Sotomayor is up for final confirmation by the full Senate by Friday. It is evident from her writings that she bears resentment towards the United States (because Puerto Rico did not freely join the U.S.) and she sees the United States as an alien culture. Law is culturally specific, and it is STUPID to have, as a final arbiter and interpreter of U.S. laws, someone who has admitted to being an alien in the culture of the United States. See below for proof.



Is Being a Supreme Court Justice one of those “Jobs Americans Won’t Do”?

“Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor may not have been born in Puerto Rico, but friends and relatives say she is Puerto Rican through and through.”
-CNN


Most Americans do not want a Puerto Rican on the Supreme Court of the United States; we want an American, and we would be fine with an American of Puerto Rican descent. What would we say if a Supreme Court nominee were described as, “Although not born in France, so and so is a Frenchman through and through”? Would we want such a person serving as one of nine people composing a pillar of the United States political and social system? France gave us the Statue of Liberty, French ideas are part of our heritage, but we still want an American, not a Frenchman, serving on our Supreme Court. Being a Supreme Court Justice is not one of those “jobs Americans will not do.”

Not only do Sotomayor’s friends and relatives describe her as thoroughly Puerto Rican, her own words to the Connecticut Hispanic Bar Association in October, 1998 [see under question 12D on that page] clearly indicate that she identifies as a “Puerto Rican Latina” with a “Puerto Rican soul”, and identifies “so strongly” with Puerto Rico. Nowhere in the speech does she identify herself as an American.

... why individuals like us, many of us whom were born in this completely different American culture, still identify so strongly with the island in which our parents were born and raised."

"I became a Puerto Rican Latina by the way I love and the way I live my life. My family showed me by their example how wonderful and vibrant life is and how wonderful and magical it is to have a Puerto Rican soul. They taught me to love America, to value its lesson that great things could be achieved if one works hard for it.

It is terrific that she loves America, but those are not the sentiments of an American.
The entire speech is available on the website of the Senate Judiciary Committee. She delivered the speech as a 44-year-old graduate of Princeton University and Yale Law School, and a federal Appeals Court judge. Her adult identity was formed and she certainly had the intellectual capability to understand America. She also says in the speech:

Somewhere all of us Hispanics have had a defining moment when we were shocked into learning that we were different and that American society treated us differently. The shock and sense of being an alien will never again, I suspect, be as profound for any of us as that first experience because I know from personal experience that our education and professional training have equipped us to deal better in this sometimes alien land.

Americans don’t want somebody who has felt like an “alien” in the United States, and still “sometimes” feels that the United States is an “alien land” serving on an institution that has an enormous impact on the United States. Notice that she says, “The shock and sense of being an alien will never again, I suspect, be as profound for any of us as that first experience.” There was a “first experience” of feeling like an alien, and there were others; she has felt like an “alien” repeatedly in the United States.

Maybe this situation exists because Sotomayor is a first-generation American and not yet fully assimilated. Well, then, can’t we find a person of Hispanic heritage who is fully assimilated to serve on the Supreme Court? A friend who is a first generation American, both of whose parents are from the Philippines, says that even for her parents, being of Filipino heritage “is the sprinkles on the sundae.” But for Sotomayor, her heritage is what she is. My friend also said that sometimes people ask her where she is from, and she knows they are asking about her heritage, and she just answers, “I’m American.”

I want to be totally fair to Sotomayor. In a 1996 speech to the Hofstra University Latino and Latina American Law Students Association, she said,

Although I am an American, love my country and could achieve its opportunity of succeeding at anything I worked for, that I also have a Latina soul and heart, with the magic that carries.

Yet even that statement is prefaced by “although.” She doesn’t fully embrace being an American. Her 1998 speech contained many of the same things as her 1996 speech, but she had dropped the half-hearted reference to being an American.

Continuing with her 1998 speech, Sotomayor apparently does not want children with Puerto Rican ancestry to assimilate:

Nevertheless, although we should not attempt to isolate ourselves from the larger society, we also must steadfastly refuse to lose our unique identities and perspectives in this process.

From these technological advances, our children will have more opportunities to enjoy, but it will be harder for them to hold on to their ethnic identities. But hold on to them we must because Puerto Ricans, Latinos and all minority groups, despite what part of the country we live in, face enormous challenges in this society.

She seems to be saying that they face challenges because the culture is alien. By that logic if they would assimilate and become Americans, the culture wouldn’t be alien and they wouldn’t face challenges!

When she speaks of future generations of people who happen to be of Puerto Rican ancestry, “hold on to them [our ethnic identities] we must,” that is directly against the foundation of American unity that is on every dollar bill: E Pluribus Unum.

Sotomayor just doesn’t seem to get E Pluribus Unum. “Out of many, one.”
Every new immigrant group makes a contribution, that contribution strengthens the United States, and the formerly immigrant group gains acceptance as Americans, and the descendants are simply Americans of whatever heritage.

The Senators who are uneasy with Sotomayor’s confirmation have confined themselves to asking questions about her judicial record and about whether she will judge cases in an unbiased manner. Why does it seem to be off-limits to ask her whether she is an American and to explain the comments she made in this speech?

The United States was founded upon E Pluribus Unum and it has worked. Yet based on her 1998 speech, Sotomayor does not subscribe to E Pluribus Unum and is highly ambivalent about whether she is an American. Sotomayor’s confirmation to the Supreme Court could be a concrete step towards the unraveling of the United States as a cohesive and coherent nation. Tragically, this will occur precisely when the United States was closer than ever to the goal of a nation in which anybody of any race, religion, or ethnicity can be embraced as an American, and any American, no matter what their skin color, can rise as far as his or her abilities will take her.

Sotomayor - Doesn't Subscribe to E Pluribus Unum

Do You Want Somebody on the Supreme Court who Doesn't Get America, Doesn't Sign on to the American Endeavor, Isn't An American, and is Ungrateful -- (see the earlier blog below)


America is about people of many nationalities and religious denominations now not conscious of much difference between each other. You know, the Irish used to consider themselves a distinct race. (And I've got a direct quote of that that I will dig up). E pluribus unum.

Of course, the people who lump the former Jews, Irish, Italians, and Connecticut Yankees together as "white" are racist themselves, "You all look the same to me."

But I'm not talking about just whites. I'm talking about people I know from Nepal who came here and became "instant Americans." I'm talking about friends with immediate ancestors from China and Korea who consider their soul to be American and unquestionably owe primary allegiance to this country even if one of my Korean friends reads Korean newspapers.

Everybody comes here and we add what we have to the mix, and become Americans. I mean, China has this incredible thing called acupuncture that until very recently has been incredibly underappreciated by Western medicine. Western medicine was, and basically still is, missing out on probably 50% of medical knowledge. People come here from China, and they have something major to contribute. People come here from India, and they bring Yoga. America is changed by the contributions of immigrants.

Not so for Sotomayor. Below are excerpts from her speech to the Connecticut Hispanic Bar Association in 1998. For the time being, I'll mostly let people judge for themselves because I don't have time to dissect this:


"... why individuals like us, many of us whom were born in this completely different American culture, still identify so strongly with the island in which our parents were born and raised."

"I became a Puerto Rican Latina by the way I love and the way I live my life. My family showed me by their example how wonderful and vibrant life is and how wonderful and magical it is to have a Puerto Rican soul. They taught me to love America, to value its lesson that great things could be achieved if one works hard for it." She does not identify primarily as an American.

" ... it is critical to accept the fact that we Hispanics are different from the larger society, that
we must work harder to overcome the problems our communities face, and that we must work
together as Hispanics to achieve changes."

