to drive, so we must give them drivers licenses.” Let the employer who benefits from their “cheap labor” provide any transportation they need.

“They’re here and need to have a home, so we’re going to make it easy for them to get mortgages.” (4) (5) Might this person be either a realtor or a banker?

BICE (Bureau of Immigration & Customs Enforcement, formerly INS) would place legal immigrant applications at highest priority, with “legalization of illegal aliens already here” the lowest priority. “Legalization” should be lowest BICE priority, limited to “report and deport.”

“Zero tolerance” policies is expected to end the ability of illegal aliens to survive in the US through taxpayer-funded assistance, whether public or private. That’s neither “cruel” or “inhumane,” but what Americans are expected to do every day. Eliminating these “back-door benefits” would either force illegals to leave the country or force employers to pay them a wage sufficient to pay all their living expenses (which would eliminate the financial benefit of hiring illegals!).

“Self-deportation” would resolve the problem within 5-7 years. It won’t be 100%, but the remaining illegal population would be a feasible number for BICE to pursue and deport. The best bonus is that the “illegal alien grapevine” will quickly send the word back home – don’t bother coming. Illegals attempting to jump the border would be reduced from a flood to a trickle that the Border Patrol could control with military backup.

Does anyone else believe it would work? You bet. Government officials serving “cheap labor businesses” know it would be effective!

What better proof than the billions in tax dollars funneled by federal, state and local governments to non-profit groups AND government agencies for subsidies, grants, funds, studies, etc that assist illegal aliens?

Why did government officials from the White House down to the Mayors of Phoenix and Tucson oppose Arizona’s Prop 200! Both questions have one answer: they know that illegal aliens can’t live on “cheap-labor” wages, and without public tax subsidies, the “cheap labor” will disappear.

It’s both effective and humane, and the only objectors are those who profit from illegal immigration.

Let’s Roll.

~ Resources ~

(1) Homeland Security Chief endorses legalizing undocumented immigrants, Orlando Sun-Sentinel, December 10 2003.

(2) Immigration Plan discouraged by GOP lawmakers, Washington Times, January 13, 2005.

(3) Deportation is a good first step, Orlando (FL) Sun-Sentinel, Jan 9 2005.

(4) Mortgages Made Easier for Wisconsin’s Illegal Immigrants, The Milwaukee Channel, Jan. 4 2005.

(5) Pilot program funds mortgage loans for illegal aliens, Duluth News-Tribune, Jan 4 2005.

Part VI – The ‘Secure the Borders’ scam

Americans expected after 9/11 that our borders should be secured, and were appalled when the President refused to do it. Congress has authorized the use of the US military on the border, but the President refuses.

But as always, let’s first understand what “securing the border” means, as well as what it DOESN’T mean:

It DOESN’T mean ending all traffic between the US and Mexico, even though White House and cabinet officials take every opportunity to paint that picture. They hope to convince Americans that we can’t control who enters the country without destroying trade and commerce, and that’s nonsense.

Crossing the border between the US and Mexico would be permitted ONLY at designated crossing stations. No more border-jumping, no more human-smuggler trips, no more drug dealers jumping the border. The US military would be placed on the border. Their mission: to stop those on the Mexican side from firing on the Border Patrol and to stop Mexican Army’s habitual at-will incursions into the US. Because politicians have ignored Mexican Army and drug smugglers’ at-will crossings for decades, the borders have become so dangerous that the Border Patrol needs military protection to do their job of patrolling the border.

Hardly seems enough. Like many other questions on the immigration issue, what the liberal hand-wringers call a “radical Nazi-like policy” is standard operating procedure everywhere else in the world. Only when Americans call for secure borders do we hear cries of outrage and indignation from the worldwide “protectors of human rights.”

Build a “border fence” and militarize the border.
We visualize a high, impenetrable wall, similar to the Berlin Wall or the Israeli security fence. We’re assured that by adding military presence to the equation, US borders would easily and instantly be “secure.” (1) The hope is that we’ll be so thankful that we’ll forget to ask the “what if” questions and instead swallow their “Secure the Borders” scam hook, line and sinker.

The “fence + military” plan is essential, but only when implemented with the “illegal alien-unfriendly” environment mentioned in Part V! By itself, the “fence + military” combination will fail; there’s there’s no wall high enough and no military numerous enough to keep people out if they’re determined to enter.

The scammers hope we won’t notice they’ve substituted “Secure the Borders” for our call to “Secure the Country,” but we do notice. Americans want a secure country, not just “secure borders.” The new cabinet department is named “Department of HOMELAND Security” not the “Department of Border Security.”

THE SUDDEN CONCERN FOR “BORDER SECURITY” — WHO AND WHY?
Some are elected; others are appointed to offices in White House cabinet agencies. They supported illegal immigration and ignored as long as they could the obvious danger posed to Americans by poor security that illegal immigration demonstrated. They knew that increased security to hinder terrorists would also hinder the entry and survival of illegal aliens into America, and they couldn’t tolerate that. Neither could the elitists whose interests they serve.

We’ve heard their excuses: “These people aren’t terrorists, they’re coming to work hard and make a better life” and “we don’t want to hinder trade and commerce.” They wouldn’t admit what was obvious: politicians can’t be sure who the illegal aliens are, where they were coming from, or why they came. They poo-poohed repeated reports of Arabs (not Hispanics) crossing our southern border until they couldn’t ignore them any longer.

Politicians whose re-election is coming can no longer drag their feet on homeland security. And constituents’ complaints intensify when terrorist alerts are broadcast: Iraqis entering Arizona to destroy nuclear power plants, the warning of 4 then 10 then 16 Chinese national terrorists suspected of crossing the Mexican border with nuclear bomb capabilities. (I wonder if that’s why Tom Ridge has discontinued the “color-coded” warnings.)

Suddenly nearly every member of Congress calls for “border security” and “immigration reform” (watch out for that term–it’s widely used by mass-immigration lobbies to emphasize the “immigration” and ignore the “reform). They need to score political points for next year’s election, and they know it will be easy to “trump” the George Bush Border Security policy: “Hell, if they’ll cross Big Bend, we want ’em.” (2)

Identifying “immigration reform” political scammers is easy with the “Immigration Report Cards” published by NumbersUSA at their website that lists voting records for both current and former elected federal officials. “Immigration reform” scam politicians can run but can’t hide from this powerful tool.

Actually, the names of those suddenly calling “Secure the Borders” were enough to raise red flags. It only required an examination of their statements to get a good read on their real agenda.

And leave it to Hillary Clinton to lead the “flip-floppers” with her sudden concern for “Border Security” and her sudden “anti-illegal immigration” position during a Thanksgiving 2004 interview with NewsMax. (3)

Senator Hillary Clinton (D, NY) with a recent immigration voting record of F-, who will stand for re-election in 2006.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D, CA) who will stand for re-election to a third term in 2006. Recent immigration voting record of D+, with an F- on illegal alien amnesties!

Specific details on these two senators’ positions are detailed below.

Congressman Dave Dreier (R, CA) who advocates national ID cards as well as the George Bush “guest worker plan” that’s “not an amnesty.” His “C” voting grade is misleading; he seems to have a knack for votes to support bills that he knows will never be enforced anyway.

The tactics of these three (and many more like them) are obvious – convince Americans that “border security” requires national ID cards, hoping that Americans’ resistance to national ID cards will cause them to abandon the whole idea.

Of course we reject “national ID” cards! Why should law-abiding people be inconvenienced for the criminal behavior of illegal aliens when we already know federal authorities will continue ignoring law enforcement against illegal aliens?

Governor Janet Napolitano (D, AZ) who opposed Arizona’s Prop 200 voter initiative and continues to impede its implementation any way she can.

NOTE: As of the date of this reposting, April 2, 2013, Napolitano is the Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, under the Obama Administration. (Ed.)

Her recent state of the state speech contained “in the gringos’ faces” evidence of her two-faced treachery. She probably thinks none of the gringos speak enough Spanish to recognize the significance of her repeated use of “Yes, we can.” It translates to “Si, se puede” – the “battle cry” of the illegal alien empowerment campaign for demanding their ‘rights.’

Despite her lip service to “border security” and ending illegal immigration, that phrase signals to illegal aliens and Mexico that she’s really on their side. She likely joins them in laughing at the gringos who she’s sure don’t even recognize her “trigger” phrase.

And in the next-to-last paragraph, her reference to people settling Arizona before recorded time because they followed the “north star?” She’s pandering to the MEChistas who howl “it was our land first.”

Bill O’Reilly of FOX News favors illegal alien amnesty, also called the Bush “guest-worker program.” He repeatedly stresses the need for “border security” but is very careful to avoid calling for an end to illegal immigration or its disastrous results on Americans’ lives. Whether his “on air” position is his or that of FOX owner Rupert Murdoch isn’t clear, but O’Reilly and President George Bush represent the cause the current immigration problem, not a solution.

Recently, Rush Limbaugh began calling for “border security” after remaining silent on the matter since 9/11. He cited two “red flags:”

• the Variety ad by Hollywood celebrities urging Governor Schwarzenegger to grant drivers’ licenses to California’s illegal aliens

• the Mexican government’s threat to challenge Arizona’s Prop 200 in “international courts.”

While it’s gratifying to have finally heard Rush’s concern, I did notice his care not to call for stopping illegal immigration.

The tip-off was Rush’s White House interview of Condoleezza Rice’s oath of office as Secretary of State followed by a cordial interview with George Bush (remember the Presidential interview awarded to O’Reilly prior to the 2004 election?) President Bush and Karl Rove aren’t tolerant of disagreement with White House “Party Line;” as Tom Tancredo learned shortly after the 9/11 attacks. (4).

After learning that the White House’s now common practice of paying journalists for promoting their agendas, Rush’s outrage with Hollywood is almost hypocritical. (5) In the meantime, I’ll be wary of any media figure showing a sudden concern for “border security.” It won’t take long to know whether Rush is another media shill for the White House.

WHY THE “FENCE + MILITARY” SOLUTION ISN’T ENOUGH (1)
During a recent TV immigration discussion, a fellow from the Center for Immigration Studies likened effective immigration policy to a four-legged stool: all four legs must be in good working order for the stool to be stable. The people above advocate “repairing” one leg while allowing others to wobble. The “fence + military” option won’t do the job by itself.

1. Visa Overstays (mentioned in Part I). They enter through designated border crossings with proper documentation and become illegal by staying in the US after their visa expires, as did several 9/11 hijackers. Militarizing the border won’t catch these people, but an “illegal alien-unfriendly environment” will.

2. Defend breaches. Remember that guards on the Israeli fence and the old Berlin Wall were authorized to shoot those who breach. It won’t take long for the border-jumpers to learn that won’t happen on the US border. Not when US cabinet secretaries refer to whining Mexican politicians as “my amigo.”

The Illegal-Alien UNFRIENDLY environment, outlined in Part V, is the only way to make the US secure. Any military man (or woman) knows that you don’t secure an area from the outside-in, but rather from the inside-out. That’s why we call it the Department of Homeland Security and not Department of Border Security. How can a defender stop outside invaders with enemies at his back?

Then why the need for the military and/or a fence at all? To make entry harder for those who can’t risk crossing at border stations, primarily drug dealers and terrorists. Remember that the “good-hearted people” will be removed from the equation by the “illegal-alien unfriendly environment.”

It’s time to add the fourth “leg” to “securing the border” and those outlined in Chapter 5:

(1) Enforce current immigration laws against violating employers.

(2) Eliminate US attractions for illegal aliens.

(3) Reinforcing and militarizing the border.

(4) Increase internal immigration law enforcement.

a. Citizens’ reports to BICE (Bureau of Immigration & Customs Enforcement) of illegal aliens shouldn’t be ignored, especially when it also involves employers who hire them.

b. State and local police who call BICE after apprehending illegal aliens in the course of their duty shouldn’t be told “if they don’t have criminal records, turn them loose.”

c. BICE should resume and increase surprise “sweeps” that have been successful, both in workplaces as well as other locations where illegals are known to frequent.

d. Remove the administrative handcuffs and bureaucratic interference from the Border Patrol and BICE. That includes pandering to advocate and big-business lobbies.

e. Employers found hiring illegals should be subject to frequent “surprise audits.”

In short, immigration laws should be enforced like other laws. The current “hands-off” treatment given to “illegal aliens” by government offices (local, state, and federal) must end.

CONGRESSMAN SENSENBRENNER WANTS REAL BORDER SECURITY (6)
Reviewing the specifics on Congressman Sensenbrenner (voting grades of A and B) vs that of Clinton, Feinstein, and Dreier quickly shows who is genuine and who’s looking to make political hay for the 2006 elections.

We recall that the Congressman led the “House GOP mavericks” in refusing to pass HR-10 last November without the immigration restrictions recommended by the 9/11 Commission. His introduction of the REALID legislation shows he recognizes the need for REAL border security, which begins on the inside to make the country more “illegal alien unfriendly.”

