Billionaire George Soros is using his money to co-opt and control the liberal media -- reshaping the news to suit his ultra left wing views!
We need to demand that the media tell the truth about George Soros’s plan to undo the U.S.
Soros has spent more than $48 million to gain influence at journalism schools, and journalism organizations.
+ + Soros’ influence over the media is undermining our nation
The well-funded tentacles of George Soros go far beyond his funding of Columbia University’s School of Journalism – one of the most famous journalism school in the nation, he’s also bankrolling: The National Federation of Community Broadcasters, The Committee to Protect Journalists, and the National Association of Hispanic Broadcasters and more.
But that’s just the tip of Soros’ ultra left iceberg.
Those angered by his control of the media might be tempted to voice their concerns to the Organization of News Ombudsman -- a group of 57 media professionals devoted to “monitoring accuracy, fairness and balance.” Unfortunately, that group is also funded by Soros!
The group’s membership reads like a media “Who’s Who” including: Brent Jones of USA Today, Alicia Shepard, NPR, Patrick Pexton, The Washington Post, Deirdre Edgar of the Los Angeles Times ...
Liberal academic programs, left-wing investigative journalism and supposedly neutral news organizations, are all being funded by a man who despises the right, and seeks to take down the U.S.A.!
Soros’ plan is obvious.
The bigger question is, will Americans rise up and confront the Soros threat?
We need to take aggressive action. Some analysts and researchers are committed to exposing Soros’ agenda, but we all need to spread the word about this very dangerous man.
Left unchecked, Soros has the means to destroy our freedom and our way of life! That’s why right now, we must leverage our effots against the left-wing media, bludgeoning them with the truth about Soros, and alerting the nation to this terrible threat!
Showing posts with label Dee Perez-Scott. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dee Perez-Scott. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Pay Attention: Dee Perez-Scott: 2012 Federal Budget
Democratic and Republican lawmakers are running out of time to reach an agreement on the 2011 budget.
Meanwhile, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, is looking beyond this Friday's midnight deadline. He has announced plans for blockbuster legislation for fiscal year 2012.
The plan will cut the budget by more than $4 trillion over the next decade, bringing spending back to 2008 levels.
"Look, we intend to not only cut discretionary spending and put caps on spending, you have to address the drivers of our debt," Ryan told "Fox News Sunday."
"We need to engage with the American people on a fact-based budget, on stopping politicians from making empty promises to people, and talk to the country about what is necessary to fix these problems," Ryan added.
In a recent interview on The 700 Club, Ryan said America has a choice between two futures.
"Do you want the historic American idea, the 'exceptionalism,' that opportunity society with a safety net?" Ryan asked. "Or do you want to go down the path that the president has put out for us, which is putting us down towards a debt ridden crisis, a cradle to grave, European-style, social welfare state?"
At the top of Ryan's To Do list is making changes to Medicaid and Medicare. The Wisconsin congressman says that's the key because spending on those programs will skyrocket in coming years.
"The key is this -- There is nobody saying that Medicare can stay on its current path. Even "Obamacare" acknowledges that," Ryan said. "So we should not be measuring ourselves against some mythical future of Medicare that isn't sustainable."
Ryan also proposes pro-growth tax changes, including lower tax rates and broadening the tax base.
"We want job creation," he said. "Pro-growth tax reform is a key ingredient to getting this economy working again, getting this economy growing again."
In the meantime, the 2011 budget still hasn't been resolved. Republicans and Democrats are trying to strike yet another deal to avoid a government shutdown.
Lawmakers are running out of time to reach an agreement. Funding for the government expires at midnight Friday.
"We control one-half of one-third of the government here," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, noted. "But we're going continue to fight for the largest spending cuts that we can get."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. suggested GOP lawmakers were under the thumb of the Tea Party.
"The Republican leadership in the House has to make a decision whether they're going to do the right thing for the country or do the right thing for the Tea Party," Reid said.
While Democrats have agreed to make over $30 billion in spending cuts over the next 6 months, the Tea Party members say there's no room for compromise -- especially on issues like Planned Parenthood.
"If liberals in the Senate would rather play political games and shut down the government instead of making a small down- payment on fiscal discipline and reform, I say shut it down," Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., said.
Meanwhile, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, is looking beyond this Friday's midnight deadline. He has announced plans for blockbuster legislation for fiscal year 2012.
The plan will cut the budget by more than $4 trillion over the next decade, bringing spending back to 2008 levels.
"Look, we intend to not only cut discretionary spending and put caps on spending, you have to address the drivers of our debt," Ryan told "Fox News Sunday."
"We need to engage with the American people on a fact-based budget, on stopping politicians from making empty promises to people, and talk to the country about what is necessary to fix these problems," Ryan added.
In a recent interview on The 700 Club, Ryan said America has a choice between two futures.
"Do you want the historic American idea, the 'exceptionalism,' that opportunity society with a safety net?" Ryan asked. "Or do you want to go down the path that the president has put out for us, which is putting us down towards a debt ridden crisis, a cradle to grave, European-style, social welfare state?"
At the top of Ryan's To Do list is making changes to Medicaid and Medicare. The Wisconsin congressman says that's the key because spending on those programs will skyrocket in coming years.
"The key is this -- There is nobody saying that Medicare can stay on its current path. Even "Obamacare" acknowledges that," Ryan said. "So we should not be measuring ourselves against some mythical future of Medicare that isn't sustainable."
Ryan also proposes pro-growth tax changes, including lower tax rates and broadening the tax base.
"We want job creation," he said. "Pro-growth tax reform is a key ingredient to getting this economy working again, getting this economy growing again."