"I underscore that in saying this I am not promoting ethnic segregation. I am promoting just the opposite: an ethnic identity and pride which impels us to work with others in the larger society to achieve advancement for the people of our cultures. You here, like me, who chose to be educated in college and professional institutions, who have worked in community and government institutions, have already accepted the principal that we must work together within our society to integrate its established hierarchies and structures if we are to improve our own lives and that of our communities. Nevertheless, although we should not attempt to isolate ourselves from the larger society, we also must steadfastly refuse to lose our unique identities and perspectives in this process." I am not saying she has to give up her background, but I don't see any embrace of the United States.

"America has a deeply confused image of itself that is a perpetual source of tension.
We are a nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our
society and in adding richness to its existence. Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race- and color- blind way that ignores those very differences that in other contexts we laud. That tension between the melting pot and the salad bowl, ... This tension leads many of us to struggle with maintaining and promoting our cultural and ethnic identities in a society which is often ambivalent about how to deal with its differences." Having an ethnic identity and pride is fine as long as you embrace the United States and primarily identify as an American. Sotomayor doesn't seem to get this.


"Somewhere all of us Hispanics have had a defining moment when we were shocked into learning that we were different and that American society treated us differently. The shock and sense of being an alien will never again, I suspect, be as profound for any of us as that first experience because I know from personal experience that our education and professional training have equipped us to deal better in this sometimes alien land."
So she sees herself as "sometimes" an alien here. This person is not an American, is not fully comfortable in this society. I do not want such a person on the Supreme Court of the United States.


I would like to ask her, does American society treat you differently? How? If it does treat you differently, maybe American society perceives that you do not want to be an American. Or maybe it is you who refuse to embrace American society, so you approach American society differently and therefore end up with a different outcome?

"From these technological advances, our children will have more opportunities to enjoy, but it will be harder for them to hold on to their ethnic identities. But hold on to them we must because Puerto Ricans, Latinos and all minority groups, despite what part of the country we live in, face enormous challenges in this society." (And here she begins to quote statistics showing lower educational attainment, lower income, and higher unemployment for Hispanics.)
She envisions her children holding on to their ethnic identity. Terrific. She clearly does not subscribe to E Pluribus Unum, which has from the beginning been one of the pillars of this nation. W.E.B. Dubois believed in E Pluribus Unum. He believed that over time the freed slaves would intermarry with whites and the new America would have a dash of color. "Inter-racial" marriage is occuring with more frequency. (Will get stats).

Sotomayor should not be entrusted with a position on the Supreme Court, which will place her in of one of the pillars of the nation and the Republic. Because of her personal viewpoint that is opposed to E Pluribus Unum, she will probably undermine the nation, and through that, make the Republic harder to govern.

Sotomayor - Ungrateful?

Sotomayor's Ungrateful Attitude


Sonia Sotomayor's parents were from Puerto Rico. She was born in the Bronx. She earned her undergraduate degree from Princeton University in 1976. Below is a description of an event that occured while she was at Princeton as told to the Connecticut Hispanic Bar Association at a dinner in 1998:

My very first day signing up for classes I sat outside the gym next to a woman from
Alabama. I remember being intrigued by her very unusual and lovely accent. I began to perceive the depth of our differences when she began to describe her many family members and friends who had attended Princeton. As we sat there, Dolores, my roommate, and Theresa, a friend from Puerto Rico, approached, laughing, and as is sometimes our wont, talking very loudly. At that moment, my Alabamian classmate turned to me and told me, as she looked at the approaching Theresa and Dolores, how wonderful Princeton was that it had all these strange people who spoke these foreign languages. How ironic, here I thought she was the strange one with that lovely Southern accent I barely understood.

In case you didn't pick up on it, her roommate and Dolores were speaking Spanish, "and as is sometimes our wont, talking very loudly." I am from New York City, so I am used to Spanish speakers. Yes, Spanish speakers not sometimes, but often, speak Spanish very loudly amongst themselves. Many Americans find this offensive. If you come to the United States voluntarily, speak English or speak your own language quietly when you are in public. After the last great wave of immigration that ended in 1924, if immigrants spoke their native language to each other in public, they did so quietly. That is according to my mother, who was born in 1930. Let me say it frankly: The woman from Alabama reacted the way she did because she was offended. She probably wanted to tell those girls to speak English or shut up. Why? If you come to the United States because your place of origin is basically a failure, show some respect. Having lived in New York City for 22 years, I can recall only one time when I have ever heard any people from another immigrant group speaking their native language loudly.


But in order to understand the audacity and rudeness Sotomayor's statements above, we need to look at the history of the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States.

Puerto Rico was granted to the United States as part of the U.S. victory in the Spanish-American War, that T.R. Roosevelt described as a "splendid little war." In the peace treaty signed on August 12, 1898, Spain ceded Cuba, the Philipinnes, and Puerto Rico the the United States. During the war, the United States had invaded Puerto Rico with 3,300 troops, but the combat had been inconclusive by the time the war ended. Is there any doubt how combat would have turned out if the United States had pushed the issue?

In 1917, the United States Congress passed the Jones-Shafroth Act. During the debate over the bill, Luis Muñoz Rivera, the Puerto Rico Resident Commissioner in Washington, argued in its favor, giving several significant speeches in the House of Representatives. On 5 May 1916 he demanded: "Give us now the field of experiment which we ask of you. . . . It is easy for us to set up a stable republican government with all possible guarantees for all possible interests. And afterwards, when you . . . give us our independence . . . you will stand before humanity as a great creator of new nationalities and a great liberator of oppressed people." (Wikipedia).

So the United States acquired Puerto Rico fair and square in a war that the United States won with minimal effort, and then out of the grace and goodness of its heart, at the request of the Puerto Rican representative, granted the jewel of U.S. citizenship to the people of Puerto Rico.

Sonia Sotomayor, the U.S. born child of Puerto Ricans, regarded the woman from Alabama, who had generations of her family as graduates of Princeton, as the one with the strange accent, and she was unwilling to budge from that assessment some 25 years later. The Alabaman spoke with a standard American regional accent. Sotomayor is the one who was ignorant of this accent and if Sotomayor has an accent, it is her accent that is strange, and foreign to this country. Puerto Rico is not legally a part of the United States, even though we did grant them citizenship.

It is this Alabaman's ancestors who were of the group that so easily won Puerto Rico through conquest and so generously granted the jewel of U.S. citizenship to Puerto Ricans.

Sotomayor has benefitted immeasurably from what the U.S. granted. Without the United States, Sonia Sotomayor might be a peasant laboring in Puerto Rico, or she might be a judge with little formal training presiding over a shack of a court in Puerto Rico.

Sotomayor's attitude should have been that she was honored to meet a descendant of the people who aquired her island with one hand and then, at the request of the island, so generously bequeathed an enormous benefit upon her people with the other. Sotomayor should have realized that she is the one who needs to learn about the southern accent, and that it is not strange; it is standard.

Not so. Sotomayor considered the southerner to be the strange one, and holds this position to this day.

I would say that if this is the attitude of Puerto Ricans, the U.S. should kick Puerto Rico loose. We never did give them their independence, as Munoz Rivera envisioned. They don't appreciate the bounty they have received due to the grace and generosity of the United States. Let's give them independence and they can wait in line to come here as immigrants if they want to come.

The New York Times - A Sinking Ship

The New York Times is the most rabidly pro-illegal immigrant mainstream newspaper.

The higher-ups at the New York Times are as clueless on the immigration issue as they are at running their business.

The newspaper is nearly bankrupt, and has no viable business model in sight.



