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.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Sunday, August 19, 2007
An Outstanding Post from another website
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1084558/posts
The person wrote:
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."
Thursday, July 19, 2007
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.
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.
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
[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
(c) In the fall of 2006, in
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.
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.
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
(Anthony Ramirez, “A Job Prospect Lures, Then Frustrates, Thousands,” New York Times,
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,
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
(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 New York 8/28/2006
What is the Harm? (Part I)
Many people think that illegal immigration benefits the United States economically.
Let's examine this.
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.
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,
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Excerpts From e-mail to Chuck Schumer
Vote NO on cloture.
On the floor of the Senate on
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
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
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
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
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
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
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."
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.
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.
Monday, June 11, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, June 4, 2007
(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.
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.
Saturday, June 2, 2007
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!
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?
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)