He plans during the 109th Congress to make the entire US more “illegal alien unfriendly,” because all the “Border Security” in the world is worthless if an illegal can work, live, and prosper in the US with little chance of being caught and deported, and also collect public benefits and have children who receive “auto-citizenship” just because their parents managed to evade apprehension.

Enabling local law enforcement to cooperate in immigration law enforcement is useless with the current federal policy of refusing to pick them up for deportation if they’re “only illegal workers.” So long as that policy continues, the whole thing is just a game of smoke and mirrors.

That usual opponents may help to militarize and fence our borders is the best proof of the adage that “politics makes strange bedfellows.” Their alliance (albeit temporary) with conservative Republicans put President Bush in a squeeze play. What better evidence than his inclusion of “border security” in his State of the Union speech?

Does anyone remember it’s the same border was pronounced “secure” by his Border Patrol chief just prior to the GOP convention last August? (8)

…COMPARED TO SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON:
The following text is an excerpt from a letter I wrote to Senator Clinton shortly after her public “conversion.”

If you really want to convince Americans of your “change of heart,” start simply. Instead of the politically-correct euphemisms dictated by the pro-illegal alien lobbies, call them what they are: NOT “undocumented workers” but ILLEGAL ALIENS. An attorney like yourself should be familiar with federal law defining correct terms.

Your D- voting record surpasses even the Senate’s worst “illegal alien sellouts,” including John McCain, Up-Chuck Schumer, and Teddy “let anyone and everyone in and put ’em all on the public dole while you’re at it” Kennedy. And they’ve had years and years in the Senate to achieve their D and D+ grades; you’ve achieved yours in only 4 years!

You claim you object to the fake IDs that illegals obtain, but you’ve never once supported prohibitions against the Mexican Matricula Consular.

We remember how you protected illegal aliens from deportation just because they claimed family members died in 9/11, but you kept it hidden from view–that’s why you used the 2002 Omnibus Spending bill to hide it. Please understand that Americans insist that immigration policy debated and decided publicly, not in the dark of night as in the past. Your past immigration votes won’t withstand public scrutiny.

You advocate a “national ID?” Now we hear your real agenda. Americans aren’t going to carry national ID cards when you continue encouraging phony foreign IDs that proliferate among illegal aliens.

Now for your RECENT position on illegal immigration. Not just votes, but pro-illegal immigration bills you’ve CO-SPONSORED:

S 2381: Teddy Kennedy’s Instant Jackpot Amnesty for illegal aliens. YOU CO-SPONSORED IT.

S1545: Orrin Hatch’s DREAM Act to allow illegal alien to get an amnesty, attend college at low rates, and afterward bring in all their family members. YOU CO-SPONSORED IT.

S 1645: Teddy Kennedy/Larry Craig’s AgJobs Amnesty for illegal aliens and their families. YOU CO-SPONSORED IT.

S 2845: The 9/11 Intelligence Bill that removed the immigration restrictions as demanded by the White House and your other “pro-illegal alien” buddies in the Senate. YOU CO-SPONSORED IT.

These four are just the tip of the iceberg; they don’t reflect anti-illegal immigration bills you voted against.

…COMPARED TO SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN (7):
(interview comments are in plain type with my comments in italics)

Lou Dobbs: Senator Dianne Feinstein has proposed legislation that would reimburse state governments for some of the $13 billion they’re estimated to be spending on the incarceration of illegal aliens. Feinstein’s proposal would raise federal funding of reimbursement programs to about $1 billion.

I talked with the senator earlier and asked her if she believes this legislation is a meaningful step toward the federal government finally taking responsibility for the crisis it’s created, allowing it to address the critical issues of border security, national security and the social, political and economic impact of our immigration crisis.

She copies Senator Jon “Weathervane” Kyl from my home state of Arizona, who’s famous for his financial shell game “solutions” to illegal immigration. She obtains “federal money” to” reimburse states for the cost of incarcerating illegal aliens,” pats herself on the back and wants us to believe she’s solving the problem. She hopes if she moves enough money around fast enough, the voters won’t see that “federal money” and “state money” come from the same source–taxpayers’ pockets. When does she plan to introduce a bill reimbursing the taxpayers?

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D), CALIFORNIA: Well, I think so. Most people I hear come on your show and say, you know, the immigration system is broken, and that’s true, but it’s tough duty to fix it, and it takes very strong people to recognize that what happens is, in any given area, you have an infrastructure problem. Your hospitals, your schools, your workplace, your housing can only absorb so many people at a given time. And, therefore, if you just have a flood of people coming in, it’s very difficult. It’s one of the things that I think creates a backlash and that we – those of us that value this nation as the Statue of Liberty says have to have an orderly system, a legal system by which we do it.

Notice that the Senator offers no solutions whatsoever to the illegals crowding schools, hospitals, jobs and housing. That’s because she supports illegal immigration, and intentionally limits herself to treating symptoms.

DOBBS: Senator, I’ll tell you our audience made up of many legal immigrants and many Hispanics. There’s no confusion in their minds at all about this issue…”

FEINSTEIN: Yes, I think that’s right, and I think – you know, in California, we passed Proposition 187, which was really – it was found to be unconstitutional. I opposed it at the time. There’s a lot of worry that somebody’s going to put something similar back on the ballot and that it would pass again.

(Part 5, “We can’t deport 8-12 million illegal aliens….” told of government officials knowing that cutting off public assistance benefits to illegals will create an illegal immigration-unfriendly environment and energize the “self-deportation” process. Senator Feinstein’s comment on Prop 187 makes it clear that she’s one of the worriers.)

FEINSTEIN (continued): And so I – I think, as we approach these matters, we really have to be practical, we have to understand and take care of people who are here legally, and there may be some reason – and I happen to believe there is – that there are many people who have been here 15, 20 years, a long time…, many of whom missed the earlier amnesty. They are legal. They are law-abiding. They work. They own their homes. They pay taxes. I think there…

“Here a long time” is just a variation of “we can’t deport 8-12 million…”

DOBBS: It’s a different…

FEINSTEIN: There should be the ability to adjust their status, and, of course, in the law, there are up to 4,000 a year, and that isn’t used.

(I doubt if 1 in 10,000 Americans knows that “adjust their status” means giving legal status to an illegal alien. She’s carefully uses ambiguous terms to conceal her true position, but she clearly favors a mass amnesty. She just knows better than to openly admit it.)

They didn’t “miss the earlier amnesty,” Senator, they arrived afterward hoping to cash in on a subsequent “one-time amnesty.” The “earlier amnesty” in 1986 established that expectation, just as opponents predicted back in 1986.

“They are legal?” Add the Senator to the ranks of Alberto Gonzales, who want you to believe that illegal aliens are “legal” or “lawful citizens.”

~ Resources ~

(1) Patch Job Leaves Holes at the Border, August 8 2004, Los Angeles Times.

(2) Boy Genius: Karl Rove, the Brains Behind the Remarkable Political Triumph of George W. Bush, Lou Dubose, Jan Reid & Carl Cannon, Perseus Books.

(3) Hillary Eyes Immigration as Top 2008 Issue, NewsMax, November 21 2004.

(4) Crossing Over: Bush’s Other Battle, Newsweek, Feb. 7 2005.

(5) Education Dept. paid commentator to promote law, USA Today, January 7 2005.

Third Journalist was paid to promote Bush policies, New York Times, January 29 2005.

(6) Secure borders first, then tackle immigration, lawmaker says, January 26 2005, USA Today.

(7) Lou Dobbs, Broken Borders-Interview with Senator Feinstein, January 28 2005.

(8) New Border Patrol Chief says southwest border secure, Harlingen Daily Sentinel, August 31 2004.

Part VII – The ’Compassionate Immigration Reform’ Scam

~ Foreword ~
As to the illegal alien issue. Three points come to mind:

1) Since Arizona is now enforcing Proposition 200 and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund is taking it to court, shouldn’t that group be required to register as a representative of a foreign government?

2) The Mexican government said they might turn to international courts to block the Proposition 200 Arizona law. Shouldn’t we tell them to stay out of how we run our country?

3) We are pressuring Mexico to stop the violence and drug problems along the border and they officially told us to stay out of how they run their country. Shouldn’t we tell them to stay out of how we run our country?
Michael J. Fox
Tucson, Arizona

WHAT’S “COMPASSIONATE IMMIGRATION REFORM?”
Like most immigration hype, it’s chock-full of emotional phrases that sound good but mean nothing. As we read in Chapter 2, advocates have always substituted emotional propaganda when facts don’t support their pro-immigration stance.

President George Bush has embraced that strategy in forcing his “compassionate immigration reform” down Americans’ throats, but that’s not acceptable. Americans aren’t willing to buy a “pig in a poke” from George Bush, particularly on the immigration issue. The President must be willing to publicly and openly disclose his plan in clear and factual terms.

Unfortunately, the President continues to disguise his true agenda behind “feel-good” propaganda with the intent of manipulating our sympathy, such as those below. The obvious conclusion is that Americans would reject his true agenda. That must be why he refuses to clearly outline what it is.

Americans began objecting to illegal aliens and their costs to taxpayers during the 1980s, long before the immigration fiasco reached its current financial disaster. Their advocates dismissed our objections with “that’s just emotion, you have no facts to back up your claims.” Now that study after study documents the financial burden, educational and health care disasters, crime and destruction of Americans quality of life, they don’t want ot hear about factual studies.

It was still amazing that an advocate would be as blatant as Alfonso Munoz Salazar (a Phoenix immigration attorney) at a Prop 200 debate held in the Phoenix area: “I challenge each of you before using figures to look into the eyes of illegals. Don’t look at this issue from an academic view. Look at it from a human point of view before enacting laws based on an academic study.” (1)

“US immigration policy is inhumane.” Just who decided that America (alone of all nations in the world) must develop immigration policies that are “humane” rather than economically beneficial to America and Americans? And exactly who decides what constitutes a “humane” immigration policy? Certainly not those who pay for “humane” immigration policies, that’s for sure!

“It’s an issue (Immigration reform) that will, if and when we get it done right, show the compassion, the heart, of American people.” Who decides that it’s “done right?” Again, not the citizen-taxpayers who foot the bill and suffer the negative impact!

“We want our border patrol agents chasing crooks and thieves and drug runners and terrorists, not good-hearted people who are coming here to work, to do jobs that Americans won’t do.” Oh, please! The Border Patrol is so hamstrung by bureaucratic interference that they’re not permitted to chase anyone. And the phrase “jobs Americans won’t do” has become one that Americans despise. That the insult comes from their President is galling.

“We must stop the process of people feeling like they’ve got to walk miles across desert in Arizona and Texas in order just to feed their family.” Americans aren’t responsible for that decision, nor are they responsible for corrupt governments and their refusal to provide for their nationals.

“Family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande.” and “the children can’t be blamed for what the parents did – don’t separate families!”

“Family values” is an attempt to hang the guilt trip on Americans, but remember that the family is divided at their own choice. Americans didn’t make the decision, and aren’t responsible for the results.

Illegals CHOSE to “separate families” when they arrived in violation of US laws. American families are now in the same situation of one breadwinner working “on the road” while the family remains home after job loss through layoff, outsourcing, or “downsizing.” Why is it humane for Americans but inhumane for other nations’ citizens?

“I’m passionate on it because the nature of this country is one that is good-hearted and compassionate.” Amazing how passionate people are with other peoples’ money! Let those who are so “passionate” cough up the money to pay the costs instead of shifting them to taxpaying Americans, and I suspect we’ll see that “passion” disappear fast.

“The United States is the land of opportunity. It embodies the promise that if you work hard, you can make a better life for you and your family. That’s a powerful lure. So powerful in fact that immigrants risk their lives to come here.” The reason for America’s success is a transparent legal structure and a system of laws. Illegal aliens can’t flaunt the laws in coming and then ask those laws to protect them.

“They just come to work hard and make a better life.” or “…put food on the table.” And why does the President think Americans work? Perhaps to buy our second string of polo ponies?

“They come to work and get their piece of the American dream.” Part of the American dream is a society ordered by laws. Let them begin by obeying American laws, ALL of them.

He expressed it differently as governor of Texas: “Hell, if they’ll walk across Big Bend we want ’em.” (2) That comment makes it clear that George W. Bush doesn’t care why they come.

DURING CAMPAIGN DEBATE?
The refusal of the GOP and George Bush to address immigration or include a position in the party platform is now legendary. So it’s not surprising that his few comments during the Third Debate were so vague and deceptive. We definitely didn’t learn anything further here. (3)

MODERATOR: I’m told that at least 8,000 people cross our borders illegally every day. Some people believe this is a security issue, as you know. Some believe it’s an economic issue. Some see it as a human-rights issue. How do you see it? And what we need to do about it?

BUSH: “I see it as a serious problem. I see it as a security issue, I see it as an economic issue, and I see it as a human-rights issue.

We’re increasing the border security of the United States. We’ve got 1,000 more Border Patrol agents on the southern border. We’re using new equipment. We’re using unmanned vehicles to spot people coming across.