In the meantime, the 2011 budget still hasn't been resolved. Republicans and Democrats are trying to strike yet another deal to avoid a government shutdown.
Lawmakers are running out of time to reach an agreement. Funding for the government expires at midnight Friday.
"We control one-half of one-third of the government here," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, noted. "But we're going continue to fight for the largest spending cuts that we can get."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. suggested GOP lawmakers were under the thumb of the Tea Party.
"The Republican leadership in the House has to make a decision whether they're going to do the right thing for the country or do the right thing for the Tea Party," Reid said.
While Democrats have agreed to make over $30 billion in spending cuts over the next 6 months, the Tea Party members say there's no room for compromise -- especially on issues like Planned Parenthood.
"If liberals in the Senate would rather play political games and shut down the government instead of making a small down- payment on fiscal discipline and reform, I say shut it down," Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., said.
Friday, January 14, 2011
The Death of Common Sense
An Obituary printed in the London Times - Interesting and sadly rather true.
Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend,Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:
- Knowing when to come in out of the rain;
- Why the early bird gets the worm;
- Life isn't always fair;
- and maybe it was my fault.
Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).
His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.
Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children.
It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or a paracetamol to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.
Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims.
Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.
Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.
Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, Truth and Trust, by his wife, Discretion, by his daughter, Responsibility, and by his son, Reason.
He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers;
I Know My Rights
I Want It Now
Someone Else Is To Blame
I'm A Victim
Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. If you still remember him, pass this on.
Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend,Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:
- Knowing when to come in out of the rain;
- Why the early bird gets the worm;
- Life isn't always fair;
- and maybe it was my fault.
Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).
His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.
Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children.
It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or a paracetamol to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.
Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims.
Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.
Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.
Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, Truth and Trust, by his wife, Discretion, by his daughter, Responsibility, and by his son, Reason.
He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers;
I Know My Rights
I Want It Now
Someone Else Is To Blame
I'm A Victim
Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. If you still remember him, pass this on.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Dee Perez-Scott: Multiculturalism has Utterly Failed
Dee Perez-Scott often touts multiculturalism but here's what German chancellor Angela Merkel had to say about that."Somebody eventually had to say it -- and German chancellor Angela Merkel deserves credit for being the one who had the courage to say it out loud. Multiculturalism has "utterly failed."
Multiculturalism is not just a recognition that different groups have different cultures. We all knew that, long before multiculturalism became a cult that has spawned mindless rhapsodies about "diversity," without a speck of evidence to substantiate its supposed benefits.
In Germany, as in other countries in Europe, welcoming millions of foreign workers who insist on remaining foreign has created problems so obvious that only the intelligentsia could fail to see them. It takes a high IQ to evade the obvious.
"We kidded ourselves for a while," Chancellor Merkel said, but now it was clear that the attempt to build a society where people of very different languages and cultures could "live side-by-side" and "enjoy each other" has "failed, utterly failed."
This is not a lesson for Germany alone. In countries around the world, and over the centuries, peoples with jarring differences in language, cultures and values have been a major problem and, too often, sources of major disasters for the societies in which they co-exist.
Even the tragedies and atrocities associated with racial differences in racist countries have been exceeded by the tragedies and atrocities among people with clashing cultures who are physically indistinguishable from one another, as in the Balkans or Rwanda.
Among the ways that people with different cultures have managed to minimize frictions have been (1) mutual cultural accommodations, even while not amalgamating completely, and (2) living separately in their own enclaves. Both of these approaches are anathema to the multicultural cultists.
Expecting any group to adapt their lifestyles to the cultural values of the larger society around them is "cultural imperialism" according to the multicultural cult. And living in separate neighborhoods is considered to be so terrible that there are government-financed programs to take people from high-crime slums and put them in subsidized housing in middle-class neighborhoods.
Multiculturalists condemn people's objections to transplanting hoodlums, criminals and dysfunctional families into the midst of people who may have sacrificed for years to be able to escape from living among hoodlums, criminals and dysfunctional families.
The actual direct experience of the people who complain about the consequences of these social experiments is often dismissed as mere biased "perceptions" or "stereotypes," if not outright "racism." But some of the strongest complaints have come from middle-class blacks who have fled ghetto life, only to have the government transplant ghetto life back into their midst.
The absorption of millions of immigrants from Europe into American society may be cited as an example of the success of multiculturalism. But, in fact, they were absorbed in ways that were the direct opposite of what the multicultural cult is recommending today.
Before these immigrants were culturally assimilated to the norms of American society, they were by no means scattered at random among the population at large. On New York's lower east side, Hungarian Jews lived clustered together in different neighborhoods from Romanian Jews or Polish Jews -- and German Jews lived away from the lower east side.
When someone suggested relieving the overcrowding in the lower east side schools by transferring some of the children to a school in an Irish neighborhood that had space, both the Irish and the Jews objected.
None of this was peculiar to America. When immigrants from southern Italy to Australia moved into neighborhoods where people from northern Italy lived, the northern Italians moved out. Such scenarios could be found in countries around the world.
It was in later generations, after the children and grandchildren of the immigrants to America were speaking English and living lives more like the lives of other Americans, that they spread out to live and work where other Americans lived and worked.
This wasn't multiculturalism. It was common sense.
Thomas Sole
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Raising the Bar for Dee Perez-Scott
Reforming our nation’s immigration laws is the key to progress and prosperity
Almost a quarter of a century has elapsed since the failed amnesty bill of 1986. We now have an historic opportunity to overhaul our federal immigration laws by building on our past experiences and recognizing our past failures. I strongly believe that immigration is an issue on which we can and must rise above petty ethnocentric concerns and pandering politics. No one can argue--from the right or the left--that we can strengthen America’s economy and democracy without controlling our borders and enforcing the law.