It will be poetic justice to see many of the newspaper staff laid off and competing with illegal immigrants for "jobs Americans won't do."

Here is one article describing the situation at the New York Times.
And another.
Links to other relevant articles are at the bottom of each article page.

See also, "Gray Lady Down" about sinking journalistic standards and the financial crisis at the Times.

For the Unemployed: What if Foreign Workers Are Holding Jobs For Which Your Are Qualified

Some people I encounter do not wish to give an American any preference for a job over a foreigner. I think these people are globalists. At the core, they really do not care for the United States any more than any other place.



This is from: Mary

For the Unemployed-

As much as I don't like having to do this, a large portion of our unemployed could be working, but these jobs are taken by foreign workers, illegal and legal. Until our unemployed has been given fair opportunity, this has to stop.

A guideline for illegal alien workers, illegal alien dwellers and visa workers are listed below, separately.


Stay within the law so our efforts are credible and use video cameras/cameras as often as possible.

For illegals on the job-

1-Talk with the owner or manager and let them know you suspect their workers are here illegally. If the owner or manager is trying to do the right thing, they can sign up for the ICE IMAGE Program so they can weed out employees who have used fake documents. Employees cannot be fired without solid knowledge. Reference the program to see what they can do. If the link doesn't work, type in www.ice.gov, not just ice.gov in Google and Yahoo browsers. I don't know about the others. http://www.ice.gov/partners/opaimage/

2-Hand all employees notes or flyers, on other than white paper if possible, that says immigration may be coming. If they are illegal, they are not likely to stick around. When we do this in every city/county, they will have nowhere to work and leave on their own.

3-Apply for all jobs you are qualified for, acording to their application. Keep your resume, job opening information and other credentials with you at all times so you can challenge any claims that are applicable to you or reference somebody you know so they can challenge it too.

4-Picket the company and contact all tv, radio stations and other media. Have the job descriptions and your credentials with you at all times, even for manual labor.

5-Upload photos and videos to CNN and other places that want them, post info on You Tube and report these businesses to www.wehirealiens.com.

6-You can print this for others that are interested.

7-Stay within the law so it is on our side!!!

Get as many people involved as interested, they are losing money like the rest of us by paying higher health care costs, with or without insurance, on multiple levels. It happens every time you buy from most stores and every time our state or federal government contracts with a company that pays all or part of their employee's heath care premiums because hospitals and companies pass their cost onto us.

For landlords-

1-Contact them to report your suspicions or knowledge of illegal aliens on their property. If they are not cooperative let them know you will call ICE. Property owner's information can be found on the city/county website under GIS or at the court house. Call them if you need help and ask where you can find "property information". The owner's phone number may not be on it but you can check for a phone number in their local directory/online. Send them a letter, if you can't reach them by phone, or just contact ICE.

2-Hand the renters notes or flyers, on other than white paper if possible, that says immigration may be coming. If they are illegal, they are not likely to stick around. When we do this in every city/county, they will have nowhere to go and leave on their own.

3-If there are a lot of people staying in a single family home, contact the city/county and ask how many can live in a house. They may also have restrictions on non-relatives living together, such as no more than 2 non-related occupants. If the landlord doesn't act responsibly and the people stay, contact the city/county in addition to ICE. Do step 2 first to see if they leave on their own.

4-Stay within the law so it is on our side!!!

Get as many people involved as interested, they are losing money like the rest of us by paying higher health care costs, with or without insurance, on multiple levels. It happens every time you buy from most stores and every time our state or federal government contracts with a company that pays all or part of their employee's heath care premiums because hospitals and companies pass their cost onto us.


For visa foreign workers-

Two major problems is that employers can get away with posting the job in very small papers so the majority of qualified, interested applicants never hear about them.

What's more disgusting is that H-1B visas do not require any search for legal citizens.

None of this should be tolerated with 11 Million unemployed/underemployed and growing.

Let's get our jobs back.

1-We must flood these businesses with qualified, but not over-qualified applicants so we can prove there are people to work them.

2-Picket the company, jobs sites and state and federal representatives that refuse to protect us. Contact tv, radio stations and other media by phone, emails, via comments and press releases. Have your credentials with you at all times to dispute their claims.

3-To find the contractors, check your state and federal contract awards to see what companies got them, including no bids, and direct purchases through their credit card.

4-Check them and their subcontractors to see who's working for them and do step 2 if there is anything suspicious. Although contracting officers may not reward it if the cost is too low, we still have to check for ourself because we know how bad our government can be on oversight or doing something about wrong-doing.

5-Print this to give to others that are interested.

6-Stay within the law so it is on our side!!!

Get as many people involved as interested, they are losing money like the rest of us by paying higher health care costs, with or without insurance, on multiple levels. It happens every time you buy from most stores and every time our state or federal government contracts with a company that pays all or part of their employee's heath care premiums because hospitals and companies pass their cost onto us.

Suggestion to Obama for Reducing Federal Deficit

From a poster on the website of a California newspaper. This suggestion was to reduce California's deficit:

bugoff1/6/2009 3:15:06 PM

How about a 50% remittance “fee” on all money wired to a foreign country? It would raise billions a year without hurting US citizens, and help offset the burden illegals foist on the state. I would hope there would be a 2/3 majority that would vote for that.

(This was originally posted 1/7/2009, and accidentally deleted)

Also

He also could have failed to publicize the jobs adequately. The article says he went to the state labor board and posted the jobs. That doesn't seem adequate, given my experience with the state labor board in Maryland. What you have to do is go to an area where the underemployed people are, and spread the word. Post a flyer at the supermarkets in poor neihborhoods. Post it at the welfare board. Post it at the GED location. Post it at the parole office. I thought of this several days ago, but didn't have time to post it.

Ignorance and Poor Fact Checking at the New York Times

The New York Times of July 6 has an article "Employers Fight Tough Measures on Immigration."  The article begins, "Under pressure from the toughest crackdown on illegal immigration in two decades, employers across the country are fighting back ..."  

Here is what the article says at one point, "Mike Gilsdorf, the owner of a 37-year-old landscaping nursery in Littleton, Colo., saw the need for action by businesses last winter when he advertised with the Labor Department, as he does every year, for 40 seasonal workers at market-rate wages to plant, prune and carry his shrubs in the summer heat. Only one local worker responded to the notice, he said, and then did not show up for the job."

By definition, if no workers were willing to take the job, then the employer did not offer market-rate wages.  The definition of the market-rate wage is that it is the $ wage that will elicit a supply of labor to match the quantity of labor demanded.  If no workers showed up for the job, then the wage offered was not the market rate wage and obviously needs to be raised.  Remember those supply and demand curves from your economics class?  Where the supply curve intersects the demand curve- that is the market-rate wage.    

The only way out of this economic analysis is if there is some kind of population shortage so that there are simply no workers to take the job.  But we all know that is simply not the current situation in this tenuous economy.

So,

(1) Mike Gilsdorf did not offer the market-rate wage

(2) Mike Gilsdorf offered a wage so low that no workers wanted the job.  What Mike Gilsdorf wants is really cheap labor!  That's why Mike Gilsdorf wants to fight against measures to control illegal immigration.  It is all about cheap labor.   But this was for summer jobs.  Is Gilsdorf saying that no high school or college students wanted the job?  Well, not at the wage he wanted to pay!   
(2) If Mike Gilsdorf asserted to the New York Times reporter that he offered the market-rate wage, he is wrong or lying.
(3) The New York Times reporter (Julia Preston) knows so little economics that she could not detect the falsity of the statement uttered by Gilsdorf, or she just got it wrong
(4) The New York Times fact checkers did not detect the clear falsity of the assertion.