And we’ll continue to do so over the next four years. It’s a subject I’m very familiar with. After all, I was a border governor for a while.

Many people are coming to this country for economic reasons. They’re coming here to work. If you can make 50 cents in the heart of Mexico, for example, or make $5 here in America, $5.15, you’re going to come here if you’re worth your salt, if you want to put food on the table for your families. And that’s what’s happening.

And so in order to take pressure off the borders, in order to make the borders more secure, I believe there ought to be a temporary worker card that allows a willing worker and a willing employer to mate up, so long as there’s not an American willing to do that job, to join up in order to be able to fulfill the employers’ needs.

That has the benefit of making sure our employers aren’t breaking the law as they try to fill their workforce needs. It makes sure that the people coming across the border are humanely treated, that they’re not kept in the shadows of our society, that they’re able to go back and forth to see their families. See, the card, it’ll have a period of time attached to it.

It also means it takes pressure off the border. If somebody is coming here to work with a card, it means they’re not going to have to sneak across the border. It means our border patrol will be more likely to be able to focus on doing their job.

Now, it’s very important for our citizens to also know that I don’t believe we ought to have amnesty. I don’t think we ought to reward illegal behavior. There are plenty of people standing in line to become a citizen. And we ought not to crowd these people ahead of them in line.

If they want to become a citizen, they can stand in line, too.

And here is where my opponent and I differ. In September 2003, he supported amnesty for illegal aliens.”

Notice how carefully he evades the issue of not requiring illegals to apply for this visa after returning to their home countries. Does he fear his audience might look up the Merriam-Webster‘s definition of “amnesty” (as we did in Part III)?

FROM A REPORT TO COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS?
Containing similar emotional and vague buzz-words that we’ve heard in politicians’ speeches, a report to the Council on Foreign Relations is helpful in determining exactly what President Bush offers with “compassionate immigration reform.” (As always, the term “immigration reform” is a red flag in itself.) Entitled Keeping the Promise: Immigration Proposals from the Heartland (4), it’s likely the closest we’re likely to get of the Bush agenda.

What is the Council on Foreign Relations?
Its members are very influential in US government policy. Many Congressmembers and Senators are CFR members, as are staffers and cabinet members in both the Bush and Clinton Administrations. Most members of the 9/11 Commission were also CFR members, and Vice-President Cheney is a former Director.

More meaningful is what Council on Foreign Relations is NOT. It’s NOT a US government agency. Its members AREN’T elected by Americans, nor are they accountable to American voters. Nor are their meetings open to public attendance. Had this report not been given a passing mention in a Chapter 12 footnote of the 9/11 Commission Report (PDF version), I doubt any citizen would ever have known of its existence.

The introductory pages abound with the typical “From the days of the Mayflower, immigrants have been important in building America…” and the like. The first clue to the content was the names of Task Force co-chairs authoring the report: Jim Edgar, Doris Meissner and Alejandro Silva.

Doris Meissner was INS Commissioner during the Clinton Administration, and makes the current people look like stars. In June 1995, INS officials in Miami released criminal aliens and illegal aliens in order to clear detention space and present a more orderly facility to a visiting Congressional task force. In March 1996, INS Commissioner Meissner misled Congress by testifying that immigration numbers were dropping, when in fact they were not; this resulted in legislators dropping a bill to reform legal immigration. Although INS was called on the carpet later in congressional hearings, the damage was done.

Commissioner Meissner authored the ludicrous idiocy that “customer service” by INS staff meant pandering to prospective immigrants (people who weren’t even INS customers) instead of the American people who are their real customers! No wonder INS procedures were so inept, bungling and breached national security – they were “serving” the wrong customer! INS even had 9/11 leader Mohamed Atta in custody before the September 11 attacks – but let him go, even though federal law said he should have been deported due to an invalid visa. (5)

I’ve never heard of Jim Edgar and Alejandro Silva, but I do know they hold their personal credibility and integrity in such low regard as to put their names on an public internet-posted document with a zero like Doris Meissner. So I know a great deal about the report and its authors before even reaching the Table of Contents.

Amid all the usual pro-immigration hyperbole are a few key items. Some have a familiar ring while others haven’t yet been introduced. Plain font represents the report text; italicized and type are my comments.

Page 4 (Page 8 in Adobe Acrobat):
Lasting immigration reform requires an integrated and comprehensive response…The [CFR] Task Force recommends the following [emphasis added]:

• An earned legalization approach that enables the existing undocumented population to gain legal status in the United States over time, including pathways to citizenship for those who apply and qualify.

“earned legalization” is a phrase used by Vice President Cheney; “path to citizenship” came from both the Kerry-for-President camp and the LaRaza convention.

• A properly structured temporary worker program to fill future labor market needs and safeguard against abuses and poor administration.

Who decides what’s “properly structured?”

• A greater focus on strengthening the U.S. economy through facilitation of travel and trade, including consideration of U.S. VISIT’s impact on cross-border communities and businesses

• Removal of unnecessary obstacles faced by businesses and workers that limit growth, including

(1) barriers to adjustment to permanent status for qualifying temporary workers,
(2) delays in visa issuance for students and workers, and
(3) caps on business visas.

Again, who decides what obstacles are “unnecessary?” I think we can safely replace “all” for “unnecessary.” This sounds more like the global version of “Hell, if they’ll cross Big Bend, we want ’em.” (2)

• Vigorous enforcement by federal and state governments of workplace protection and labor laws for native-born and immigrant employees alike.

Does any American really believe this promise after our experience with the 1986 promise of “crackdown on violating employers” that has yet to be delivered?

• Development of innovative job training programs to ensure that existing U.S. employees and recent immigrants are trained for high-growth job sectors.

And we know who will benefit from such programs with their embedded preference for “diversity.

Page 8 (Page 10 in Adobe Acrobat):

The president’s statement of January 7, 2004, proposing a new temporary worker program and recent Congressional initiatives should be a springboard for a wide-ranging and urgent debate leading to comprehensive immigration reform.

Why do I suspect that validation of President Bush’s “y’all come” speech was the entire purpose of this “task force report?”

American voters have made it clear that they’ve had enough of politicians’ “conspiracy of silence” on immigration (both legal and illegal). They now demand that immigration policy decisions be the result of public debate, not academic models by the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Carnegie Institute and similar ivory-tower elitists. We’re under no illusions how and why such groups produce their “cookie-cutter” studies lauding the benefits of immigration and “multiculturalism” generated by donations from groups like the National Chamber of Commerce, LaRaza and similar pro-mass immigration lobbies.

FROM COMMENTS BY CONGRESSMAN DAVE DREIER?
During a January 13, 2005 meeting with several constituent members of the FIREDREIER committee to discuss his bill for harsher punishment of employers hiring illegals, Congressman Dreier mentioned his support for the President’s “guest-worker plan.” Three different members of the group recall his subsequent references to it as a “bracero” plan. But the plan outlined by President Bush and the CFR document is totally different from the bracero program.

It would be easy to dismiss Dreier’s “bracero” references as misunderstanding until I noted the same analogy to the President’s “guest worker plan” in a letter from my Arizona congressman. Two similar “misstatements” from two separate Republican congressmen become less of a coincidence.

One member pointed out the similarities in the President’s plan and the CFR mentioned above, asking the congressman if the CFR report were the blueprint. His report of the congressman’s denial and abruptly changing the subject leads me to believe they hit pay dirt.

In a September 3, 2004 letter (two months prior to the election), my Arizona congressman wrote me of the need to “create a workable program, like the ones that existed when I was growing up in Arizona, which will allow Mexican citizens to enter the US lawfully, secure employment for a period of time in the US economy and then return home.” I’m sure his legal background told him to avoid using the term “bracero,” but the birth date on his website biography confirmed that he remembered the same guest-worker program as I: the “bracero” program.

BUSH’S SALES PITCH
When I read that DHS Secretary nominee Michael Chertoff claims that the Bush “guest-worker plan” will improve homeland security (6), my first thought was “what’s news about that?” We’ve heard that from the three who introduced 2003 bills for the White House “guest worker plan:” John McCain, Jim Kolbe and Jeff Flake. Of course it’s not new; the Arizona Republic printed it because the story supported their globalist agenda and urges for illegal alien amnesty. (Hence its local name Arizona Repugnant.)

Let’s see if I get this right. DHS has 300,000 alien criminals they have no idea how to find, and allow 5,000 every night into the US with little or no hindrance. So putting a proven bunch of bunglers in charge of another 20 million “guest workers” will improve national security? I hope this guy isn’t a salesman for a living.

People who buy this sales pitch will soon see proof of an old computer technology occupational joke: “To err is human, but to really screw things up takes the Department of Homeland Security.”

WHAT AREN’T THEY TALKING ABOUT? THE SOCIAL SECURITY BOMBSHELL!
Two plans by the Bush Administration have the potential for Social Security disaster. Both the “guest-worker/amnesty” plan and Social Security Totalization treaty with Mexico will add millions of illegal aliens to Social Security rolls. The State of the Union speech mentioned nothing whatsoever about the coming disaster from Bush agenda programs. Either program can be implemented for disastrous results to future Social Security payments.

When the “guest worker plan” legalizes up to 20 million illegal aliens, they’ll then receive credit for their “illegal work” while using someone else’s SSN, provided they can prove their work. Is there any doubt that illegal aliens can obtain documents to “prove” whatever they choose, whether they actually paid FICA taxes or not? And is there any doubt that “fraudulent claims” by illegal aliens will be accepted without question for politically-correct reasons?

The Social Security Totalization Treaty with Mexico will add to US Social Security rolls any Mexican national who performs work in the US for only 6 quarters (1-1/2 years), legally or illegally. The ease of obtaining a Mexican matricula consular ID by nearly anyone (Mexican or not) should signal millions of global claimants added and mailed around the world. The treaty was concluded in July 2004 by Social Security Administrator Barnhart and forwarded to the State Department. After State Department approval, the treaty will go to the President for signature. That the President wants this treaty is undeniable; both Social Security and the State Department get their marching orders from the White House.

We have to wonder if Social Security’s coming bankruptcy isn’t due to other causes besides “baby-boomers.” The two upcoming Presidential “wants” seem to be every bit as serious. Keep on reading, there’s another waiting in the wings.

PAST US EXPERIENCE WITH “GUEST WORKER PLANS”
Bracero plan (1942-1963). The “bracero” guest-worker plan was effective in providing needed labor for the US and needed Mexican revenue with most “braceros” eventually returning to Mexico. Families weren’t allowed to come, only the worker, with employers and program administrators were responsible for the braceros and any medical needs. But in recent years, the guest-worker plan has become a financial time bomb.

10% of braceros’ wages were withheld as savings/pensions, with the money returned to Mexico for braceros to claim upon retirement. But when they (or their survivors) tried to claim their money from Mexico, the money was gone and queries were answered with “Quien sabe, senor?” (translated: “Who knows, sir?”) The US government forwarded the money and Wells Fargo provided receipts for the wire transfer to Mexican banks. From there, the money disappeared.

The Mexicans filed a class action suit in federal court, naming four defendants: Mexico, Mexican banks, Wells Fargo Bank, and the US government. In dismissing the suit against 3 of the 4 defendants, guess which party the court (in its infinite stupidity and/or activism) left on the hook: the US Government (otherwise known as American taxpayers)! The court’s decision allowed the bracero families to resume their suit in the future.

Court proceedings have stopped, but in the meantime the Mexican plaintiffs stormed the ranch of Presidente Vicente Fox in 2004, and now speak of storming the Bush Ranch at Crawford in the attempt to get their money. US federal courts set up American taxpayers to pay this loss, and there’s always the possibility of a quiet, secretive out-of-court settlement. (7) (8)

Why do I suspect the braceros’ payment will be taken from Americans’ Social Security funds? No wonder we’re hearing tales from the White House of Social Security being bankrupt within 5 years! With all the potential claims against Social Security funds by illegal aliens and former guest workers from Mexican workers, that would be no surprise at all!

For all that this “guest-worker plan” provided the labor needed and seemed good at the time, it’s become a latent timebomb.

Fast-forward to 2004, with President Bush’s hoped “guest-worker plan” when 14 million Americans can’t find full-time jobs. Adding idiocy to stupidity, he proposes another guest-worker savings plan (9), this time involving potentially every nation sending guest-workers to the US! Such proposals really make me wonder if George Bush has fallen off the wagon.

Current plans (H1-B, H2-A and H2-B).
When President Bush (and his followers) claim we need a guest worker plan, he implies that we don’t already have them. Wrong, we do. And their track record isn’t good; they’re fraud-ridden and rife with abuse. With the federal government’s notorious refusal to enforce immigration laws, there’s no reason to expect improved enforcement of future “guest-worker plans.”

H1-B visas are given to “high-tech” workers for “jobs Americans won’t do.” Employers exhaust the quota for these visas within 60 days when millions of American IT people are seeking jobs.