We are a nation of laws and that has been one of the secrets of our success. Yet, we are clearly losing ground on the immigration front as powerful special interest groups and their allies in Congress continue to push for yet another amnesty bill under the broader umbrella of comprehensive immigration reform (CIR). But many now recognize that amnesty and CIR are virtually synonymous. Obama apparently has decided to usurp the authority of the Congress to set immigration policy by taking action to simply excuse illegal aliens en masse in an end run that will cost him in 2012.
We are losing ground to other countries because population growth here is largely among the uneducated, some of whom have not even mastered their native tongues. Forty-seven percent of high school students fail to graduate. What we need is a fully educated workforce to enable us to recapture the manufacturing jobs sent overseas. Allowing large numbers of the uneducated to enter our country illegally and remain here and work is counterproductive to that goal. Moreover, it places extra demands on the schools for bi-lingual education and other special programs. This involves the use of resources that could better be employed in improving the graduation rate and preparing students to be productive members of society.
Our national security is threatened by the weakness of our border and port security efforts and by the sheer volume of daily pedestrian and vehicular traffic at the ports of entry. Any observer of that traffic would soon realize that the Border Patrol is faced with an impossible task. If we are to meet everyone’s goal of secure borders, we must act now with a sense of urgency.
We knew early on that the amnesty bill of 1986 had many shortcomings because the promises in the bill to secure the border were never kept. The 1.3 million illegal aliens granted amnesty in 1986 has now grown to 12 million, a compound rate of increase of 9.7% per year. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see where another amnesty will lead. If the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill had been passed in 2006, we would be debating anew today whether to provide amnesty for the 4 million to 5 million illegal aliens who have entered since. And if an amnesty were enacted tomorrow, five years from now, Congress would be debating what to do with the additional 5 million who would have entered by that time. What's more, the tens of millions of newly amnestied citizens legally would be able to bring in their next of kin through chain migration, swelling the overall number to potentially more than 50 million within a decade of the amnesty.
Although our nation cannot wait any longer, I am not optimistic about real reform because President Obama and DHS Secretary Napolitano are pushing a different agenda. While they support some additional resources, some of them temporary in the form of National Guard troops, they have yet to come to terms with the simple fact that some of what we’ve been doing is not working and more of the same is not likely to help. Business as usual is simply unacceptable. They have yet to accept that internal enforcement is an essential element of in depth border security. The lack of real interventions and adequate investment doesn’t just apply at the border and doesn’t just apply to hardened criminals. If we focus on the larger problem, we will be able to sweep up the hardened criminals along with all of the other illegals.
The East Germans found to their dismay that people would brave machine gun towers, mine fields, and multi-layered fences and walls to escape to the West, Why? Because they knew if they were successful, they would never be repatriated.
Similarly, illegal aliens know if they can escape the immediate environs of the border, they will be home free. Under the Administration’s policies, the probability of being apprehended and repatriated is extremely low. What the Administration refuses to admit is that to secure the borders requires more than just staffing and infrastructure improvements at the border itself; it requires vigorous and continuous internal enforcement coupled with the expeditious repatriation of all of those who are apprehended. That is the missing ingredient of border security in depth. Under current policies the borders can never be completely secure.
Despite the persistent and alarming failures of our current border security measures, an understanding of the East German experience can show us the way. A six month term working on border infrastructure followed by immediate repatriation is the sine qua non of border security. Our failure to expedite repatriation is the primary cause of many of our border problems. If an illegal alien pays a coyote to help him negotiate the border but is promptly apprehended and repatriated, he will soon realize that that this is a losing proposition.
We need a bipartisan open and transparent effort to strengthen our immigration laws. CIR is not the answer. Instead of a thousand page bill written by lobbyists and special interest groups containing all manner of mischief and loopholes, we need a series of shorter simpler bills that everyone can read and understand well before any votes are taken. We may have one last chance to deal with the difficult immigration issues and critical challenges facing us before the die will be cast and the political climate will change. We need to take head-on the barriers to solving the illegal alien problem. Building on what works and fixing that which doesn’t, we can develop an immigration system tuned more precisely to the exact needs of our economy and nothing else.
We will need better data systems beginning with a visa-overstay tracking system and the mandatory implementation of the E-verification of work status across the board for all employers, public and private, and all employees, both current employees and potential new hires. The loophole in the present law that permits an employer to get off the hook by claiming he didn’t “knowingly” hire any illegal aliens must be closed. An employer must be held accountable for the work or immigration status of all of his employees. The E-verification system permits him to do so while the applicant is busy filling out employment forms. Wireless communication systems installed in police cruisers should permit local authorities to instantly check the bona fides of anyone stopped for other violations using the E-verification system which could be expanded to include the names and numbers on drivers’ licenses, green cards, and other such documents.
It has been said that the president is looking for the “elusive middle ground” on immigration reform. If we think in terms of a football field, one goal line represents mass legalization or amnesty for 12 million illegal aliens and the other the mass deportation of all illegal aliens. The middle ground lies somewhere near the 50 yard line. The proponents of amnesty or CIR have not moved an inch away from their goal line. They have added certain conditions, largely unenforceable, which illegal aliens would have to meet to be eligible for a pathway to citizenship. They believe these conditions represent compromise but they have not moved an inch away from full amnesty for all illegals who choose to meet those conditions. To reach the 50 yard line the amnesty proponents would have to agree to the removal of a large number of illegal aliens. The opponents would have to accept that a large number would be allowed to stay and work.