Mike Gilsdorf, CEO of Arapahoe Acres Nursery in Littleton, is chairman of Colorado Employers for Immigration Reform (COEIR)

It's Racism. Of course it is!

"Iran expells 70,000 Afghans." "Kabul - More than 70 000 Afghans who were in Iran illegally have been returned in the past month, the United Nations said on Monday, as talks were under way between the neighbours over the controversial deportations." [5/21/2007]

"Sanaa, 15 April 2007 (IRIN) - Somali community leaders in Sana'a said on Saturday that 130 African migrants died at sea when their boat capsized off the Yemeni coast after coast guards opened fire on them. "

So Iran is racist against the Afghans, and the Yemenis are racist against the Somalis.

"Kenya-Somalia: Border remains closed to asylum seekers. Garissa, 3 April 2007 (IRIN) - The Somalia-Kenya border is to remain closed despite the arrival of thousands of new Somali asylum seekers escaping weeks of heavy fighting in the Somali capital, Mogadishu, a Kenyan official announced. "Our security officers have been put on high alert; no Somali will enter the country.""

Oh, okay. The Kenyans are racist against the Somalians.

80 killed, many bodies recovered with missing limbs with Turks and Caicos coastguard rams raft full of Haitians trying to reach shore in Turks and Caicos:
"Around two in the morning of Friday 4 May 2007, the Cap-Haitien sloop was intercepted by the TCI's [Turks and Caicos Island] 50-foot police launch Sea Quest, about a mile south of Providenciales Island. ... I was on the prow at the front of the boat and I was able to follow everything that occured. ... a coastguard ship appeared on the left side of our boat. ... It wanted to prevent us at all costs from reaching the shore. ... When the coastguards realised that everyone was getting ready to disembark, they rammed our boat. Twice. [...Then] they tried to tow us out into the channel, out to open sea. Moments later the bow was dragged under and the sloop capsized. ... .. The luckiest survivors claim that TCI police left them waiting in the water for around fifteen minutes; others 'alleged that police beat them with wooden batons when they tried to scramble aboard the patrol boat from shark-filled waters.'

Oh, so the Turks and Caicos people, who are black, are racist against the Haitians.

Do you notice that all of those incidents happened within 6 weeks of each other?

And the final incident:

"Egypt's foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, ... said yesterday his country would break limbs of Gaza residents who cross the border of Egypt illegally: "Anyone who violates Egypt's borders will get his leg broken.""

Oh, so the Egyptian Arabs are racist against the Palestinian Arabs.


Could it be that people just want to live in their own country and reach a point where they are fed up with foreigners coming in large numbers? Could it be that people still have loyalty to and identity with, their nation? That would hold especially true when the foreigners have no prospect of making any contribution to the economy. So God damn you Southern Poverty Law Research Center! http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=885
It's not nativism. It's just wanting to live in your own country with your own people and it is universal around the world. And illegal immigrants are intentionally violating the law and seeking to be part of this republic, where our laws and lawmaking process are our civic religion, so that illegal immigration is Highly Offensive.



Sources for the above factual statements:

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2116696,00.html
(Apparently affiliated with AFP)

http://mostlywater.org/rawa_stop_human_catastrophe_help_afghan_refugees

http://www.irinnews.org/PrintReport.aspx?ReportID=71614

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2007/04/mil-070403-irin01.htm

http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=71164

http://www.haitianalysis.com/2007/9/4/if-stones-could-float-the-british-press-and-the-turks-and-caicos-boat-disaster

‘Survivor of Turks & Caicos Islands boat disaster gives an eyewitness account,’ Haiti Support Group 6 June 2007, http://haitisupport.gn.apc.org/TCIeyewitness.html.

‘Haitian migrants “angry and revolted” at alleged boat ramming off Turks and Caicos’, Associated Press 8 May 2007.

‘Haitian migrants killed on capsized boat buried’, Associated Press 21 May 2007.

MAIB Safety Bulletin 1/2007, ‘Capsize of Haitian sloop, while under tow by Turks and Caicos Islands’ Police Launch Sea Quest, 4 May 2007’, http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources/Safety%20Bulletin%201-07.pdf.

Andrew Buncombe, ‘Patrol vessel blamed for collision which left 60 Haitian migrants dead’, Independent 12 May 2007, http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2534050.ece

The NY SUN 2/8/2008 Cairo Threatens Gazans with Broken Bones, by Benny Avni.

I Agree with Illegal Immigration Advocates: The Way We Deal With Hispanic Immigration is Unfair!

In my post of June 2, 2007, I wrote the following:


"Over 15% of the Green Cards issued in any given year go to Mexico! Do not tell me that the United States discriminates against Mexico. That is a lie or a statement of ignorance. Approximately 30% of the Green Cards issued in any given year go to people from Hispanic countries! That is a totally fair percentage."

Upon second thought, the % of Green Cards issued to Hispanics is unfair! It is biased in favor of Hispanics! Hispanics make up about 6% of the world's population, but they get 30% of the slots for lawful entry into the United States. Now I get it. With all their claims of racism, they are able to deflect attention from the FACT that they are getting WAY more than their fair share of entry slots into the United States.

It is my understanding that the whole rationale behind the 1967 immigration law, which continues to provide the whole structure of our immigration system, is that a proportional number of people is let in from every part of the world, so that the thing people have in common is the United States. This way, no one immigrant group from one (backward and unjust) region of the world will predominate.

NOT Leaning towards McCain

I would ask John McCain, how can you be "proud to be an American" when you have Juan Hernandez working on a high level in your campaign?

Thanks to Michelle Malkin for posting a picture of Hernandez hanging with high level McCain staffers- showing just how entwined in the McCain campaign Hernandez is.

Hernandez is a dual Mexican and U.S. citizen, a former member of Vincente Fox's cabinet for encouraging illegal immigration to the U.S., who said, "We are betting that the Mexican-American population in the United States ... will think Mexico first, that it will invest in Mexico. They've already been doing it to a great extent- family to family- but now I want the third generation, the seventh generation - I want 'em all to think Mexico first."
(From Nightline, June 7th 2001, and Michelle Malkin has an audio clip of it posted on her website.)

You are not an American if you continue to think "Mexico first" in the third generation. Nor if you think "Ireland first" or "Israel first" or "England first."

McCain obviously has not gotten the message on illegal immigration that he claims to have gotten.
I do not see how I can vote for McCain.

I'd like to have my own country, the United States, just like Mexicans have their own country and are so proud of it they continue to boost it even though they fled to my country illegally because their country is a piece of shit. It is so hypocritical of them to demand that the U.S. open its doors to them and stop being a nation while they would never do that themselves. Numerous articles have been written demonstrating that Mexican immigration laws are extremely harsh compared to those of the United States.

So I would ask John McCain, if you are so proud to be an American, why do you have someone who is not an American, someone who is undermining and using the United States, on your staff?

And also, Hernandez says in the audio clip that Jews and Puerto Ricans think Israel and PR first. Well, I am Jewish, so I can speak for Jews, although not Puerto Ricans.

I do not believe that most American Jews think of Israel first. But even if most did, Jews experienced this little thing during 1937-45 in which 6 million of our kind were murdered. Israel today is in a hostile neighborhood, to say the least.
Mexico, by contrast, has nobody but itself to blame for its underdevelopment. It is a wrongheaded nation that has clung stubbornly to stupid economic policies and whose citizens would rather flee illegally to another country rather than improve their own.

NOT Leaning towards McCain For President

Leaning Towards McCain for President

I am as against illegal immigration as the next man, with the passion of somebody who was lied to by the MSM and W.