H2-A visas are for unskilled agricultural workers. So why are we told that “illegals pick your crops and harvest your food when agricultural guest-worker visas are available?

H2-B visas are for unskilled non-agricultural work, such as hotels, restaurants and other potential entry-level jobs for Americans.

So why do employers insist on a new “guest-worker plan?” Perhaps because these plans require too much employer responsibility for the guest-workers they bring. They want cheap, not accountability.

DO AMERICANS REALLY WANT THIS?
If George Bush really believes “we need a guest worker plan,” then let him deliver one. His current plan that he insists is “not an amnesty” IS an amnesty/immigration plan COMBINED that he wants to disguise and peddle to unsuspecting Americans. Mr. President, Americans are no longer “unsuspecting” of your motives on the immigration issue.

Do we really believe that this “guest-worker plan” is about George W. Bush wanting third-world people to have a piece of the American Dream? Not when he seems to do everything possible to take the American Dream away from Americans.

If these 20 million+ “guest workers” are so desperately needed for unfilled jobs, why are so many illegals looking for work on street corners and many not getting “picked up” that day? Returning to the “day labor” pickup centers reminiscent of the Great Depression doesn’t improve America.

With the increasing mechanization of agriculture, fewer cheap-labor illegals were needed during the past harvest season. Even California’s grape growers, the final holdouts against mechanization, used machine harvesters, claiming the need to “compete in the global economy.” And why shouldn’t we deport the illegals that the grape industry no longer needs?

Americans needn’t apologize for Insisting that immigrants contribute to the US economy rather than feed at the public trough. “Multicultural diversity” doesn’t substitute for an economic contribution. Indeed, that’s what the US required from its “nation of immigrants” that illegal-alien advocates whine about.

That all changed in 1965 when Senator Ted Kennedy’s “landmark immigration reform” was passed. The good Senator (who wouldn’t know a hard day’s work if it socked him in the jaw) felt the previous “economic contribution” requirement of immigrants was unfair, and replaced it with “family ties.”

That a prospective immigrant could support themselves was irrelevant, but those with relatives already in the US (albeit on the public dole) were preferable. So we have Senator Kennedy to thank for the first “new and humane immigration reform.” So began the “chain migration” that has overwhelmed the US in the four decades since.

~ Resources ~

(1) PAN Advisors Do Debate Battle with Liberal Opponents, Arizona Conservative, February 21 2004.

(2) Boy Genius: Karl Rove, the Brains Behind the Remarkable Political Triumph of George W. Bush, Lou Dubose, Jan Reid & Carl Cannon, Perseus Books, page 73

(3) Transcript, Third Presidential Debate, October 13 2004, Washington Post

(4) Keeping the Promise: Immigration Proposals from the Heartland

(5) Goodbye INS, and advise for its replacement, FAIR Research Update, January 2003.

(6) Nominee links guest workers, security, Arizona Republic, February 3 2005.

(7) Activist threatens siege of Bush Ranch, El Universal, January 25, 2005.

(8) Alan Wall, Memo From Mexico, Vicente Fox & the Braceros: Hypocrisy & Fraud, VDARE.com, March 23 2004.

(9) Immigration plan envisions ‘incentives’ to illegal aliens, Washington Times, August 10 2004.

Part VIII: ’Food Costs will increase without cheap illegal labor’

A simple multiple-choice question will reveal whether you’re already aware of this scam.

With the production cost savings in “cheap labor,” do you believe that manufacturers of goods and services:

a. pass the savings along to their customers OR

b. direct the increased profits to increased stock dividends, officer salaries and benefits.

If you answered “a,” read on – you’re so naive that you’re a target for the “immigration reform” scam peddlers.

MORE EMOTIONAL PROPAGANDA
Once again, propaganda like this tries to convince us that we’re the problem rather than the lawbreakers (both illegal aliens and employers). You eat the food harvested by illegal labor, they remind you, so you’re responsible for the illegal aliens that farmers hire to pick the food that goes on your table. It’s truly appalling how many Americans have habitually accepted guilt for something they have no control over.

Like most immigration rhetoric, this propaganda tactic isn’t new: It’s called “collective guilt,” and was very effectively used by German Nazis after World War II to stifle calls for prosecution and punishment of high Nazi officials for their war crimes. By conning the German population into accepting guilt for the Holocaust, many German Nazis were able to blend back into society and live the rest of their days unaccountable for their crimes. Sounds very familiar doesn’t it? Illegals want to blend with the rest of the population, continuing to work and live in the country without being accountable for illegal entry into the US.

Of course we eat produce; we have no control over the farmer’s labor force. If these advocates expect me to risk contracting scurvy or pellagra for something I have nothing to do with, they’re out to lunch.

This accusation came from a reader e-mail; he actually expected me to buy this drivel! When the opposition provides material that destroys their argument, it’s too good to pass up. I reminded the reader that the Nazis lost World War II and suggested he get his pro-illegal immigration propaganda from winners rather than losers.

DOES ILLEGAL LABOR REALLY REDUCE FOOD PRICES?
“They keep the price of strawberries and other produce cheap.” The image is that we’ll be paying $5.00 for a head of lettuce without illegal aliens to harvest, and after gasping in shock, we’ll back off and concede how mean-spirited we are to complain about the illegal aliens who “put food on our table.” Shame on us for complaining!

This phony baloney was exposed nearly 10 years ago at Iowa State University. (1) Recognizing that “higher prices” are due to the need to import produce when it’s “out-of-season,” they found small price increases varying by season and length of time (1-2 years short term; 5-7 years mid-term).

Notice that the maximum is 6%! The 9 years since 1986 have given us opportunity to “test” whether we can live with the “astronomical” increases, because most grocery stores now routinely stock imported produced during the off-season. How many of us have even noticed the few pennies difference in price?

So it’s now up to us to decide whether the “saving” is worth the problems we have from illegal aliens. Does an Arizonan consume enough “cheap labor produce” to offset the $700 per household cost of illegal aliens in that state? (2)

Does an Californian consume enough “cheap labor produce” to offset the $1,183 per household cost of illegal aliens in that state? (3)

And these costs only include the state’s share of education, medical care and imprisonment. They don’t include the household’s share of federal costs for education and welfare benefits, or the higher insurance premiums from higher crime rates and uninsured-motorist hit-and-run accidents! Nor does it include the decreased “quality of life” and reduced service levels.

We all know the answer. Cost-per-household may vary from state to state, but the result is the same: If you’re not one of the “elites” who benefit from “cheap illegal” labor (unskilled workers, nannies and gardeners), of course it’s not worth the increased cost!

Several other resource articles (4), (5) and (6) will tell more about the future of mechanized farming. My first thought was “Government policy-makers have to be aware of this, so why their insistence on continued high immigration numbers for the “jobs Americans won’t do?”

RECENT HISTORY OF “CHEAP LABOR”
Although the “New World Order” movement began in earnest after World War II, the economic sectors waited until the early 1960s, when postwar births entered the labor force to replace World War II deaths. Since that time, the “global economy” (or “free trade movement”) has produced a tricky and tenuous balancing act for the US government–both for members of Congress and the White House.

While the “rob Peter to pay Paul” behavior gave the appearance of a large organization where one inept agency acted in opposition to another equally inept one, it was actually intentional and carefully orchestrated. I recall in the early 1980s on CBS 60 Minutes that USAID (Agency for International Development) provided money to aid corporations wanting to relocate their manufacturing to countries with cheaper labor costs (where labor unions were prohibited). Of course, it was done under the guise of “international development” rather than “union-busting,” and the country was Malaysia.

60 Minutes thought it was ridiculous that American taxpayers’ money being used to put them out of jobs, but it’s clear now that what appeared “the left hand disconnected from the right” was intended. Sending well-paying jobs overseas both enriched corporations and removed wealth from America’s middle class workers.

Some industries received government assistance in surviving the new global economy eompetition while it seemed others were mercilessly thrown to the wolves. An example is the US “garment and textile” industry, who used illegal labor through the mid-1980s until both textile plants and garment factories were move first to Taiwan, then to Pakistan, India and now China. Those in New England went first while Southern factories were the last to move. In contrast, sporting equipment and hardware tools went abroad almost immediately.

Whether the selection was “luck of the draw,” based on campaign contributions and political influence or a combination isn’t all that clear. There was likely a “master plan” somewhere that considered not just economics but politics as well.

As the “offshore outsourcing” speed increases, wages for jobs that must remain in the US continue to drop, either by filling them with illegals or bringing in foreign workers to increase the labor supply (and eventually reducing the wage levels).

Although we continue to hear that illegal labor enables “cheap food costs,” mechanized farming has moved into nearly every food crop produced in the US as “cheap illegal labor” was no longer enough to protect US agriculture from foreign competition. (4) (5) California’s grape growers (one of the final holdouts against mechanization) finally converted for the 2004 harvest. In March and April of that year, agricultural lobbyists urged Congress to pass the AgJobs Amnesty to prevent “American crops rotting in the fields.”

Clearly the Senator Craig/Congressman Cannon AgJobs Amnesty had little to do with actual need and/or shortage of agricultural labor, just as the increased use of “high-tech worker” visas has no basis in the old cry that “we can’t find qualified Americans.”

It’s easy to see that the alleged “shortage of workers” has nothing to do with the real agenda for the Bush “guest worker plans” or the multitude of other amnesties.

“CORPORATE WELFARE”-LABOR COSTS PAID BY AMERICAN TAXPAYERS
“Cheaper produce from illegal labor?” Americans already pay $6.00 per head of lettuce and $5.00 per bunch of carrots. You’re just splitting payment between the grocery store and your city/county/state/federal tax bills.

Benefits of “cheap labor” are limited to businesses whose receive the “taxpayer subsidy.”

“Cheap illegal labor” is cheap only because government policy has allowed such employers to shift costs to the American taxpayer. Not only are illegal aliens provided at no cost items for which Americans are required to pay, but their earnings are generally cash and off the books. That exempts the employer from state and federal unemployment taxes and workers compensation insurance. Workers injured on the job are dumped at the local emergency room with a story of being hurt while working at home. The hospital staff knows both the true story and the real employer, but nonetheless obligingly labels the patient as “uninsured.”

Sooner or later the hospital will be paid when their politician delivers “federal money” to “reimburse hospitals for medical care that federal law requires them to provide.” “Federal Money?” That’s taxpayers’ money used to pay local hospitals to treat illegals working for employers violating the law.

Do you agree that these businesses should receive “taxpayer subsidies” for their employees’ wages? Free-market principles clearly provide that costs of market goods and services be paid by those who use that good or service.

If you don’t eat restaurant meals, why should you pay the cost for those who do? If you raise your own children, why should you pay for someone else’s cheap-labor illegal nanny? If you’re a vegetarian, why should you pay for “cheap labor” used by the meat packing industry? I’m allergic to strawberries, so why must I share the employers’ labor costs when I don’t buy his product?

Yet the strongest advocates of “free migration of labor into the US” are the loudest whiners about “cheap foreign competition.” They’re also the people who claim to support “free trade” yet insist on “corporate welfare” from taxpayers who don’t patronize the companies. Do they support “free trade” or don’t they?

“CHEAP LABOR” ILLEGALS RECEIVING PUBLIC ASSISTANCE?
It’s cheap only because of the taxpayer-funded subsidies: welfare, food stamps, rent assistance/housing subsidies. utility assistance, medical care, public medical plans, free school meals. And now assistance with home loans to enable illegal aliens to “participate in the American dream.”

You believed these assistance programs were only available to citizens and resident immigrants? That’s certainly what the politicians want you to believe because the requirement has been part of federal law since 1996.

The hypocrisy by federal and state officials on who actually uses these programs was exposed when Arizonans qualified a ballot initiative called Proposition 200. Arizona’s governor and attorney general vehemently opposed the initiative, as well as both US Senators McCain and Kyl, and 7 of 8 US congressmen.

So-called “private” non-profit groups. How can a non-profit group claim to be “private” when the majority of their funding is from taxpayers’ money? Don’t forget the “back-door” assistance provided by such groups as Catholic Charities, Lutheran Social Services, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, American Friends Service Committee and hundreds of others.

You didn’t think such agencies would give help for those who violate the law? Or perhaps you believed the ACLu would oppose taxpayers’ money funding these groups as a violation of “separation of church and state?” You’d be wrong on both counts. Nor can they play Sergeant Schultz with his “I know nothing.” They not only knowingly help illegal aliens, but their political agenda urges expansion of benefits and “rights” for illegal aliens. The Catholic Charities, USA websiteopenly admits it:

Welcome Refugees, Asylees, and Immigrants

“Immigrants-including documented and undocumented workers, refugees, and asylees-come to the U.S. seeking a better life for themselves and their families. Often, they are fleeing racial, religious, social, or political persecution in their home countries.

All immigrants are entitled to be treated with respect and dignity. To this end, CCUSA promotes legislative reforms to restore federal benefits to legal immigrants, increase admissions of refugees and asylees, create better opportunities for undocumented workers to earn legalization, allow immigrants to reunite with their families more easily, and improve protections for immigrants under federal laws, including labor laws.”