Raising the bar means expecting more from both camps. It means providing strong incentives for those who wish to stay to become socially integrated and culturally and linguistically assimilated. They must also be in jobs citizens won’t take if they are offered a living wage. Other illegals must be repatriated systematically and humanely over some period of time with the objective of creating a significant disincentive for future border violations. This is the only way in which such a disincentive can be established. Without the threat and the actuality of repatriation for a large number of illegals, there will be no disincentive.
We know beefing up border infrastructure and staffing by itself has failed to stem the tide of illegal entries. While necessary, these improvements at the border will continue to be insufficient without vigorous internal enforcement. We need to scale up both efforts.
The operators of detention facilities have been paid on the basis of detainee days. That needs to be changed so that they are rewarded on the basis of throughput numbers. The government needs to make sure there are enough immigration judges or justices of the peace (JOPs) embedded in the detention facilities so that the initial immigration decision can be made within 24 hours of the detainee’s arrival. Appeals should be limited to only one week. There should be a rigid set of criteria for immigration decisions and appeals so that most of the workload can be handled by JOPs with judges required only for the most difficult cases such as those involving requests for political asylum. Other cases should be straightforward; the individual is either in the U.S. legally or he or she is not. Visa overstays fall into the latter category the day that their visas expire, regardless of any pending requests for extensions that may have been made. Maintaining family unity can never be considered as an adequate basis for a successful appeal. Minor children, regardless of citizenship, must accompany parents under a removal order. The parents are not permitted to abandon their children in the U.S. That would be child abuse.
The winning formula for immigration reform with regard to those aliens who are already here is a process by which it can be determined whether they are holding jobs citizens would take if offered a living wage. Employers must make a good faith effort to re-advertise all jobs currently held by illegals, offering a union-certified living wage and a hiring preference for citizen workers. This process must be handled through the local employment offices to avoid any gaming of the system by unscrupulous employers. Temporary migrant farm workers may be granted an exception to this general process. Illegals who survive this process may then be offered a green card which specifies the type of work they are authorized to do. Most green cards should specify agricultural work only.
Other immigration reforms that should be considered in short, separate, single-subject bills are as follows: (1) require English to be used for all government publications, documents, ballots, and proceedings at all levels of government (EO 13166 should be repealed.) Public Interpreters should be provided for those who cannot afford one or who do not have a family member who can serve in that capacity; (2) require true fluency in English before citizenship can be awarded; (3) designate English as the official language of the United States; (4) birthright citizenship limited to the children of citizen mothers; (5) chain immigrations limited to the spouses and minor children of citizens and counted against the overall immigration quota; (6) reduce the overall quota for legal immigrants to no more than 200,000 per year (exclusive of tourists, students, and temporary migrant farm workers) or whatever number is necessary to achieve a stable population; (7) establish a national goal of a stable population to be achieved through tax and immigration policies; (8) institute cap-and-trade for family size; women who wish to have more than two children must buy credits from those who wish to have fewer; (9) focus legal immigration quotas on those who have the education, entrepreneurial spirit, a record of inventiveness and innovation, and ideas most likely to help the U.S. maintain its competitiveness in the global economy; (10) provide fast track citizenship for foreign students who successfully complete a PhD degree in the physical sciences, engineering, math, or medicine and those who enlist in the armed forces for not less than 4 years and who have served at least one tour in a combat zone; (11) tie immigration quotas to the unemployment rate by sector. If the unemployment rate is above the benchmark, suspend legal immigration and expedite repatriation in that sector; (12) reduce cross border vehicular and pedestrian traffic; if you work here and you are a citizen, you must live here -- no cross border commuters; (13) unhitch foreign trailers at the border and re-hitch them to American tractors; (14) eliminate most favored nation designation for any country that does not enforce its borders in both directions; (15) recognize the right of states to enact implementing immigration laws within the scope of federal statutes; (16) devise an ID system that would enable local authorities to easily separate illegal aliens from Hispanic citizens to avoid accusations of racial profiling; (17) change the rules of engagement so that anyone apprehended at the border or internally receives a six month sentence working on border infrastructure; (18) make it clear that no amnesty or other actions will be taken until a confidential survey of all border patrol and ICE agents, administered by an outside agency, indicates conclusively that the borders are secure; and (19) issue generic birth certificates indicating the place of birth as the homeland of the mother.
Almost a quarter of a century has elapsed since the failed amnesty bill of 1986. We now have an historic opportunity to overhaul our federal immigration laws by building on our past experiences and recognizing our past failures. I strongly believe that immigration is an issue on which we can and must rise above petty ethnocentric concerns and pandering politics. No one can argue--from the right or the left--that we can strengthen America’s economy and democracy without controlling our borders and enforcing the law.
We are a nation of laws and that has been one of the secrets of our success. Yet, we are clearly losing ground on the immigration front as powerful special interest groups and their allies in Congress continue to push for yet another amnesty bill under the broader umbrella of comprehensive immigration reform (CIR). But many now recognize that amnesty and CIR are virtually synonymous. Obama apparently has decided to usurp the authority of the Congress to set immigration policy by taking action to simply excuse illegal aliens en masse in an end run that will cost him in 2012.
We are losing ground to other countries because population growth here is largely among the uneducated, some of whom have not even mastered their native tongues. Forty-seven percent of high school students fail to graduate. What we need is a fully educated workforce to enable us to recapture the manufacturing jobs sent overseas. Allowing large numbers of the uneducated to enter our country illegally and remain here and work is counterproductive to that goal. Moreover, it places extra demands on the schools for bi-lingual education and other special programs. This involves the use of resources that could better be employed in improving the graduation rate and preparing students to be productive members of society.