Give McCain a chance to make the case for himself:



"I'm running so that every person in this country, now and in generations to come, will know the same sublime honor that has been the treasure of my life life- to be proud to be an American."
(at time index 7:05)


McCain says that he heard our message and has taken it to heart. Will he agree to a policy that is substantially tougher than the McCain-Kennedy bill? Or will he say, "We had two years of enforcement, now we are having McCain-Kennedy redux."? I sure hope its the former.
I just believe that he is the best of them, except for Thompson, but Thompson shows no sign of being able to win. Ron Paul has slimed himself with those newsletters and those things go a bit too far for my taste. I still think Ron Paul is a good man though.

If McCain is President, he will take care of the immigration legislation, and while he is President, hopefully a new party will form that can take on the Democratic Party, which is now a carnival freak show of wrongheaded radicals.
And I used to always vote Democrat or work for Democrats, except when I voted for Nader in 2000. But I voted in Maryland that year, so I didn't help elect Bush.

Alberto Gonzalez Resigns

The Associated Press is reporting this morning that Alberto Gonzales has resigned.
He had said publicly that 3 out of 4 of his grandparents were illegal entrants.

Senator Chuck Schumer had said that Alberto Gonzales is a man who simply does not understand the rule of law, "Attorney General Gonzales is a nice man, but he either does not accept or doesn't understand that ... he has a higher obligation to the rule of law and the Constitution." (on CBS's "Face the Nation," March 11, 2007.)

This is the whole point. Illegal aliens and their children who support their actions deny the validity of reasonable and duly enacted laws (see first post of this blog at bottom page) and deny the sovereignty of this Republic.

I do not believe that illegal aliens can be a part of this Republic. Nor do I think their children can be a part of this Republic as long as they uphold the actions of their parents. The children are not responsible for the crimes of the parents, but the children become responsible when they support and uphold the actions of their parents, as most children of illegal aliens do.

Alberto Gonzales illustrates the denial of the rule of law that pervades illegal immigration and is apparently passed down even through 2 generations.
Illegal immigration could destroy this Republic and this nation.

An Outstanding Post from another website

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1084558/posts

The person wrote:

"As someone the census bureau would classify as Hispanic, I think that I can speak with confidence that there are those of us who came here to be Americans and adopt American values. We abandoned our former countries because they were failures culturally, economically and politically. Unfortunately there are others who are here not as "immigrants" but as "colonists". They want to bring their failed culture and failed ideas to America and impose them here. Unfortunately there are panderers on both the left and the right that will play into those sentiments and help accelerate the Balkanization of America."

1 posted on 02/24/2004 10:40:37 AM PST by Cacique

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]

What's the Harm? (Part V)

It prevents economic development in the "developing world."

A lot of these fruit and vegetable farming operations that want a guest worker program knowingly hire illegal immigrants and have been doing so these past 20 years since the 1986 immigration act was passed.


Let's transfer these farms to the developing world where people are eager to do the work at wages the farmers will be willing to pay. The people need these jobs and will work hard.

(a) In August of 2006, the Lakeside Organic Gardens farm in Watsonville, California was featured in a news story as experiencing a severe labor shortage because the Bush administration was stepping up border enforcement: “The situation is so bad Peixoto has been forced to tear out nearly 30 acres of vegetables, and has about 100 acres compromised by weeds. He estimated his loss so far to be about $200,000 -- worse than anything he's seen in his 31 years of farming.” This farm is owned by the Peixoto family. I called the farm and was able to speak with a member of the family. He confirmed the news story and told me that he would hire anybody he could and he was not checking documents at that time. Barbassa, Juliana. “Organic farmers hurt by worker shortage,” Associated Press, 14 August 2006.

[It is pretty obvious that the Peixoto family has never been checking documents- that's why border enforcement caused them to have a severe labor shortage!!!!]

(b) González, Daniel. “Shortage of workers imperils Yuma crops Farmers point to lack of a guest-worker law.” The Arizona Republic, 21 November 2006. “The shortages are not just limited to the Yuma region. Vegetable growers in Colorado, pear growers in northern California, and apple growers in Washington, all have lacked workers.”

(c) In the fall of 2006, in Arizona, an onion farmer 150 miles from the border said he expects to plant 100 acres next year instead of 200 because he didn't think he'd be able to hire enough harvesters. (Lelyveld, Joseph. “The Border Dividing Arizona,” New York Times Magazine, 15 October 2006).

If you can't get American workers to pick your crops at the wages you are willing to pay, then you need to transfer your operations to a country where people are willing (actually VERY EAGER) to do the work at the wages you are willing to pay. That is a legitimate case of outsourcing, and it is how poor countries develop-- by having economic activity site itself in those countries in order to benefit from the low costs. Illegal immigration is actually preventing poor countries from developing!


Also, since the U.S. based farmers have been knowingly hiring illegal immigrants these past 20 years, why should they be rewarded with a guest worker program? They should actually be severely fined for their blatant illegal activity.

What's the Harm (Part IV)

Illegal immigration is not good for black Americans.
This is what Chuck Schumer said to the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Senate on March 8, 2007:

"In 1999, 65% of black male high school dropouts in their 20's were jobless - in other
words not looking or unable to find work - and by 2004, the share had grown to 72%
jobless. 72% jobless! This compares to 29% of white and 19% of Hispanic dropouts.

In the inner cities, more than half of all black men do not finish high school. Even when you consider high school graduates, half of black men in their 20’s were jobless in 2004.

To make matters worse, incarceration of young black men is at historic highs. A black
man with only a high school diploma has a 30 percent chance of having served time in prison by the time he turns thirty. Without a high school diploma, his likelihood of
having been incarcerated jumps to 60 percent. In fact, a black male in his late twenties without a high school diploma is more likely to be in jail than to be working.

These numbers take your breath away. These numbers should cause national alarm and demand a national solution."

A follow-on article in the Oakland Tribune (March 18, 2007) said, "Their employment histories are gruesome. Over the past few years, the percentage of black male high school graduates in their 20s who were jobless (including those who abandoned all efforts to find a job) has ranged from well over a third to roughly 50 percent. Those are the kinds of statistics you get during a depression."

Illegal immigration plays a strong role in the unemployment rate among black males.

I have heard it expressly stated, "I would rather hire an illegal immigrant than a black person."

A good percentage of white people feel that Hispanic illegal immigrants work harder. are more cooperative, and less likely to steal than black males. So they will hire the illegal immigrant.

And that pretty much accounts for all of illegal immigration. If all the unemployed black males were working, how much illegal immigration would there be? There is no labor shortage in the United States, contrary to what G.W. Bush claimed just today.

Are the 72% of black male high school dropouts UNEMPLOYABLE? Maybe not at the beginning of their work careers, but I think that having a job is how a person learns how to hold a job, is socialized into being able to hold a job. I think that idle hands are the devil's helpers-- a link between unemployment and crime. I think that illegal aliens- hard working, non-complaining, honest (except for the document fraud and identity theft et cetera) - are taking the jobs that Americans won't give to black Americans!


Let me give you a specific example. It's not a perfect example. Delivering pizza is not "a job Americans won't do." I live in a wealthy neighborhood in New York City. Friday night is pizza night in our household. The pizza place near our house- on a very exclusive street between 5th and Madison Avenues on 90th street- hires illegal immigrant delivery personnel. How do I know? Just common sense if you see these guys. These guys are making upwards of 20 deliveries a night- making probably an average of $3 tip per run. My parents insist on ordering from this pizza place because the food is so good, but I NEVER ALLOW THIS PLACE TO DELIVER TO OUR HOUSEHOLD. I always go down and pick up the food. If they would employ African-American delivery personnel, I would gladly relax, let the food be delivered, and give a fair tip. And since I have delivered pizza myself for 1.5 years, I always give a fair tip.