(Naturally, CCUSA deliberately uses deceptive terms, refusing to call an illegal alien by the rightful name)

In his October 12 2004 “Letter to the Editor” of the Arizona Republic opposing Arizona’s ballot initiative Prop. 200, Reverend Chris Carpenter of Christ the King Catholic Church in Mesa, AZ (7) admits it:

“When it comes to our finances, one thing is sure: If Proposition 200 is successful, our churches and charitable organizations will be in desperate need of more funds. If immigrants are denied access to basic necessities such as work, food, housing and medical treatment by civil authorities, they will turn more and more to our faith communities for these needs. My parish’s financial resources are already stretched thin trying to meet immigrants’ needs. However, we have a Christian obligation to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and care for the sick.

Randy Graf and other political leaders who support Proposition 200 should abandon their ivory towers and admit this proposal isn’t a rational or viable solution to the social problems associated with illegal immigration, and will only heighten the demands placed on our various faith institutions if it is passed.”

But that’s not all. Rev. Carpenter also admits that illegal aliens collect public welfare benefits. (And he conscientiously follows the CCUSA “Party Line” by deceptively using “immigrants.”) The reverend contradicts his “Hispanic-rights” allies; MALDEF, LULAC and LaRaza claimed that illegal aliens don’t collect welfare benefits because “it’s against the law.” Rev. Carpenter not only acknowledged the dependence of his illegal alien “clients” on welfare, but predicts a humanitarian meltdown disaster if Prop 200 passes!

By claiming that illegal aliens don’t claim welfare payments and then predicting untold suffering and misery for illegal aliens deprived of welfare benefits, aren’t such advocate groups contradicting themselves? Of course they are, but similar propaganda contradictions occur commonly in the immigration issue.

BIG BUSINESS + ETHNIC GROUPS ARE IN BED TOGETHER!
Now let’s recall the question from the beginning: “What happens to the cost savings in producing a product?” We’ve established by now that it isn’t passed to customers. There’s another possible beneficiary becides the company “elites” or stockholders. I refer to their “silent partners” in acquiring cheap illegal labor, the profession ethnicists like MALDEF, LULAC, and LaRaza.

Don’t believe it? Just “follow the money.”

Reviewing the contributors and donors to such groups shows a “Who’s Who?” of American corporations, including several federal government agencies.

On their website, MALDEF calls them “OUR CORPORATE AND FOUNDATION PARTNERS” and groups them by amount:

PLATINUM PARTNERS: $100,000+
GOLD PARTNERS: $50,000 – $99,999
SILVER PARTNERS: $10,000 – $49,000
BRONZE PARTNERS: $1,000 – $9,999

On their website, LULAC also lists their donors grouped by amount. Notice all the government agencies donating your tax money to a racially-based group: Freddie Mac, US Dept of HHS, US Dept of HUD, Environmental Protection Agency, US Dept of Homeland Security, University of Texas, El Paso:

DIAMOND PARTNERS: $100,000+
PLATINUM PARTNERS: $ 75,000 – $99,999
GOLD PARTNERS: $ 50,000 – $74,999
SILVER PARTNERS: $ 30,000 – $49,999
BRONZE PARTNERS: $ 20,000 – $29,999
CONTRIBUTORS: $ 10,000 – $19,999
SUPPORTERS: $ 2,000 – $ 9,999

LA RAZA (from IRS TAX FILINGS 2002-2003)

Direct Public Support $ 27,021,260 (a) 69%
Indirect Public Support $ 1,750,000 (b) 5%
Government Grants, contracts $ 5,757,452 16.7%
Program Service Revenue $ 4,564,844 (c)
Interest on Savings $ 28,729
TOTAL REVENUE $ 39,307,510

(a) LA RAZA lists contributors in their Annual Report but doesn’t list amounts. Government agencies appear here too: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, NASA, Office of Illiois Attorney General, Sallie Mae Fund, US Dept of Commerce, US Dept of Education, US Dept of HUD, US Dept of HHS, US Dept of Labor
(b) from ‘umbrella charity groups like United Way or similar)
(c) from “clients” who use their services, primarily Registration fees at their annual conference and publication sales.

Considering that the ethnic advocates have always claimed “big corporate business” as their enemy, why the close financial ties? Does such heavy corporate funding represent the “corporate shakedown” or perhaps a true allianace? Or a combination of the two?

I’ve concluded that ethnic advocacy is a tax-exempt and “criticism-proof” lobby group for corporate need of “cheap labor.” I’d be interested in others’ conclusions.

The interests are in bed together, and the best proof is the voting records of their members of Congress. A 1996 vote by two Arizona members of Congress to end the Workplace Verification Program will illustrate. The big-business, big-money interests who want cheap labor couldn’t find a better protector than Senator John McCain; Hispanic Congressman Ed Pastor has historically been a protector of the welfare of “his people.”

Yet both voted to end the voluntary Workplace Verification program in the 7 pilot states. McCain voted YES on the Abraham Amendment to S1654, and Pastor voted YES on the Chabot Amendment to HR 2202. Although they serve different interests, they vote alike when it comes to employers who hire illegals. Both want as little hindrance as possible.

Another example of “strange bedfellows” popped up on the matter of the pending Social Security Totalization treaty with Mexico (Chapter 7, The “Compassionate Immigration reform” Scam). Considering the huge impact to seniors living on Social Security, it was a mystery why AARP hadn’t taken an opposing stand and urging protests by their members to Congress.

When the news of the totalization treaty became public in December 2002, several friends joined me in contacting AARP to learn what they planned to do. Inquiries to their call center and e-mail notes from their website produced the same response–AARP wasn’t aware of any treaty with Mexico on Social Security. Continued follow-up notes and news articles to David Mitchel (AZ AARP President) through January 2004 produced his continued denials of any plan of paying Social Security benefits to Mexican nationals illegally in the US.

The light dawned after reviewing LULAC and MALDEF’s corporate donors for 2003: AARP is a “Bronze Partner” of MALDEF (donating $1,000 – $9,999) and a “Platinum Partner” of LULAC (donating $75,000—$99,999). I immediately contacted Mr. Mitchel to ask if his continued “denial” was related to AARP’s financial support of MALDEF and LULAC. So far, Mitchel hasn’t even sent me a card.

So it was no surprise to Arizonans when AARP publicly opposed Prop 200. Doesn’t the first “A” for “American” in their name violate the principles of “Truth in Advertising?”

~ Resources ~

(1) Wallace Huffman & Alan McGunn, How Much Is that Tomato in the Window?; Retail Produce Prices Without Illegal Farmworkers, Center for Immigration Studies, February 1996.

(2) The Cost of Illegal Immigration to Arizonans, June 3 2004, Federation for American Immigration Reform.

(3) The Cost of Illegal Immigration to Californians, January 2005, Federation for American Immigration Reform.

(4) How to pick an orange, Karen Brandon, LA Times, January 4, 2005.

(5) Migrant fieldworkers are losing their traditional livelihood to mechanized pickers and global competition,
San Diego Union Tribune, January 23 2005.

(6) In Florida Groves, Cheap Labor Means Machines, New York Times, March 22 2004.

(7) Letters to the Editor, Prop 200 stand insults charities, Arizona Republic, October 12 2004.

(8) Jon Dougherty, Mexicans to collect US Social Security? WorldNetDaily, December 19 2002.

Part IX – The ’US economy will collapse without illegal alien labor’

Let’s be clear about what this claim really means, if true: that the nation’s economy depends on “cut-rate labor,” requiring that we continue the outrage of illegal immigration despite all the widespread harm it does to Americans and our society.

We’ve heard this excuse before, long before the anyone heard of “global economy” or the WTO. American southerners claimed their economic survival depended on slave labor, even with tariffs applied to imported cotton, rice, indigo, and tobacco. Notice the same industry leads the insistence on today’s illegal immigration: agriculture.

“Cheap labor,” indeed. They might at least call slavery by its rightful name. Does anyone notice the irony that the liberals who opposed slavery in the 1850s are today advocating illegal immigration to deliver “slaves” to big business?

THE USUAL PROPAGANDA
“They pay taxes.” The few pennies paid in sales tax on non-food purchases don’t change an illegal alien into an person deserving the privileges of citizenship. The sales tax on his motel room and restaurant meals paid by Mohammed Atta (leader of the 9/11 terrorists) didn’t make him a law-abiding, taxpaying American citizen. The same applies to other illegal aliens.

Precisely what other taxes do they pay? Certainly not federal or state income taxes; they claim enough dependents that their income tax withholding is zero. Moreover, they file federal tax returns only to claim the Earned Income Credit – given to taxpayers with children even if they don’t owe income taxes!

“They pay into Social Security even though they will never collect benefits.”

Question: How can that be since illegal aliens can’t get a Social Security number?

Answer #1 They’re using forged Social Security cards, stealing someone else’s number. The increase in identity theft linked to illegal immigration was recently reported by MSNBC. (1)

When I read that government officials have known of the problem for years but refuse to notify affected citizens, I wondered if that’s the reason I receive an annual Earnings Statement (Form SSA 7705-SM-SI) that asks me to verify its accuracy. and

Answer #2 They pay Social Security taxes only if they have a “mainstream job” (defined as “a job Americans WILL do”). Here’s another example of illegal alien advocates contradicting their own propaganda.

When confronted with the much higher rates of public assistance for immigrants vs. the native born, the return propaganda is:

“They may not contribute economically, but their contribution in cultural diversity makes up for it” and “They are bringing their rich culture.”

Is this a cultural exchange or a “guest worker plan?” Why the attempt to deceive the public by misrepresenting a “guest worker plan” (or an amnesty) as a “cultural exchange program?”

“Our economy would be devastated without them…” and “They make a vital contribution to our economy”

“They add much more to the economy than they take away” and “They contribute more than they get (in return)…”

The High Cost of Cheap Labor: Illegal Immigration and the federal budget by the Center for Immigration Studies buried this nonsense for once and for all. (2) Even considering the Social Security “taxes” illegals pay by stealing another American’s Social Security number, they still cost American taxpayers $10 billion every year in federal expenses alone! That doesn’t include state expenses: education, medical care, welfare benefits (payments, housing, food stamps), jail costs, and higher insurance premiums for law-abiding citizens!

For years, studies from pro-immigration groups “proved” this by lumping legal immigrants and illegal aliens together. Because legal immigrants tend to be better educated with better paying jobs, their numbers concealed the negative economic “contribution” of the illegal aliens. That myth died with the CIS study.

And don’t forget two additional “costs”the CIS study didn’t mention:

1) $311 billion in uncollected taxes cited by the Barron‘s Study (Part IV: Greedy Employers Need Amnesty, too!) (3)

2) $40 billion annually in remitted wages to home countries, according to the best source imaginable – Western Union

WOULD THE US ECONOMY REALLY SUFFER WITHOUT THESE “INDUSTRIES?”
That illegal immigration and the presence of illegal aliens in the US enables and sustains certain economic sectors is undeniable. That said, what would be the loss should these two disappear entirely?

1) immigration lawyers’ groups who support every proposed illegal alien amnesty and

2) non-profit and “church” groups using government (i.e. taxpayers’) funds to provide “safety net assistance” for illegal aliens.

1) Immigration Lawyers. Immigration lawyers are almost as dependent on illegal aliens as agriculture, although they won’t admit it as openly. When Congress passes an amnesty, immigration lawyers do a land-office business. AILA (American Immigration Lawyers’ Association) has full-time Congressional lobby teams to influence immigration policy to their benefit.

The AgJobs Amnesty program (S-1645, HR 3142) sponsored by Senator Larry Craig & Congressman Chris Cannon gave preferential treatment to applicants represented by attorneys. While pressure on 108th Congress was heavy for passage, the Salt Lake Tribune revealed that, after requiring applicants to use an attorney or designated entity for the application process, the AgJOBS amnesty then allowed the illegal alien access to public funds to pay the lawyers’ fees. The reporter wrote that Cannon allowed immigration lawyers access to the “AgJobs” drafting process, as well as heavy contributions by non-Utah immigation lawyers to Cannon’s campaign. (4)(5)

But Congressman Cannon and Senator Craig weren’t alone in writing legislation to benefit immigration lawyers! The Jackpot Amnesty by Senator Ted Kennedy and Congressman Gutierrez (S-2381, HR-4262) also allowed illegal aliens to hire a lawyer to handle their amnesty at the expense of American taxpayers.

So get rid of the lawyers. That idea didn’t originate with me, by the way; it’s adapted it from Mr. Shakespeare’s Henry VI (Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2).

2) Non-profit “charities” receiving taxpayer funds. “Charities” long ago stopped being agencies providing emergency help; they’ve now become part of the socialistic agenda for redistributing income. In our naive belief that US government agencies follow the “separation of church and state” forced on us by the ACLU and similar allies, we never consider that these “charities” are disguised government agencies. Yet talk to “career” employees of non-profit/charities! You’ll think you’re dealing with a government employee, and for good reason -both groups operate with taxpayers’ money. Like the immigration lawyers, they also use taxpayers’ money to pay for federal and state legislative lobbyists to influence public lawmakers and policymakers.