Our national security is threatened by the weakness of our border and port security efforts and by the sheer volume of daily pedestrian and vehicular traffic at the ports of entry. Any observer of that traffic would soon realize that the Border Patrol is faced with an impossible task. If we are to meet everyone’s goal of secure borders, we must act now with a sense of urgency.
We knew early on that the amnesty bill of 1986 had many shortcomings because the promises in the bill to secure the border were never kept. The 1.3 million illegal aliens granted amnesty in 1986 has now grown to 12 million, a compound rate of increase of 9.7% per year. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see where another amnesty will lead. If the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill had been passed in 2006, we would be debating anew today whether to provide amnesty for the 4 million to 5 million illegal aliens who have entered since. And if an amnesty were enacted tomorrow, five years from now, Congress would be debating what to do with the additional 5 million who would have entered by that time. What's more, the tens of millions of newly amnestied citizens legally would be able to bring in their next of kin through chain migration, swelling the overall number to potentially more than 50 million within a decade of the amnesty.
Although our nation cannot wait any longer, I am not optimistic about real reform because President Obama and DHS Secretary Napolitano are pushing a different agenda. While they support some additional resources, some of them temporary in the form of National Guard troops, they have yet to come to terms with the simple fact that some of what we’ve been doing is not working and more of the same is not likely to help. Business as usual is simply unacceptable. They have yet to accept that internal enforcement is an essential element of in depth border security. The lack of real interventions and adequate investment doesn’t just apply at the border and doesn’t just apply to hardened criminals. If we focus on the larger problem, we will be able to sweep up the hardened criminals along with all of the other illegals.
The East Germans found to their dismay that people would brave machine gun towers, mine fields, and multi-layered fences and walls to escape to the West, Why? Because they knew if they were successful, they would never be repatriated.
Similarly, illegal aliens know if they can escape the immediate environs of the border, they will be home free. Under the Administration’s policies, the probability of being apprehended and repatriated is extremely low. What the Administration refuses to admit is that to secure the borders requires more than just staffing and infrastructure improvements at the border itself; it requires vigorous and continuous internal enforcement coupled with the expeditious repatriation of all of those who are apprehended. That is the missing ingredient of border security in depth. Under current policies the borders can never be completely secure.
Despite the persistent and alarming failures of our current border security measures, an understanding of the East German experience can show us the way. A six month term working on border infrastructure followed by immediate repatriation is the sine qua non of border security. Our failure to expedite repatriation is the primary cause of many of our border problems. If an illegal alien pays a coyote to help him negotiate the border but is promptly apprehended and repatriated, he will soon realize that that this is a losing proposition.
We need a bipartisan open and transparent effort to strengthen our immigration laws. CIR is not the answer. Instead of a thousand page bill written by lobbyists and special interest groups containing all manner of mischief and loopholes, we need a series of shorter simpler bills that everyone can read and understand well before any votes are taken. We may have one last chance to deal with the difficult immigration issues and critical challenges facing us before the die will be cast and the political climate will change. We need to take head-on the barriers to solving the illegal alien problem. Building on what works and fixing that which doesn’t, we can develop an immigration system tuned more precisely to the exact needs of our economy and nothing else.
We will need better data systems beginning with a visa-overstay tracking system and the mandatory implementation of the E-verification of work status across the board for all employers, public and private, and all employees, both current employees and potential new hires. The loophole in the present law that permits an employer to get off the hook by claiming he didn’t “knowingly” hire any illegal aliens must be closed. An employer must be held accountable for the work or immigration status of all of his employees. The E-verification system permits him to do so while the applicant is busy filling out employment forms. Wireless communication systems installed in police cruisers should permit local authorities to instantly check the bona fides of anyone stopped for other violations using the E-verification system which could be expanded to include the names and numbers on drivers’ licenses, green cards, and other such documents.
It has been said that the president is looking for the “elusive middle ground” on immigration reform. If we think in terms of a football field, one goal line represents mass legalization or amnesty for 12 million illegal aliens and the other the mass deportation of all illegal aliens. The middle ground lies somewhere near the 50 yard line. The proponents of amnesty or CIR have not moved an inch away from their goal line. They have added certain conditions, largely unenforceable, which illegal aliens would have to meet to be eligible for a pathway to citizenship. They believe these conditions represent compromise but they have not moved an inch away from full amnesty for all illegals who choose to meet those conditions. To reach the 50 yard line the amnesty proponents would have to agree to the removal of a large number of illegal aliens. The opponents would have to accept that a large number would be allowed to stay and work.
Raising the bar means expecting more from both camps. It means providing strong incentives for those who wish to stay to become socially integrated and culturally and linguistically assimilated. They must also be in jobs citizens won’t take if they are offered a living wage. Other illegals must be repatriated systematically and humanely over some period of time with the objective of creating a significant disincentive for future border violations. This is the only way in which such a disincentive can be established. Without the threat and the actuality of repatriation for a large number of illegals, there will be no disincentive.
We know beefing up border infrastructure and staffing by itself has failed to stem the tide of illegal entries. While necessary, these improvements at the border will continue to be insufficient without vigorous internal enforcement. We need to scale up both efforts.
The operators of detention facilities have been paid on the basis of detainee days. That needs to be changed so that they are rewarded on the basis of throughput numbers. The government needs to make sure there are enough immigration judges or justices of the peace (JOPs) embedded in the detention facilities so that the initial immigration decision can be made within 24 hours of the detainee’s arrival. Appeals should be limited to only one week. There should be a rigid set of criteria for immigration decisions and appeals so that most of the workload can be handled by JOPs with judges required only for the most difficult cases such as those involving requests for political asylum. Other cases should be straightforward; the individual is either in the U.S. legally or he or she is not. Visa overstays fall into the latter category the day that their visas expire, regardless of any pending requests for extensions that may have been made. Maintaining family unity can never be considered as an adequate basis for a successful appeal. Minor children, regardless of citizenship, must accompany parents under a removal order. The parents are not permitted to abandon their children in the U.S. That would be child abuse.