What's the Harm? (Part III)

I heard a report on NPR about a professional woman (investment banker) who has an illegal alien nanny taking care of her child. She says that the illegal labor pool allows her to have a career. Let's analyze that.

In New York, my friend pays his maid $90 per day. I suspect she is here illegally because he mentioned that she is applying for a Green card. But how does somebody unskilled come here without a Green Card to work as a maid? He is very unsophisticated about these things and I can't bring myself to confront him about this. It was his mother who hired the woman, and she recently died, and I don't see what I can do about it right now.

Let's return to the investment banker and her nanny. Without illegal immigration, this investment banker lady would have to pay the nanny more- say $150 per day. But let's say she couldn't afford that. So she would have to collaborate with 2 other professionals, they would each pay $50 per day. The woman would actually save money -- $50 instead of $90 per day! The employer would save money, the nanny would earn more money, their children would be better socialized because they wouldn't be alone all day (with a lawbreaker), and there would be more social interaction between the parents (who are members of what used to be known as a "community.") In sum, there would be fewer workers, but the workers would be better paid and society would gain all around.

What's the Harm? (Part II)

Economically, illegal aliens are Karl Marx's "reserve army of the unemployed."
Yes, Karl Marx, the person whose name is synonymous with communism. His critique of industrial capitalism was that it relies on huge numbers of unemployed people to keep wages low. If the workers go out on strike in demand for higher wages, the employers can just fire them and replace them with people from the reserve pool of unemployed individuals desperate for work.

New York is a place with a lot of illegal immigrants. Mayor Bloomberg estimated 500,000 at a U.S. Senate hearing on July 5, 2006.

The thing is, their is a drastic oversupply of low and unskilled labor in New York City.

"Several thousands of people - mostly young, black and Hispanic – had shown up to apply for fewer than 200 positions, only 65 of them full-time jobs." Interviewed while standing on line, Michel Ernest, 47, of Brooklyn, said, "I want any kind of job. I'll work in the kitchen if they have a kitchen." A bystander said, "This is what unemployment looks like in New York City. I wanted to cry."

(Anthony Ramirez, “A Job Prospect Lures, Then Frustrates, Thousands,” New York Times, 4 November 2006).

Illegal immigration how the employer class keeps wages low. Bush claims there would be a labor shortage without illegal immigration, but that is largely not true and one thing that would really happen is a mild redisribution of wealth away from the rich. There would be "inflation" at first due to "rising labor costs" but that would really be about employers complaining that they have to pay workers a living wage.
There would be all kinds of newspaper headlines, "Inflation Is Due to Rising Labor Costs!" All kinds of handwringing and blameslinging about "Rising Labor Costs." But "Rising Labor Costs" would actually be an indicator that WORKERS ARE WINNING BACK A BIGGER SHARE OF THE ECONOMIC PIE. The inflation will be a mirage-- once the rich start giving back some of their multimillion $$ bonuses, we'll see that it is not inflation, but a redistribution of wealth.

Warren Buffet recently said, “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” (Ben Stein, “In Class Warfare, Guess Which Class Is Winning,” New York Times, 26 November 2006.) Illegal immigration has created an oversupply of labor so that wage rates remain low and workers must be docile or risk being replaced. Illegal immigration serves the same function as Marx’s reserve army of the unemployed. The indignities and the extreme difficulty of avoiding poverty that Barbara Ehrenreich described in Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America (2002) would not be possible without the oversupply of labor. (See: Greenhouse, Steven and Leonhardt, David, “Real Wages Fail to Match Growth in Productivity,” New York Times, 8/28/2006.)

What is the Harm? (Part I)

Many people think that illegal immigration benefits the United States economically.
Let's examine this.

Paul Krugman, a political liberal, has written two columns on illegal immigration for the New York Times. In each column he specifically made the point that, “Unfortunately, low-skill immigrants don't pay enough taxes to cover the cost of the benefits they receive.”

(Paul Krugman, “North of the Border,” New York Times, 27 March 2006 and “The Road to Dubai,” New York Times, 31 March 2006.)

The employers benefit from exploiting illegal labor at wages below the market rate for legal labor, but consumers don’t even benefit because the price of the goods is no less expensive that it would be if made in China or Mexico, and everybody pays higher taxes to cover the cost of healthcare and other services for illegal workers, not to mention the cost of educating their children.

Illegal immigration benefits employers and burdens the rest of society.
Employers can pay lower wages to their illegal workers- sometimes below minimum wage- and then the welfare system picks up the tab for health care and other necessities that are beyond the means of illegal immigrants at the wages they can earn.

Certain goods and services in the United States may cost less because of illegal immigration, but we end up paying more in taxes and a degraded quality of life because people can no longer earn enough money to live their lives with dignity.

Excerpts From e-mail to Chuck Schumer

Vote NO on cloture.

On the floor of the Senate on 6/11/2007, you said, "So, yes, this no-confidence resolution is unusual, but it rises to the highest calling of the Senate, to seek rule of law over politics ... The bottom line is very simple. We have a sacred, noble obligation in this country to defend the rule of law."

If you are not a hypocrite even by the standards of politicians, you will vote no on cloture. Lewis Libby is not above the law, nor is Paris Hilton, and the 12 million illegal immigrants are neither above nor below the law. All people are bound by the law. That is one of the pillars of a republican form of government. If you, by your vote, are the cause of the erosion of that pillar, you are a contributor to the collapse of this republic.

I lived in a heavily Hispanic neighborhood from 7/1/2005 to 3/25/2007. I realized during that time that the people who are here illegally know that they are breaking the law, that they intentionally have broken the law, and that they are determined to break the law and get away with it.

If you are asking yourself, "How does he know they were here illegally," I answer that I have not lost my common sense, and that this attorney knows the definition of "probable cause." If you look at data from the Pew Hispanic Center combined with data from the DHS 2005 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, you will see that 70% of Hispanic immigrants who came here between the year 2000 and the present are here illegally. I looked at the recent Hispanic immigrants in my neighborhood, observed their obvious "I live in the shadows" behavior, and drew reasonable conclusions supported by statistics and observation.

The immigration act of 1986 was a reasonable and duly enacted law. There was widespread public debate; it was not the product of backroom deals with special interests.

The willful violation of a reasonable and duly enacted law cannot be permitted in a republic.

The laws passed by Congress and signed by the President must be upheld.

It is inconsistent with the republican form of government that people whose very presence in the territory of the republic is due to their willfull and continued violation multiple laws of that republic should be allowed any path to citizenship.

I ask you to live up to the words you uttered on the floor of the Senate on 6/11/2007 and vote NO on cloture.

My Letter to Mitch McConnell

The below was e-mailed to the Minority Leader in the U.S. Senate in late June, in an attempt (apparently successful) to help persuade him not to support the Senate bill.

After voting D or I in every election of my adult life (I am 38), I voted R in 2006 over the immigration issue and Howard Dean's statement that the national anthem could be sung in 2 languages, just as in Canada.

In your capacity of Minority Leader your represent your party and all Americans who understand that the Democrats' rush to pander to an irresponsible portion of the Hispanic community is a serious danger to the well being of the United States.

Republicans will not lose the Hispanic vote if they explain loudly, clearly, and repeatedly that the rule of law is the foundation of the republic and the economy. Paradoxically, if we allow illegal immigrants to get away with their intentional violation of multiple laws, it will grievously harm the very thing that they risked their lives to enter.