The main difference is how their money is delivered. Government agencies receive money directly from government budgets, while “non-profits” receive their money largely from financial grants, largely hidden from public accountability.

They range from the two local groups below to nationals like Catholic Charities, USA, and even internationals. Most “government” money comes from grants out of White House Cabinet Departments: Dept of Labor, Health & Human Services, Education, Housing & Urban Development, and even Justice Dept!

They’d like us to believe they operate on voluntary donations, but the fact is that most depend heavily on government grants. Were they limited to voluntary donations to fund their “outreach” programs to illegal aliens (and others), I predict at least half would close. Remaining charitable activities would be severely curtailed.

That there’s no public debate justifying continued taxpayers’ subsidies to these groups is no surprise because the subsidies themselves are carefully kept VERY “low profile.” But unlike most so-called “economic loss,” elimination of these two parasitic groups would be a net gain to every Ameican taxpayer.

Writing proposals for government grants is non-profit groups’ bread and butter. College students majoring in government will complete at least one course in writing grant proposals from both government agencies and private foundations.

A “caught red-handed” example was recently exposed by Terry Graham of Colorado when she revealed that taxpayers’ money and her state governor aided and abetted illegal aliens (6). Two “non-profit” groups operating with substantial government funding printed and distributed “Enterese! (Inform Yourself), Survival Guide for Recent Arrivals to Colorado.” Signed by Colorado governor Bill Owens, the booklet (paper and online) outlined how illegal aliens might obtain jobs, get free health care and seek low-cost attorneys.

“Following the money” (i.e. their tax documents) for Salud Family Health Centers and Focus Points Family Resources Center makes it undeniable: our government is providing money to “non-profit/charities” who use that money to help illegal aliens obtain more “services and benefits” paid with taxpayers’ money:

Focus Points Family Health Centers:

Total revenue of $431,835 – 56% from government grants

Plan de Salud del Valle (DBA Salud Family Health Centers):

Total revenue of $8,798,851- 98.7% from government grants

These two are among many “non-profits/charities” who knowingly recycle American taxpayers’ money into assistance to illegal aliens.

Volunteers during Arizona’s Prop 200 campaign discovered another example when the Roman Catholic bishops publicly opposed Prop 200, even printing a “Vote NO on Prop 200” block in their parish newspaper Catholic Vision. (7)

**The “Big 5” non-profit immigrant advocates consistently lobby for increases in refugee and legal immigrant numbers, just as military contractors lobby for increased defense spending.

We know that one of two things is happening:

(1) The feds aren’t aware that citizens’ money provides assistance to illegal aliens and Congress will act promptly to investigate and stop it, prosecuting the groups violating the law, or

(2) The feds are aware that citizens’ money provides assistance to illegal aliens and have done nothing to stop the outrage but refuse to prosecute the violators.

If #2 is true, aren’t federal officials are tolerating violations of their own laws by “aiding and abetting illegal aliens” (Title 8, United States Code, Chapter 12, subchapter II, Section 1324)? In the same way they refuse to prosecute immigration law violations?

So in stopping illegal immigration, we get the added bonus of eliminating both immigration lawyers as well as an entire “industry” of taxpayer-funded non-profit groups who promote a cause that 80%+ of “we the people” oppose. Doesn’t that qualify as a “win-win?”.

OF COURSE IT’S NOT A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD!
It’s hard to obtain an “official government” rationale and justification for taxpyers’ funding of benefits and services to illegal aliens, because no one in government wants to address the direct question. Instead they evade the question with “we didn’t know” excuses. The “non-profit/charities” have a different answer: “we don’t want to alienate people who need help with the fear of deportation.” Some even openly admit knowingly “aiding and abetting,” such as Tom Ziemann, director of Catholic Charities in Glenwood Springs, CO. (8) The “Western Slope” area of Colorado includes the ski resorts where illegal aliens’ “cheap labor” is in great demand. Eliminating the “side assistance” with the high living costs of resort area, the “cheap labor” illegals might leave the area.

I’m convinced it’s all part of the US government’s balancing act in transitioning the US to a “global economy.” Government officials’ policy provides publicly-financed “corporate welfare” to keep just enough American businesses afloat despite their obvious inability to compete with businesses in “cheap production” countries. They also hinder enforcment of immigration laws for the same reason.

Who in his/her right mind would think American business will successfully complete with global manufacturers considering the imbedded expenses American prices and wages must support:

a. the US military to send anywhere in the world to protect global business interests.
b. international “giveaway” programs, both from the US and indirectly via the UN.
c. “non-profits” like the charities above and “one-world” groups like UN, NATO, SEATO, and the rest.
d. “corporate welfare” that shifts corporate tax responsibility to citizens.
e. government acquisition of private property to aid business agendas.

How long will the US government continue the balancing act? Until global business says they’re satisfied with its acquisition of wealth at the expense of Americans. Considering that they likely agree with the late Duchess of Windsor’s adage that “You can never be too rich or too thin,” it won’t happen so long as a single American citizen owns property or has a dollar beyond survival expenses.

WHO MADE THE “GLOBAL ECONOMY” DECISION?
Certainly not Americans. Like “mass immigration” decisions of Congress since 1965, the “global economy” decision was made in private meeting rooms by people not elected by “we the people.” In some cases, Americans wouldn’t even recognize names of those dictating the policies that govern their lives. Once the decisions were made “in the dark of night,” it was easy to convince US government officials to end public debate on important topics and exclude Americans’ from knowledge of their political world.

Today’s illegal immigration fiasco is only one example proving Americans have trusted their elected representatives far too long. We’re being confronted with other nasty surprises that resulted from global business control of the political world; 9/11 was only one of many to come, and the Bush “guest worker amnesty” was another surprise. We’ll soon be faced with resumption of the military draft, sending troops for additional “regime change,” and FTAA.

Were these issues presented by either of the 2004 Presidential candidates? Were they included on election platforms of either political party?

In saving our country from the “global” agenda (of which mass immigration is only one part), Americans should consider our own form of “regime change.” By seeking political allies in new places rather than the traditional “Republican/Democrat” arena, because these parties no longer serve Americans’ interests.

~ Resources ~

(1) Bob Sullivan, The Secret List of ID theft victims, MSNBC, January 26 2005.

(2) The High Cost of Cheap Labor: Illegal Immigration and the federal budget, Center for Immigration Studies, August 2004.

(3) Illegals estimated to number 18-20 million, WorldNet Daily, January 3 2005.

(4) Cannon drums on immigration despite voters, Salt Lake Tribune, September 14 2004.

(5) Comparison of Various Selected Guest Worker and Amnesty Bills in the 108th Congress, NumbersUSA.

(6) Bill Owens’ Guide for Illegal Aliens: Cash In on Colorado!, January 29, 2005, VDARE.com.

(7) Bishop asks Catholics to vote “no” against immigration initiative, Catholic Vision, October 2004, Volume 9, Number 14, page 9.

(8) Catholic Charities Clarification, Glenwood Springs Post Independent, January 5 2005.

Part X: The ’Jobs Americans won’t do‘ Scam

“They do the jobs Americans won’t do.” We’d heard it before, but not from our President! And right after his re-election, no less. The man couldn’t have expressed his contempt for the voters who elected him any more thoroughly than the insult of telling them they’re lazy and don’t want to work!

After all, what American would ever consider being a truck driver, construction worker, computer operator, cook, or 1000 other jobs including nurses, doctors, lawyers, or entrepreneurs?

Three recent examples of deported illegals explode the myth of “they only take jobs that Americans won’t do.” (1)(2)(3) Juan and Patricia Castillo lived in Clarion, Iowa for 9 years while he worked at a local agricultural sprayer manufacturing plant and she worked at Electronic Data Systems. Fabian held a construction job in Licking County, Ohio for two years before being picked up for driving without a license. And an illegal family in Missouri lived for 13 years after overstaying their visa, with the wife working as a school district teacher’s aide and the husband as a driver in the office of the governor of Missouri.

All these are jobs Americans would not only do, but jobs Americans routinely held until the illegal immigration waves flooded the American job market, making it more and more difficult for Americans to find a full-time job.

American workers don’t have the privileges that illegals do. Americans can’t accept “under the table” cash wages, because IRS would investigate why they’ve apparently disappeared from tax rolls. They can’t accept the low wages illegals do, because they won’t be provided with the “supplemental public assistance” that illegals get from both public agencies and non-profit “charities.” They can’t qualify for welfare and publicly-paid medical care with no questions asked. Americans are expected to pay their way; illegals are offered all sorts of assistance.

Need more proof that illegals commonly take jobs that Americans would do? Illegal alien advocates cite the $7 billion in “contributions” by illegals to Social Security taxes under counterfeit cards; what they don’t tell you is that payroll withholding taxes are a sign of mainstream jobs, not picking lettuce or “day labor” jobs.

The Bear Stearns estimate of 20 million illegals makes even more obvious what we all knew: 20 million illegals are working somewhere, and we know they’re not all picking lettuce! (4)

“The illegals work harder.” They don’t and we all know that.

“The baby boomers will be retiring and we need illegal aliens to fill the labor shortage created by retiring baby boomers.” We’re supposed to believe that Third-World unskilled illegals with grade-school educations will fill vacancies left by experienced professional and technical retirees? If there’s such a desperate need for these unskilled illegals, why are so many on street corners waiting for pick-up work?

A business world anticipating such a shortage would do all possible to retain their “baby-boom” employees, not pushing them out the door prematurely with “retirement packages.”

This “labor shortage” is just another myth. Those old enough to remember liken this to the Great Depression when men waited for work at assembly areas. And we all know that the Great Depression represented jobs shortage, not a worker shortage.

IS THIS REALLY TRUE?
Even though the President and his “open borders” crowd think we’re too dumb, we all know Americans routinely earned a living with these jobs, raised families and lived good lives. Until post-1965 mass third-world immigration flooded the US labor market, depressed wages, and expanded the “multicultural” underground economy so common in third-world countries.

If you’ve read the series this far, you’ve learned to identify not only the “pitch,” but the “pitch man.” That’s handy for the future by enabling you to ID new scams just by their salesman. For example, knowing that Senator Ted Kennedy is the key person responsible for the 1965 “Immigration Reform” Act that changed the “key” for immigrating to the US from “economic responsibility” (the immigrant’s ability to be self-supporting and not be a public charge) to “family ties” (they have a relative already in the US), that enabled US entry by massive third-world immigration, would you accept any of his future “reform” proposals like the Jackpot Amnesty?

I know I wouldn’t. Nor would I believe any of Ted Kennedy’s allies on the immigration issue. Like Senator John McCain. Much as it shames me to admit it, McCain is from my home state of Arizona. During the 108th Congress, McCain introduced S-1461 for President Bush’s “guest-worker plan.” My 3-inch pile of “constituent reply” letters assuring me that Senator McCain opposes illegal immigration mean nothing when he consistently introduces and co-sponsors such legislation. The “open-borders,” big-money and big-business crowd couldn’t ask for a better defender of their interests.

So when John McCain claims that ending illegal immigration would “shut down the homebuilding industry, the resort industry and the restaurants that we patronize here in our nation’s capital,” (5) what more official word could we ask that another industry has been added to the list of “jobs Americans won’t do?”

McCain’s interviewer hit the nail on the head with his secondary comment to the quote, adding that McCain was “referring to jobs generally held by immigrants, many of them illegal, in industries that serve moneyed Americans.” US immigration has always benefited the country’s employers and wealthy, as it does today.

Those of us who attended American schools before adoption of the UNESCO curriculum learned that the Republican party historically supported high immigration levels and the Democratic party opposed them. After their arrival, immigrants became Democrats because they recognized the disaster to them by continued mass immigration. That the picture has changed today reflects both parties have embraced the “global economy” despite its disastrous effect on Americans and their country.

WHAT’S SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE…
We all realize the advantage given an illegal employee in the underground economy, but it’s easy to overlook the benefits it offers to the employer. We know from Part IV, about the costs and taxes the employer evades: workers’ compensation insurance, unemployment taxes, Employers’ Social Security and Medicare taxes (7.65%). But there’s even more.

Actually, the Bear Stearns report tells a great deal about the attraction of employers for illegals, and it’s more than just cheap wages.

Hiring illegals enables the employer to operate in the underground economy where earnings and profits remain hidden from taxes. We know that workers’ earnings in the underground economy are tax-free, but company earnings are hidden as well. Lower profits means lower taxes for the employer/company, and that drops directly to the company’s bottom line.

That $311 billion in “uncollected taxes” cited in the Bear Stearns report wasn’t limited to personal income taxes on individual earnings; it also includes uncollected corporate taxes as well.