The winning formula for immigration reform with regard to those aliens who are already here is a process by which it can be determined whether they are holding jobs citizens would take if offered a living wage. Employers must make a good faith effort to re-advertise all jobs currently held by illegals, offering a union-certified living wage and a hiring preference for citizen workers. This process must be handled through the local employment offices to avoid any gaming of the system by unscrupulous employers. Temporary migrant farm workers may be granted an exception to this general process. Illegals who survive this process may then be offered a green card which specifies the type of work they are authorized to do. Most green cards should specify agricultural work only.
Other immigration reforms that should be considered in short, separate, single-subject bills are as follows: (1) require English to be used for all government publications, documents, ballots, and proceedings at all levels of government (EO 13166 should be repealed.) Public Interpreters should be provided for those who cannot afford one or who do not have a family member who can serve in that capacity; (2) require true fluency in English before citizenship can be awarded; (3) designate English as the official language of the United States; (4) birthright citizenship limited to the children of citizen mothers; (5) chain immigrations limited to the spouses and minor children of citizens and counted against the overall immigration quota; (6) reduce the overall quota for legal immigrants to no more than 200,000 per year (exclusive of tourists, students, and temporary migrant farm workers) or whatever number is necessary to achieve a stable population; (7) establish a national goal of a stable population to be achieved through tax and immigration policies; (8) institute cap-and-trade for family size; women who wish to have more than two children must buy credits from those who wish to have fewer; (9) focus legal immigration quotas on those who have the education, entrepreneurial spirit, a record of inventiveness and innovation, and ideas most likely to help the U.S. maintain its competitiveness in the global economy; (10) provide fast track citizenship for foreign students who successfully complete a PhD degree in the physical sciences, engineering, math, or medicine and those who enlist in the armed forces for not less than 4 years and who have served at least one tour in a combat zone; (11) tie immigration quotas to the unemployment rate by sector. If the unemployment rate is above the benchmark, suspend legal immigration and expedite repatriation in that sector; (12) reduce cross border vehicular and pedestrian traffic; if you work here and you are a citizen, you must live here -- no cross border commuters; (13) unhitch foreign trailers at the border and re-hitch them to American tractors; (14) eliminate most favored nation designation for any country that does not enforce its borders in both directions; (15) recognize the right of states to enact implementing immigration laws within the scope of federal statutes; (16) devise an ID system that would enable local authorities to easily separate illegal aliens from Hispanic citizens to avoid accusations of racial profiling; (17) change the rules of engagement so that anyone apprehended at the border or internally receives a six month sentence working on border infrastructure; (18) make it clear that no amnesty or other actions will be taken until a confidential survey of all border patrol and ICE agents, administered by an outside agency, indicates conclusively that the borders are secure; and (19) issue generic birth certificates indicating the place of birth as the homeland of the mother.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
THERE IS NO UPSIDE TO AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS
By Tom Garcia
The Washington Times
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Throughout his partnership with President George W. Bush, Karl Rove argued that a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens would be a political winner for the Republican Party. His argument, so it went, was that because the so-called Hispanic segment of the population was growing faster than other parts of the body politic, it would be foolish to block amnesty for illegal aliens that those voters wanted.
Furthermore, so his logic contended, this growing minority would punish Republicans for not going along with the Democrats' amnesty proposals. In other words, the Republican Party should itself co-opt these proposals for amnesty and make them their own, thereby eroding the Democrats' share of this voting public.
But on what premise is this theory based?
First, it assumes that all U.S. citizens of Hispanic descent favor a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens, whether those aliens come from Malaysia, Ireland, Kosovo, Somalia or Russia. While it obviously is true that the leftist, top-down, unelected leadership of the ethnocentric advocacy organizations La Raza, the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund and the League of United Latin American Citizens, as well as their organized masses of illegal alien street marchers, are boisterous in their clamor for "comprehensive immigration reform," it isn't equally clear how many ordinary, everyday U.S. citizens of Hispanic descent share those passions.
Illegal immigration impacts Hispanic-American communities first and foremost, because foreign nationals from south of the border naturally congregate in already-established enclaves. Those communities therefore sustain the brunt of crime; gang infestation; and competition for already scarce jobs, housing, education and social services.
While it may be true that some Hispanic-Americans might nurture a solidarity with their more recently arrived ethnic cousins, is this where their own true interests lie? Are their real-world interests associated with the illegal arrival of millions of neighbors from their old countries or with their fellow American citizens, with the old world they left behind or the new society of which they are a part? Isn't the ethnic demagoguery associated with the so-called "pathway to citizenship" in effect a pathway to Balkanization?
Instead of descending into a competition with Nevada Sen. Harry Reid in a watered-down imitation of liberal Democrats' pandering for the votes of "Amnesty-Hispanics," wouldn't it be more prudent as well as more respectful to Hispanic-Americans for the Republican Party to offer a clear alternative, to appeal to their American patriotism and their own real self-interests as U.S. citizens? Why lump the entire Hispanic-American community, with ancestors from a host of Latin American countries, with a diversity of histories, cultures, traditions, languages and interests, into one homogeneous group as if they all marched to the same drummer? How about offering this vibrant cross section of American citizens an option other than blind obedience to La Raza and the Democrats?