The Z visa will be regarded as close enough to amnesty so that it will encourage more illegal immigration. The U.N. estimates that the global population will be 9 billion in 2050- up 3 billion from 1998's figure. Unless the United States upholds it current immigration laws, which are reasonable and duly enacted, we will be overwhelmed by hundreds of millions more illegal immigrants by 2050.

The best solution may be to take enforcement actions with regard to the current 12-20 million illegal immigrants, increase somewhat legal immigration going forward, put in place an improved employment verification system, and over time, replace a good percentage of the current illegal aliens with legal immigrants.

I just moved out of a Hispanic neighborhood after living there from 7/2005 to 4/2007. Many persons illegally present in this country resided in that community. While observing and interacting with them, I realized that they know that they are breaking our laws, that they are intentionally breaking our laws, and that they are absolutely determined to succeed in breaking our laws.

That is no way to become a part of this republic. A path to citizenship must be absolutely out of the question. The remedy for illegally entering a country is deportation. Better yet, a large fine and deportation. Paying a fine may deter speeding, but the current Z visa solution, "pay and fine and you get to stay" creates an incentive to enter illegally and try to earn enough money to pay the fine.

[I should have mentioned that the Z visa actually would have acted as an immediate amnesty because it would have been essentially impossible to deport anybody. Virtually 100% of illegal immigrants would have been able to argue that they were about to apply for a Z visa and were eligible, so they should not be deported. That's why it really was an amnesty bill.]

Peter D. Salins, professor of political science at the State University of New York, has written an excellent Op-Ed piece for the New York Times. (July 3rd 2007)

He writes that,

"Social Security administrators assert, erroneously, that they are not permitted to aid immigration law enforcement or to share data with the Department of Homeland Security. The real reason for their reticence is their fear that more aggressive electronic enforcement might invite political outrage. In 2002, the Social Security Administration chose merely to inform employers of Social Security number discrepancies by sending 950,000 “mismatch” letters. That action so angered businesses and immigration advocates that a year later the modest bureaucratic effort was largely ended."

"Companies or individuals employing illegal workers “off the books” are breaking the law, as are those that submit false or stolen Social Security numbers. Admittedly, tracking down workers with no documents is a daunting task, but that would also be true under the proposed system in the stalled immigration reform bill. But the vast majority of American workers — legal and illegal — are actually working “on the books.” Their status does come to the attention of the Social Security Administration."

It's an excellent article which makes the point that effective workplace enforcement is possible with existing tools.

More on workplace enforcement

The "comprehensive" immigration reform bill was defeated for the time being.
This does not mean it is time for people who opposed the bill and to rest.
It is time to use the momentum to secure faithful enforcement of the 1986 Immigration and Naturalization Act.

The proponents of "comprehensive" reform claim that without the electronic verification system that was specified in that bill, effective workplace enforcement is impossible.

However, I received a piece of literature from FAIR, a group against illegal immigration.
Part of it says that, "A secure, verifiable work authorization system was called for in the 1986 law."
If accurate, that indicates that the INS and now ICE were always and are now free to devise an effective workplace enforcement system.

The FAIR mailing continues, "If credit cards companies, banks, and other private enterprises can run millions of verifications daily, there is no reason why we cannot have a system in place that verifies the eligibility of a much smaller number of people hired on any given day."

That statement, coupled with my blog post below, seem persuasive to me that there is no excuse for the failure of the U.S. government to devise a system of effective workplace enforcement. It is some combination of political pressure from employers who want to employ low-cost illegal labor and incompetence.

How To Do Workplace Enforcement

We need a better system for verifying whether a new hire is legally authorized to work in the United States. There is already an excellent model for a system of immediate workplace verification.



The system is on a federal government website called "(SCRA) Servicemembers Civil Relief Act."
https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/scra/owa/home

(If the web address has changed, just google the website name that is in blue text).


This system already exists now. The existence of this system demonstrates that effective workplace verification is feasible and is essentially a matter of data entry.

Imagine this system adapted to verification of whether a person is legally authorized to work in the United States:

1) Enter name
2) Enter Green Card, Social Security, or visa number.

"Yes" Response: "This name and working permit number match those of a person authorized to work in the United States. However, the person in front of you must match the person in the pictures below." And below, there will be two pictures (side and front) of the person, together with any identifying marks.

If the pictures do not match the actual person in front the employer, the person may not be hired.

Very simple! The big advantage over the website based verification system is that employers will know immediately whether the employee's employment eligibility is questionable. Currently, in most cases, all employer can do is accept the new hire's (potentially fraudulent) documents and send them into the federal government.

The internet based verification system should virtually eliminate the use of fraudulent Green Cards and Social Security cards. The issuer of the fraudulent documentation would have to hack into the federal government database and replace the actual pictures of the individual those of the person who is trying to steal the identity.

Privacy concerns are minimal, because the user must already have the identifying information. The only additional information the user gets is whether the person is authorized to work, and the person's picture, which is merely the image of the face that person presents to the world everyday, so it is not private.

"No" Response: "This person is not in the database of persons legally authorized to work in the United States. Because there is a chance this result is in error due to a data entry problem, you may only employ this person provisionally, pending a manual recheck by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. If upon manual recheck, the employee is proven to be unauthorized, that person shall be subject to arrest for violation of federal law."

This way, the federal government will only need to recheck those who insist that they should be in the database, and those who insist wrongly are subject to arrest, so by and large, only the innocent will insist.

Five years from the inception date of the system, a person who is not in the database will be barred from employment until the problem is cleared up. This is because there will be a low number of errors once the system is up and running. Everybody will be able to check for an error before they even show up to look for a job. Employees subject to an error will be able to clear things up through use of the phone, internet, and a visit to a local government office.

Well, you say, you don't trust the federal government to have a workable system. It could work if it were contracted out to a company such as Amazon.com or Google. These companies run MASSIVE e-commerce sites that have never been substantially hacked and are demonstrated to be capable of massively high volume.

(click on image to enlarge to readable size)

They can say it is not an amnesty, but apparently it is being perceived as an amnesty. Since many on the left will tell you that anybody opposed to illegal immigration is a racist, I'll have to ask, why does this racist read The African Abroad? Because it is a good paper and it makes me feel good about the African community in the New York area.

What you have below is an article that merely recites the provisions of the current bill before the Senate (even crediting the New York Times for the summary) but has the headline "General Amnesty." If it is perceived as an amnesty, it might as well be an amnesty. It will trigger a greater wave of illegal immigration in expectation of the next amnesty, and it will be all but impossible to control our borders. All the so-called enforcement provisions of the new bill will be a joke.

Why Environmentalists Should Be Furious About Illegal Immigration

Hear Me Environmentalists! This environmentalist is warning that if you let "them" get away with the subverting and dismantling of the immigration laws, then the environmental laws are not safe, nor is any law.

Many laws passed by Congress are solely the product of shameless lobbying by special interests. Not so for the immigration law of 1986. The immigration law of 1986 was one of the few laws that was the product of a reasoned national debate, represented a national consensus, was bipartisan, and was an act of generosity and compassion. "They" eviscerated, subverted, shredded, violated, and evaded that law so that now we have at least 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States. And if "they" can do that to the 1986 immigration law, they can do that to any law, including the environmental laws.

Who is "they"? "They" are the employers who make money off of hiring illegal aliens, those who claim it is racist to enforce the immigration laws (even though 80% of those admitted under the immigration laws are non-white), those who just don't agree with immigration laws and lobbied for their non-enforcement, and probably others.