WHAT LEADS TO “IMMIGRANT INDUSTRIES?”
The two most common reasons: Employers who want cheap labor or to eliminate labor union. Since the 1980s, industry after well-paying industry has been sent overseas: manufacturing and textiles. Well-paying jobs that couldn’t be sent offshore, such as construction, landscaping and meatpacking, suddenly were eliminated in labor disputes or lockouts, and eventually replaced by illegals.

Truck drivers expect their jobs to be the next taken over by illegal aliens.

The 2002-2003 case of Tyson Chicken revealed clearly that illegal employees don’t just drift northward looking for work. They’re recruited in their home countries by employers or labor brokers, and arrive in the US complete with forged documents. (6) (7) It’s only recently that newspapers have carried stories of human smuggling rings that clearly showed what we’ve all known for years: Illegal immigration is big business, from top to bottom.

As you can imagine, businesses notorious for hiring illegals didn’t get there by accident; they’ve made a conscious decision to do so. They know the need to keep a legal distance, and ensure that employees always have genuine-looking documents.

That was effective in the past, but the Workplace Verification Program threw them a curve. The employer uses the phone or the internet to verify that the applicant’s Social Security number and name match what’s on Social Security Administration records. When the employer receives a “no-match” from SSA, the employer loses excuses of “we’re not document experts” or “we didn’t know he was illegal.” That’s why legislation to change the program from voluntary to mandatory have been opposed in Congress by both big-business and illegal alien advocates. (Part VIII)

But how does an industry or workplace come to be “taken over” by illegals? Former construction workers as well as young fast-food restaurant workers know the drill. First, a Spanish-speaking foreman is hired as a translator, and soon English-speaking employees are excluded from conversations. Citizens find their parked cars vandalized and tools stolen.

A friend told me of forcing her 19-year old daughter to quit her fast-food job upon learning that she was subjected to sexual harassment by illegal employees. Reports of such harassment to management fall on deaf ears. The employee can appeal to EEOC, but remember that EEOC is an federal Executive Cabinet agency, whose head is appointed by the President. How aggressively will such an agency (under the authority of an “open-borders” President) pursue such reports?

Knowing the deck is stacked against them, citizen employees quit in disgust. Predictably, their vacancy is filled by an illegal.

~ Resources ~
(1) Immigrants await deportation rulings,DesMoines Register, December 19 2004.

(2) Mexican Family gives up deportation fight,London Guardian, September 1 2004.

(3) Deportation on the rise in Central Ohio,” Columbus Dispatch, May 5 2003.

(4) Illegals estimated to number 18-20 million, WorldNet Daily, January 3 2005.

(5) Managing Immigration, Baltimore Sun, January 30 2005.

(6) “Prosecutors Call Tyson Smuggling Trial a case of ‘corporate greed’,” New York Times, February 6 2003.

(7) Tyson, others cleared in Immigrant case, NewsDay, March 26, 2003.

Part XI: How to Identify an ’Immigration Reform‘ Scam

RHETORIC TO BEWARE
“You’re too concerned about this one issue.” This comment might come from family or friends, or from a politician you’re insisting address the immigration issue.

One issue, is it? Immigration (legal and illegal) has either totally or in part generated negative effects on the following areas of Americans’ lives:

• Crime

• Education

• Health Care

• Jobs

• The Economy

• Taxes

• Social Security

• Homeland Security

Immigration has been more pervasive than any other “one issue” during my lifetime. I’ll even go further than that: until illegal immigration is stopped, legal immigration is reduced and the “multicultural” mindset goes in the trash where it belongs and current problems in America will only become worse.

Without resolving the immigration issue, attention to the issues listed above will be ineffective and expensive “band-aids.” If you want an example, look no further than the “No Child Left Behind” program. It tap-dances around the true cause for non-performing schools (swarms of non-English speaking children with little educational preparedness and no interest in assimilating), throws money at the problem, and achieves nothing.

As mentioned in Part VI, ending illegal immigration requires securing the country from the inside out to prevent illegals from living and operating in the US.

Here is a simple checklist of actions (not hyped words and statements) that MUST occur. (1) If they’re absent, you’re dealing with an “Immigration Reform” scam:

(1) Remember the “Trojan Horse” and beware of politicians bearing “immigration reform” (or anything else, for that matter).

Remember the 3 axioms from Part II? There’s another that’s closely related:

• The louder and more insistently a politician tells you what something IS, the more certain you can be that’s what it ISN’T.

For example, we remember the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1995, despite all the benefits we were promised. (I still have Senator John McCain’s 1994 letter assuring me that NAFTA would eliminate illegal immigration from Mexico by sending American jobs down there, eliminating the need for Mexicans to come to “el norte” to find work. That the man made such a statement shows either the height of idiocy or the height of gaul.)

2005 is the year Congress is expected to pass CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement) and eventually FTAA (Free Trade Area for the Americas). Neither Bush nor Kerry mentioned it during the 2004 campaign, probably for the same reason they didn’t mention immigration.

Why do I believe that these “Free Trade” agreements have nothing to do with free trade? CAFTA and FTAA will bring “hemispheric” government to the Americas, just as the EU has with European countries. Laws and policies are made by the EU parliament, whose members aren’t elected by the European people. Sovereign countries will cease to exist, substituted by “free migration” or “open borders.”

When politicians speak of “immigration reform,” check inside that Trojan Horse for “open borders.”

(2) Are employer sanctions being enforced in accordance with statutes already on the books? (1) Failure to target violating employers is the primary reason for continued illegal immigration. When I see employers pay stiff and repeated fines and top management serving hard time, that’s an indication that politicians have stopped their “tap-dance.

We hear lots of whining about the “reducing the backlog” at INS to process paperwork for both legal and illegal immigrants. (Actually, the letter below from a prime Congressional whiner does exactly that). The American people were promised a strict crackdown on violating employers as part of the “one-time only amnesty” in 1986 – 19 years ago! When and if that strict enforcement we were promised is ever delivered, then and only then will Americans consider any “guest worker plan.” Until then, we have no reason to believe future promises won’t be broken like past ones.

(3) Has the federal government totally banned accepting the Matricula Consular ID (issued by the Mexican government for its illegals)? (1) This fraud-prone ID is commonly used by illegals to enter US banking, financial and identification systems.

(4) Is the U.S. military providing all necessary backup to the Border Patrol along the southern US border? (1)

(5) Has the President stopped instructing the Border Patrol to release OTMs (Other than Mexican) illegal aliens and SIAs (Special Interest Aliens) on their “own recognizance,” trusting their word to appear for their deportation hearings? (1) That some 300,000 illegal alien “bail-jumpers” are loose among the US population is an outrage that must be stopped. Illegal aliens pose a high flight risk and should be jailed until their deportation hearing.

(6) Is there full cooperation between ALL local, state and federal law enforcement agencies in apprehending, jailing and deporting illegal aliens? (1) Illegal-alien rights groups have opposed this cooperation for decades to insure that law enforcement is “blind” to illegals, and have enabled many violent criminal illegal aliens to hide from law enforcement.

(7) Will the US Border Patrol finally be allowed to determine the best way to do their job? The Border Patrol is part of an executive cabinet agency and their function has too long been defined by the President to serve his large campaign donors than what serves the American people.

(8) Do immigration policies and laws reflect truly serving the American people as their customer rather than political campaign donors or immigrants? Former INS Commissioner Doris Meissner suffered the same idiocy of many government officials – trying to provide “customer service” when they have no idea who their customer really is. (2) Unlike private business, the true “customers” of a government agency may never enter their office. It’s the American people who expect immigration policies to be administered and laws to be enforced to protect Americans’ interests and to keep their country safe and secure.

That the new Department of Homeland Security continues to be so inept and bungling as the old INS is no surprise when Secretary Ridge oversees written manuals to customs and immigration inspectors:

• “…And don’t be so quick to detain suspicious foreigners. After all, they are “our customers.”

• “…think twice about detaining aliens or refusing them entry into the U.S., if it may cause them “undue hardship.”

• “Put yourself in the alien’s shoes. Would you not want the officer to consider all flexibility within the law?…Compassion goes a long ways in applying discretion.” (3)

Ridge clearly doesn’t know or chooses not to know who their customer is. How can any organization operate effectively when its leadership has no idea who their customers are? Is it any surprise that immigration administration under the first DHS secretary is a total fiasco?

(9) Does the federal government withhold financial assistance from cities and states offering “sanctuary” to illegal aliens? (1)

(10) For state & local officials: What action is being taken on the state and local level to make the state/county/city “illegal-alien unfriendly?” If you get the standard “Immigration is a federal responsibility; we can’t do anything” you know you’re dealing with a buck-passer and a scammer.

Now that you’re an “immigration-informed” reader, you can likely supply some. Take these questions and your knowledge to a Town Hall meeting with your federal, state or local officials. If the agenda doesn’t include “immigration,” insist that it be added. Such meetings are to discuss citizens’ concerns, not what politicians are comfortable talking about.

If the “immigration-reform” peddler answers “NO” to the questions above, the scam will quickly be exposed. Don’t be surprised if other citizens ask how you became so informed.

HOW MANY SCAMS CAN YOU IDENTIFY IN THIS LETTER?
A friend received a letter from Congressman Raul Grijalva (D, AZ) just in time for this series. He doesn’t even try to disguise his blatant pro-illegal immigration, pro-Mexico bias and MEChA membership during his student days. He has an “F” voting grade on immigration issues, having earned it fair and square. (4)

His own admission below provides further evidence that the “ethnic advocates” like himself are allied with those of “big business;” Senator McCain and Congressmen Flake and Kolbe are well-known global business protectors.

How many different scams from the series can you identify in his letter? Enter your total in the website comments. Hint: it’s more than half of the total 12 possible.

But don’t expect all letters and speeches from scammers to be this obvious; most try to disguise their position with humanitarian concerns for “good-hearted people.”

Friday, February 11, 2005

Dear Mr. Ernst,

Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your concerns about Intelligence reform and Arizona Proposition 200. I appreciate hearing from you.

First, let me welcome you to Congressional District 7. I hope you are enjoying your new home in Maricopa County.

Regarding your question about my “yes” vote on the Intelligence Reform Act; I support legislation that complies with the findings from the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations, which uphold civil liberties and improve our country’s safety and security. Reforming our federal intelligence, law enforcement and bureaucratic agencies to ensure the safety and security of the American people is a critically important issue. After working with the Senate, Congress was able to design an intelligence reform plan that will help keep America safe.

For these reasons, I voted for the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004.

You also asked about my position on Proposition 200. Proposition 200 denies undocumented immigrants access to basic services such as health care. The so-called Protect Arizona Now initiative was a disingenuous effort to turn Arizona’s frustration over undocumented workers into a tool to further a national agenda. I stood with Senator John McCain, Congressman Jim Kolbe, and Congressman Jeff Flake in bipartisan opposition to Proposition 200.

The issue of labor migration is a complex one. Consequently, any effective approach to reform must be comprehensive and address the human rights and economic contributions of undocumented immigrants, as well as the conditions in their home countries that made them decide to seek work in the United States.

It is an undeniable fact that undocumented immigrants make an enormous contribution to the US economy. If every undocumented worker in the US were to be deported, we would literally not be able to feed ourselves for lack of workers to pick our lettuce, tomatoes, and other produce. Hotels would close for lack of dishwashers, cooks and bussers. Thousands of children would be left without day care. The role these workers play in our economy is an integral part of our nation’s way of life.

I support immigration reform that provides for earned amnesty. I am a cosponsor of H.R. 3142, the AgJOBS bill, which would create a process for earned legalization for 500,000 agricultural workers now working in the U.S. who are currently undocumented. This legislation is the product of years of negotiations between farm workers and growers, and while it only resolves the status of a fraction of the estimated 8-10 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, it does so clearly and definitively and is much more consistent with the overall reform I would like to see enacted.

I am also a cosponsor of H.R. 4262, the Safe, Orderly, Legal Visas and Enforcement (SOLVE) Act. This legislation focuses on family reunification, earned legalization, backlog reduction, addressing future flows and the creation of a temporary worker program. This proposal looks at immigration, labor, and our nation’s security to reconcile these factors with the reality of our current immigration flow.

Until the need for just and sustainable development throughout the Americas is addressed, the flow of people embarking on a desperate journey of hope will continue. The United States prides itself on being a safe haven for those in need. During my tenure in Congress, I will continue to work with my colleagues in order to craft responsible and comprehensive immigration policies that ensure fairness for immigrants and legal residents and a guarantee of the civil liberties and constitutional rights of immigrants and visitors.

Again, thank you for taking the time to communicate with me. I hope this letter addresses your questions. Please keep in touch with me on the issues of importance to you.

Sincerely,
Raul M. Grijalva
Member of Congress

WHY EDUCATE YOURSELF? TO BECOME INVOLVED!
If you’ve completed reading to the end of the series, you’re likely interested in the problem and doing what you can to change things.

Congratulations!