Second, Mr. Rove's theory rests on the assumption that newly amnestied voters will remember that the Republican Party helped pave their pathway to citizenship and reward the party with future support. But let's look at the facts. The overwhelming majority of illegal aliens have less than a high school education, and many are not even literate in their own languages. This doesn't mean they aren't good people, but it does mean they are natural recipients of the welfare state. Once they receive citizenship in the United States, will they be more likely to favor the big-government, wealth-transferring, multiculturalist nanny state promised and promoted by the Democrat Party or the smaller-government, self-reliant, lower-taxing, entrepreneurial, assimilative society championed by the Republican Party?
What's more, the tens of millions of newly amnestied citizens legally would be able to bring in their next of kin through chain migration, swelling the overall number to potentially more than 50 million within a decade of the amnesty - constituting a permanent Democratic majority.
We've become fond of Mr. Rove's cable-TV chalkboards. Here's a four-liner he hasn't shown us yet:
•If 12 million-20 million illegal aliens are amnestied, it can be estimated conservatively that a majority of these new citizens will vote Democrat.
•If there is no amnesty, none of these illegal aliens will vote, period.
•If there is an amnesty, current U.S. citizens of Hispanic origin will vote as they have been voting anyway.
•If there is no amnesty, current U.S. citizens of Hispanic origin will vote as they have been voting anyway.
A majority of U.S. citizens of Hispanic origin (with the exception of Cuban-Americans) have consistently voted Democratic. Many of those within this voting population who ardently support amnesty will blame the Democrats for not getting one because the Democrats will be the ones who did not push through an amnesty when they had the political power and the unprecedented opportunity to do so. So where is the political upside for the Republican Party to support an amnesty, in either the short or long run?
Had there been an amnesty in 2006 or 2007, as Sen. John McCain and the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy proposed, millions more would have entered the country illegally since then, as, in fact, they have anyway. The border wasn't secured before the amnesty votes and hasn't been secured since those votes. Visa violators continued to remain illegally in the country before those votes, and many more recent arrivals have continued illegally to do so since those votes. The federal government under Mr. Bush and President Obama contented itself with cosmetic measures and halfhearted initiatives, abdicating its responsibility to enforce existing immigration law effectively and to secure our borders. Even with the successful passage of McCain-Kennedy in 2006, we would be debating anew today whether to provide amnesty for the 4 million to 5 million illegal aliens who have entered since. And if an amnesty were enacted tomorrow, five years from now, Congress would be debating what to do with the additional 5 million who would have entered by that time.
If the history of past amnesties has taught us anything, it is this: Talk of amnesty, the promise of amnesty - especially the enactment of amnesty legislation as in 1986 - simply encourages more and more illegal immigration. Limited or general, amnesties act as flashing green lights to the likely hundreds of millions on earth who would like to move to America.
Until the borders are really secured, workplace laws are really upheld and the benefits of the welfare state are restricted to U.S. citizens and legal immigrants, any consideration of amnesty is a perilous venture into a fantasyland of false promises, unrealistic expectations, the abrogation of the rule of law and the perpetuation of an immoral, systematic exploitation of unending waves of cheap labor from Third World countries. We already have federal laws in place to get the illegal immigration fiasco under control. Congress has not abdicated its responsibility by failing to enact new laws favored by open-borders utopians. No such laws are required, comprehensive or otherwise. The problem is with the executive branch and the Obama administration, which has turned itself into the greatest collection of scofflaws in the country.
The way to increase the percentage of American-Hispanics voting for the Republican Party is
(1) To raise their standard of living (and everyone else's) by a return to free-market principles;
(2) by an open appeal to their shared American patriotism and
(3) by clearly and unapologetically stating the unequivocal rejection of amnesty in any guise, shape or form. U.S. citizens of Hispanic origin don't love the rule of law less than other Americans and understand that the United States already has the most generous legal immigration policy on earth. Given a clear choice and a positive appeal, many will rally.
These positions won't get Republicans a majority of these voters right away, but they will diminish the Democrats' share of the vote in the short run and hasten the integration of the Hispanic-American community into the great melting pot that is America. A time will come in the not-too-distant future when hyphens matter to Hispanics no more than they do to any of the immigrant groups who preceded them. It is the best path for America and the only practical path for the survival of the Republican Party as a majority party worthy of the electorate.
Tom Garcia is a Republican candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in Florida's 24th Congressional District.
NumbersUSA's blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted.
Views and opinions expressed in blogs on this website are those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect official policies of NumbersUSA.
The Washington Times
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Throughout his partnership with President George W. Bush, Karl Rove argued that a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens would be a political winner for the Republican Party. His argument, so it went, was that because the so-called Hispanic segment of the population was growing faster than other parts of the body politic, it would be foolish to block amnesty for illegal aliens that those voters wanted.
Furthermore, so his logic contended, this growing minority would punish Republicans for not going along with the Democrats' amnesty proposals. In other words, the Republican Party should itself co-opt these proposals for amnesty and make them their own, thereby eroding the Democrats' share of this voting public.
But on what premise is this theory based?
First, it assumes that all U.S. citizens of Hispanic descent favor a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens, whether those aliens come from Malaysia, Ireland, Kosovo, Somalia or Russia. While it obviously is true that the leftist, top-down, unelected leadership of the ethnocentric advocacy organizations La Raza, the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund and the League of United Latin American Citizens, as well as their organized masses of illegal alien street marchers, are boisterous in their clamor for "comprehensive immigration reform," it isn't equally clear how many ordinary, everyday U.S. citizens of Hispanic descent share those passions.
Illegal immigration impacts Hispanic-American communities first and foremost, because foreign nationals from south of the border naturally congregate in already-established enclaves. Those communities therefore sustain the brunt of crime; gang infestation; and competition for already scarce jobs, housing, education and social services.