If "they" can get the reasonable and duly enacted immigration laws "unenforced," then they can also get the environmental laws "unenforced." Just as there are many businesses that are making money off illegal immigration, and plenty of people who are ideologically opposed to not having an open border, so there are plenty of businesses that can make more money if they are free to dump or pollute, and plenty of people who are ideologically opposed to the environmental laws.

Yo environmentalists, this environmentalist is telling you right now that if you let "them" get away with the dismantling of the immigration laws, then the environmental laws are not safe, nor is any law. So please do not be paralyzed by political correctness and fears of being called a racist. Defend the republic by standing up and being counted. Contact your Congresspersons and tell them you are against the current dismantling of the immigration laws, and want the 1986 immigration law enforced!

We will have, we in fact do have, a "republic" in which the existence of a law is largely meaningless because constant high pressure tactics are needed if existing laws are to be enforced.

We are on the verge of decisively abandoning a fundamantal foundation of the republican form of government: that the laws will be upheld and enforced until they are changed by lawful means. The systematic non-enforcement of the immigration laws is a symptom of the decline of the republic of the United States. If the 1986 law is successfully overturned in 2007, no other reasonable and duly enacted law will be safe and it will be a significant step towards the end of the Republic of the United States.

For example, in the 1980s, the INS raided the fruit farms of California, which employ thousands upon thousands of illegal aliens. Well, these farms used their political clout to cause Senator Diane Feinstein to protest the raids as hurting California businesses. Never mind that these businesses were in obvious violation of the law.

If you refuse to or cannot pay an adequate wage to attract legal workers to your industry, then your industry should be relocated to a country where workers are willing to accept the wages offered-- that is how the poorer countries will develop!

For this reason, at least one of the industries held up as a reason for why we should reform the immigration laws is a crock. The California fruit industry should be allowed to wither on the vine and move to foreign countries where people are eager to work at the wages the industry can offer. Right now, we are growing fruit, but importing poverty. We should not have allowed it to exist in this country in violation of our laws, and Diane Feinstein was totally wrong to have done the bidding of the industry by urging non-enforcement of the immigration laws.

Part of the reason for writing a blog is that it helps a person think things through. The process of looking at the numbers carefully for my blog post of 6/1 has caused me to think that we should be letting in more people legally. Not as many as the open borders lobby wants, but I could see upping the average number from 977,000 to 1.1 million- contemporaneous with strict enforcement of the immigration laws.

We do allow in a reasonable number of people legally, but we should allow in more, LEGALLY. However, that is no reason to allow those who have broken the law to stay in this country, to break the law by hiring persons illegally present in this country, or to stand by while it is broken.

People may think it "makes sense" to allow the lawbreakers to stay here, but these are people who have intentionally violated the reasonable laws of our republic. In the past, people have broken the laws of their countries of origin to escape from their and get here. But we have not had people breaking the laws of our country to enter it. It is totally unacceptable to enter a republic by breaking its reasonable and duly enacted laws. It shows such a person is totally unfit to be a part of that republic. Such a person is a cancerous tumor in the body politic- if their scofflaw attitude spreads, all law is in jeopardy. For this reason, even if illegal immigrants are somehow allowed to stay, I would be adamantly opposed to any path to citizenship.

Ignorance: The United States Does Not Admit Alot of Immigrants Legally

Runaway slaves were "illegal" -Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez in an e-mail to me.

This is My America Too!! Why can't we give others a chance to be free!!! -"Americans in support of the illegal immigrants" website.


________________________________________________
Controlling immigration into the United States is in no way like slavery. In fact, native born African-Americans have been hurt quite severely by illegal immigration, but that is for another post.

And we give PLENTY OF OTHERS a chance to be free! The statement from "Americans in support" is moronic.

This post will be about how the number of lawful immigrants the United States allows to enter is reasonable.

Since 1989, the U.S. has issued an average of 977,000 Green Cards per year. 80% of those Green Cards are issued to people who do not come from the Canada, Europe or Russia- i.e. non-white. So do not charge that U.S. immigration policy is racist. On balance, it is totally non-racist!

1989	1,090,172
1990	1,535,872
1991	1,826,595
1992	973,445
1993	903,916
1994	803,993
1995	720,177
1996	915,560
1997	797,847
1998	653,206
1999	644,787
2000	841,002
2001	1,058,902
2002	1,059,356
2003	703,542
2004	957,883
2005	1,122,373

Those figures are available from the DHS (Office of Immigration Statistics) 2005 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics. That was released in November, 2006, so the 2006 figures presumably will not be ready until late 2007. I simply downloaded 2005 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics from the Office of Immigration Statistics' website. In table 1, the Yearbook gives the number of people legally admitted to the United States for every year since 1820.

What percentage of Green Cards does the U.S. issue to people from Hispanic countries?

Green Cards Issued	Per	Year		2003	2004	2005
Mexico				114,758	173,711	157,992
Cuba				8,685	15,385	20,651
Dominican Republic				26,112	30,063	27,366
Central America				53,283	61,253	52,636
South America				53,946	69,452	100,811
Total Per Year				256,784	349,864	359,056

Over 15% of the Green Cards issued in any given year go to Mexico! Do not tell me that the United States discriminates against Mexico. That is a lie or a statement of ignorance. Approximately 30% of the Green Cards issued in any given year go to people from Hispanic countries! That is a totally fair percentage.

Those figures are also from the DHS. They are either from the 2005 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics or from yearly reports titled "Annual Flow Report 200x: Legal Permanent Residents: (Year)." I had to type them in by hand, and noboby is paying me to do this, so if you want all the years, go check for yourself.

Is an average of 977,000 Green Cards per year reasonable?
This question is best answered by looking at how the United States compares to other countries. Different nations report immigration statistics differently, so it can be very tricky to compare them. Several spokespersons for the anti-illegal immigration side say that the United States admits more persons legally than the rest of the world combined. Among these persons is Lou Dobbs.

Statisticians at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have devoted substantial effort to cross-national comparisons of how many people the highly developed nations admit legally. So far, they have only published comparisons for the years 2003 and 2004. I have e-mailed them and asked when they will be publishing results for more years, and I never received a response.

So far, their published findings indicate that in the average year, the United States, with a legally present population of 288 million, admits more people on a per capita basis than most other wealthy nations. When the OECD compared the United States to a basket of wealthy nations with a combined total population of 506 million, the United States average of 977,000 is equal to 62% of the total that the other countries admit. 62% of 506 million is 314 million. So the United States admits as many people as if it were a nation of 314 million.


That is to be found in the OECD "International Migration Outlook 2006" table I.1 (page 30). You can only download that publication if you subscribe to OECD. But here is the table:


When you look at the table, you may protest that the United States only admitted 705,800 and 946,100 people lawfully in the years shown. First, you have to note that the U.S. data for 2003 and 2004 corresponds almost precisely to the data published by the United States Office of Immigration Statistics. So U.S. statistics are highly reliable. Second, you have to understand that the years 2003 and 2004 were exceptionally low years for numbers of persons admitted legally to the U.S. To remedy this, I am using the average number of persons per year granted Green Cards from 1989-2005. Third, even if some of the other countries in the table were admitting exceptionally low numbers of persons in the years covered by the table, other countries may have been admitting large numbers, so discrepancies even out amongst the 16 other countries represented in the table.

I am saying, compare the average of 977,000 people per year given legal Green Cards by the U.S. to what looks like an average of 1.55 million people granted lawful permanent residence by 16 other nations with a total population of 506 million. The United States certainly is not put to shame by the other nations.

The number of persons granted Green Cards by the United States is within the realm of reasonableness. You may think the U.S. should allow in more immigrants legally, but U.S. law and policy is not totally unjust or wrong.