(1) Contact your federal elected representatives to express your outrage at the situation.
Send an e-mail from their websites: : www.house.gov and www.senate.gov
Call their offices toll-free at 877-762-8762 or 800 839-3276.

For a start, here’s a general performance outline for your federal elected representatives:

Tell them you’re not happy with the current situation, and you expect lots of improvement by November 2006 when they next face re-election (see below).

Congress should place a 5-year moratorium on all immigration. That includes skilled and unskilled workers, student visas and refugees. This “breathing spell” is the time for government officials to finally deliver their promised “crackdown” on both illegals and their hiring employers that they made in 1986. 19 years is long enough to wait.

The aide may tell you that it’s radical, but it’s not. Not only has the US historically had such “time-outs,” but European countries are doing it; Holland recently enacted a 4-year moratorium on Dutch immigration!

Do it at least once each week, and keep it up.

All members of the House and 1/3 of the Senate will face the voters in 2006.

Democrats: Diane Feinstein (CA), Joe Liebermann (CN), Thomas Carper (DE), Bill Nelson (FL), Daniel Akaka (HI), Ted Kennedy (MA), Paul Sarbanes (MD), Debbie Stabenow (MI), Mark Dayton (MN), Ben Nelson (NE), Jeff Bingamon (NM), Hillary Clinton (NY), Kent Conrad (ND), Jon Corzine (NJ), Herb Kohl (WI), Robert Byrd (WVa), Maria Cantwell (WA)

Republicans: Jon Kyl (AZ), Richard Lugar (IN), Olympia Snowe (ME), Trent Lott (MS), Conrad Burns (MT), James Talent (MO), John Ensign (NV), Mike DeWine (OH), Rick Santorum (PA), Lincoln Chafee (RI), Bill Frist (TN), Kay Bailey Hutchinson (TX), Orrin Hatch (UT), George Allen (VA), Craig Thomas (WY)

Independent: James Jeffords (AL)

NOTE: How many more of the above have left office, only to be replaced with others as, or more diabolical and traitorous than their predecessors?

(2) Ally yourself with a national group like NumbersUSA, FAIR and ProjectUSA. The first two offer free faxing from their websites to elected officials, and all three send e-mail alerts to keep you abreast of key bills in Congress when they’re introduced and come up for a vote. There’s no charge for use of their websites or e-mail alerts.

Most importantly, they give you feedback on what your faxing and phoning efforts achieved. That’s very important, because citizens’ efforts against illegal immigration are totally ignored by mainstream newspapers. Without knowing the impact of our efforts, it’s too easy to become discouraged and quit.

(3) Become involved with a local group in your area listed at http://www.fairus.org/Team/Team.cfm?ID=1569&c=41 If you can’t find a group in your area, leave your e-mail address in the ‘Comments Section’ at the bottom of this column with your request.

(4) Keep abreast of news on the immigration issue:

DON’T BOTHER WITH THESE:

(1) Don’t bother calling, writing or e-mailing the President, not even a Christmas card. He’s made it clear that he doesn’t care what Americans want; he has his “mandate” and will do what he pleases.

(2) Discard any Democrat or Republican donation requests you receive in the mail. If you want to do more than trashing them, return them with comments like “So long as the borders remain wide open, my wallet will remain shut tight” or “Get your money from the illegal aliens.”

Tell phone callers you don’t like the way the party is addressing (or ignoring) the immigration issue. You won’t donate to the party; you’ll only donate to individual candidates who recognize the importance of ending illegal immigration. Be prepared for the “one issue” excuse and with the response above.

LAST, A TIP TO AVOID BECOMING DISHEARTENED
Although Americans are increasingly demanding an end to illegal immigration and its abuses, you’ll still talk to friends and family members who just don’t see the problem and see no reason to join the protests.

Be patient, and remember that there may have been a time when you felt the same way. Some event will raise their awareness, just as it did yours.

The huge increase in Americans’ phone calls, letters, faxes and e-mails told Congress clearly that “business as usual” will no longer be tolerated. It’s the increase that has prompted Congressional action, and each American who joins in emphasizes the message. Even if everyone isn’t protesting, the number of outraged citizens is 10 times what it was, and that’s what gets their attention.

(A friend very succinctly expresses Congress’ reaction: “Congress only listens to numbers – either in dollars or votes.”)

The increasing grassroots opposition will continue. We didn’t come this far to give up.

~ Resources ~

(1) How to Recognize a Standard Border Scam, http://www.azanderson.org/anderson_report_border_issues.htm.

(2) Goodbye INS, and advise for its replacement, FAIR Research Update, January 2003.

(3) Ridge to Agents – Fight terrorists with ‘a smile’, World Net Daily, August 10 2004.

(4) Immigration Report Cards, Americans for Better Immigration, NumbersUSA.

Part XII: The Kennedy-McCain Amnesty Scam

The Final Chapter?: Don’t be fooled by peddlers of ‘Immigration Reform’ Scams

Check out the headlines describing what 2 “open borders” Senators and 3 “open borders” Congressmen produce:

McCain, Kennedy team on immigration plan (1)

McCain, Kennedy would fine, not deport, entrants (2)

McCain says immigrant bill out next week (3)

McCain, Kennedy introduce immigration reform bill (4)

Bill would give illegals visas (5)

Legal path for migrants; McCain, Kennedy unveil sweeping reform bill (6)

Bills could grant legality to 10 million immigrants (7)

Bill would revamp Immigrant worker rules (8)

None dare call it amnesty. None dare call them illegal aliens, either.

They don’t call their bill an amnesty; it’s an “immigration plan,” “immigration reform,” “legal path,” “sweeping reform,” or “grants legality.”

Nor will they admit it benefits ILLEGAL ALIENS. Instead, they’re “immigrants,” “entrants” or “migrants,” none of which is true.

Let’s look at the “McCaineddy Scamnesty:”
(1) Amnesty for Employers’ past hiring of illegal aliens.

Two new PERMANENT (not “one-time only”) visa programs:
(2) “Guest worker visas” (H5-A) & families for $500 fee

• 400,000 more unskilled foreign workers annually and unlimited family members allowed to come

• If employers “use up” the allotment, the 400,000 automatically increases up to 20% for that year and next year.

• Likely Result: At 3 family members per “worker,” 1.5 million new legal “guest-workers” and family members every year, doubling the current 1 million legal immigrants

• After 4 years, “guest workers” & family members may apply for permanent residency, making them eligibile for public welfare programs.

(3) “Amnesty visas” (H5-B) for illegal aliens & families in the US

• unlimited “amnesty visas,” allowing 6 years’ stay in the US for illegal aliens, spouses & children

• Apply and pay a $2000 “fine.”

• It’s continuing, not “one-time only.”

About the “fine”:

• “Defraying American taxpayers costs” is baloney. At $7,000 per child per school year, $2000 doesn’t even pay one year’s “free education” for an illegal alien’s children.

• Had illegal aliens applied via legal channels, they would have paid more than $1000 in fees and costs anyway. Is it really a “fine” or is the government just “recovering an uncollected payment?”

(4) “Border Security”

(a) Creates Border Security Committees, strategies, and reports

(b) The US will provide “technical assistance, vehicles and equipment” to assist Mexico and Central America in enforcing their borders.

(c) No mention of strengthening or enforcing US borders

(d) Requires machine-readable immigration documents

(e) Replaces the current “I-9” papers with an electronic work authorization system.

(d) and (e) are “red herrings” suggesting future illegal immigration prevention. At best, these measures will be delayed for years. Congress will delay funding for years followed by “operational” delays. And employers are only required to check applicants through the system; they aren’t prevented from hiring those don’t clear the system!

Recall that the Workplace Verification Program promised with the 1986 “one-time only” amnesty was finally delivered in 2004 (18 years later)! Worse, employers still aren’t required to use it!

Naturally, the new “amnesty visas” will be promptly funded and delivered; no delay there.

(5) Other outrageous Provisions:

(a) “Guestworker visas,” “amnesty visas” and their family members will be eligible for Medicare!

(b) A 20% increase in “federal reimbursement dollars” (translated ‘taxpayers’ money’) to states for imprisoning illegal aliens.

(a) and (b) are to sell the “McCaineddy Scamnesty” to state governments who complain of the illegal alien costs dumped on them. Shifting medical costs to the federal Medicare plan takes the states off the hook. McCain and Kennedy aren’t conceerned about taking the American taxpayer off the hook.

(c) Creates the US Citizenship Foundation (another “foundation” funded by taxpayer money) to pay for “citizenship” classes in English and civics. The money can be given to local school districts, private foundations or non-profit organizations.

(d) International organizations (like Red Cross & Amnesty International) can arrange automatic temporary US residence to children without parents and women without spouses who come to US consuls abroad. They automatically receive permanent resident status within one year of their arrival in the US.

(e) Religious groups and their charitable organizations are allowed to provide sanctuary to illegal aliens.

What do the Senators say?
On the May 15 2005 This Week, John McCain insisted that his legislation is NOT amnesty and that it meets the President’s “willing employer, willing worker” principle.

McCain defended cancelling illegal alien deportations: “I can envision the scenario where 4 and 5 year old children and 70 and 80 year old men and women are loaded onto busses or airplanes and sent back to the country from which they came. Not to mention the expense associated with it. It’s not practical.” (Remember the “We can’t deport 12 million…” Scam?)

Kennedy’s claim that his bill doesn’t allow illegals to “go to the head of the line” in front of legal immigrants is nonsense. Illegal aliens already took and get to keep what legal applicants worldwide wait in line to obtain: legal permission to live and/or work in the US.

Preventing illegal aliens “going to the head of the line” requires they return home to apply for legalization; it’s the only way we have to actually decide who can and who can’t enter. The bill doesn’t require that because it would hinder “cheap labor employers” goal of retaining their illegal employees.

Nor would illegal aliens “participate” if they had to return home. Many have evaded capture for years and won’t suddenly begin obeying the law unless they fear apprehension from future strict enforcement. This bill doesn’t even hint at “strict enforcement.”

Under Kennedy-McCain, any illegal alien in the US will receive an “amnesty visa.”

Don’t be fooled by the “6-year amnesty visa.” When Americans’ vehement protests against amnesty die down, the “open borders” crowd will quietly pass legislation making this “visa amnesty” permanent.

Don’t be fooled that “McCaineddy Scamnesty” doesn’t mention citizenship. Gaining permanent residence puts an H5-A or H5-B visa holder on the “path to citizenship.” They also become eligible for public benefits: welfare payments, food stamps, housing and utility subsidies and others.

The “reality” of amnesties.
Any “safeguards” or “restrictions” Kennedy & McCain tout will never be enforced. Such “safeguards” are strictly window-dressing to soothe voters’ outrage and convince them that it’s “not an amnesty.” Both the authors and congressional supporters know this from the start.

For example, “amnesty visa” applicants must pass a criminal background check. If the alien has a “rap sheet” or theirr home country “forgets” to report, do we really believe the amnesty visa will be denied? Political correctness and expediency will mean issuing the amnesty visa anyway. DHS will be as blind to fraudulent documents as hiring employers.

But non-enforcement will be hushed up until a major disaster blows the lid off the entire can of worms. Remember that 6 months after 9/11, automatically-renewed student visas for the now-dead terrorists were mailed to their flight schools. That’s when Americans learned how worthless the supposed student visa “safeguards” really were. The “safeguards” had never been repealed, but INS stopped enforcing them many years before.

We’ll hear excuses like staff shortage, political pressures from Congress and the White House, unrealistic time deadlines, or heavy workload from unexpected high applicant levels, and that thousands of “questonable” criminal background checks were deemed acceptable by the White House.

What does the McCaineddy Scamnesty offer for taxpaying Americans? A bigger tax burden to support the corporate welfare program of taxpayer-subsidized cheap labor.

See Part X: The “Jobs Americans won’t do” Scam

~ References ~

(1) The Business Journal of Phoenix, April 11 2005

(2) Arizona Daily Star, April 22 2005

(3) Arizona Republic, May 6 2005

(4) Reuters, May 12 2005

(5) Boston Herald, Tuesday, May 10 2005

(6) Arizona Republic, May 13 2005

(7) San Diego Union Tribune/Copley News Service, May 12 2005

(8) Los Angeles Times, May 13 2005

(9) McKennedy: Twelve Million served; millions more on the way! McCain-Kennedy-Kolbe-Glake-Gutierrez Bills offer Amnesty to all – and then some!, NumbersUSA

© S. J. Miller, 2005-2011. All Rights Reserved

Published originally at FederalObserver.com. The complete series was first published from January 24, 2005 through, February 18th of that year. It’s time has come, once again. Republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact. (Editor)

~ About the Author ~
S. J. Miller was a former veteran of the IT industry who sought another career rather than “follow the jobs” abroad, and a lifelong resident of border states, California, Texas, Arizona, and Nevada. In 2004, Miller was an outspoken advocate on behalf of Arizona Prop 200, The Protect Arizona Now Act on the ballot, which restricted public benefits to illegal immigrants and protected against voting fraud.