While it may be true that some Hispanic-Americans might nurture a solidarity with their more recently arrived ethnic cousins, is this where their own true interests lie? Are their real-world interests associated with the illegal arrival of millions of neighbors from their old countries or with their fellow American citizens, with the old world they left behind or the new society of which they are a part? Isn't the ethnic demagoguery associated with the so-called "pathway to citizenship" in effect a pathway to Balkanization?
Instead of descending into a competition with Nevada Sen. Harry Reid in a watered-down imitation of liberal Democrats' pandering for the votes of "Amnesty-Hispanics," wouldn't it be more prudent as well as more respectful to Hispanic-Americans for the Republican Party to offer a clear alternative, to appeal to their American patriotism and their own real self-interests as U.S. citizens? Why lump the entire Hispanic-American community, with ancestors from a host of Latin American countries, with a diversity of histories, cultures, traditions, languages and interests, into one homogeneous group as if they all marched to the same drummer? How about offering this vibrant cross section of American citizens an option other than blind obedience to La Raza and the Democrats?
Second, Mr. Rove's theory rests on the assumption that newly amnestied voters will remember that the Republican Party helped pave their pathway to citizenship and reward the party with future support. But let's look at the facts. The overwhelming majority of illegal aliens have less than a high school education, and many are not even literate in their own languages. This doesn't mean they aren't good people, but it does mean they are natural recipients of the welfare state. Once they receive citizenship in the United States, will they be more likely to favor the big-government, wealth-transferring, multiculturalist nanny state promised and promoted by the Democrat Party or the smaller-government, self-reliant, lower-taxing, entrepreneurial, assimilative society championed by the Republican Party?
What's more, the tens of millions of newly amnestied citizens legally would be able to bring in their next of kin through chain migration, swelling the overall number to potentially more than 50 million within a decade of the amnesty - constituting a permanent Democratic majority.
We've become fond of Mr. Rove's cable-TV chalkboards. Here's a four-liner he hasn't shown us yet:
•If 12 million-20 million illegal aliens are amnestied, it can be estimated conservatively that a majority of these new citizens will vote Democrat.
•If there is no amnesty, none of these illegal aliens will vote, period.
•If there is an amnesty, current U.S. citizens of Hispanic origin will vote as they have been voting anyway.
•If there is no amnesty, current U.S. citizens of Hispanic origin will vote as they have been voting anyway.
A majority of U.S. citizens of Hispanic origin (with the exception of Cuban-Americans) have consistently voted Democratic. Many of those within this voting population who ardently support amnesty will blame the Democrats for not getting one because the Democrats will be the ones who did not push through an amnesty when they had the political power and the unprecedented opportunity to do so. So where is the political upside for the Republican Party to support an amnesty, in either the short or long run?
Had there been an amnesty in 2006 or 2007, as Sen. John McCain and the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy proposed, millions more would have entered the country illegally since then, as, in fact, they have anyway. The border wasn't secured before the amnesty votes and hasn't been secured since those votes. Visa violators continued to remain illegally in the country before those votes, and many more recent arrivals have continued illegally to do so since those votes. The federal government under Mr. Bush and President Obama contented itself with cosmetic measures and halfhearted initiatives, abdicating its responsibility to enforce existing immigration law effectively and to secure our borders. Even with the successful passage of McCain-Kennedy in 2006, we would be debating anew today whether to provide amnesty for the 4 million to 5 million illegal aliens who have entered since. And if an amnesty were enacted tomorrow, five years from now, Congress would be debating what to do with the additional 5 million who would have entered by that time.
If the history of past amnesties has taught us anything, it is this: Talk of amnesty, the promise of amnesty - especially the enactment of amnesty legislation as in 1986 - simply encourages more and more illegal immigration. Limited or general, amnesties act as flashing green lights to the likely hundreds of millions on earth who would like to move to America.
Until the borders are really secured, workplace laws are really upheld and the benefits of the welfare state are restricted to U.S. citizens and legal immigrants, any consideration of amnesty is a perilous venture into a fantasyland of false promises, unrealistic expectations, the abrogation of the rule of law and the perpetuation of an immoral, systematic exploitation of unending waves of cheap labor from Third World countries. We already have federal laws in place to get the illegal immigration fiasco under control. Congress has not abdicated its responsibility by failing to enact new laws favored by open-borders utopians. No such laws are required, comprehensive or otherwise. The problem is with the executive branch and the Obama administration, which has turned itself into the greatest collection of scofflaws in the country.
The way to increase the percentage of American-Hispanics voting for the Republican Party is
(1) To raise their standard of living (and everyone else's) by a return to free-market principles;
(2) by an open appeal to their shared American patriotism and
(3) by clearly and unapologetically stating the unequivocal rejection of amnesty in any guise, shape or form. U.S. citizens of Hispanic origin don't love the rule of law less than other Americans and understand that the United States already has the most generous legal immigration policy on earth. Given a clear choice and a positive appeal, many will rally.
These positions won't get Republicans a majority of these voters right away, but they will diminish the Democrats' share of the vote in the short run and hasten the integration of the Hispanic-American community into the great melting pot that is America. A time will come in the not-too-distant future when hyphens matter to Hispanics no more than they do to any of the immigrant groups who preceded them. It is the best path for America and the only practical path for the survival of the Republican Party as a majority party worthy of the electorate.
Tom Garcia is a Republican candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in Florida's 24th Congressional District.
NumbersUSA's blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted.
Views and opinions expressed in blogs on this website are those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect official policies of NumbersUSA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)