Illegal Immigrant Amnesty
IMPEACH GEORGE BUSH.
The Senate GOP is about to cave on the McCain - Kennedy illegal immigrant amnesty that is in negotiations right now. In light of how the Roman Empire collapsed, I think it means largely the same thing for this country. About 30 million Mexicans are likely to move here. I have no idea the amount that subscribe to the idea of 'la raza,' but given that I see signs for a radio station called 97.9 'La Raza' on my way to and from work every morning, it's quite a few.
Here's a few stats via the LA Times on what this will mean on a grand scale:
1. 40% of all workers in L.A. County ( L.A. County has 10.2 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants working without a green card.
2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens
4. Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal , whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
5. Nearly 35% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.
6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.
7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.
8. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
9. 21 radio stations in L.A. are Spanish speaking.
10 . In L.A. County 5.1 million people speak English, 3.9 million speak Spanish.
(There are 10.2 million people in L.A. County ).
So, we'll have two societies, one largely parasitic, and the other the host organism. This parasite should kill the host in a about a generation. Moving away is not going to solve your personal problems this time.
Do what you can to call Senate GOP leaders and try to get them to filibuster this bill. The only good news from it is that it effectively means the end of McCain's already troubled campaign. Here's the relevant information from Hugh Hewitt's blog:
Michelle Malkin has many links, but despite the obvious anger in the ranks of the party's base, this bill will move quickly unless stopped immediately. Call 202-225-3121 and ask for the offices of Mitch McConnell, Trent Lott or Jon Kyl, the three leaders of the GOP in the upper chamber. Surrendering half the fence is the first step in surrendering half the seats they are trying to defend in '08, and Gordon Smith, Norm Coleman, John Sununu and others ought to be demanding the caucus stop this national security and political insanity. The Senate GOP can and should filibuster any bill that dismantles half the fence before it was built, and any bill that is vague on the details of amnesty-lite.
If I sound hysterical, I am. I read my history books.
PRCalDude
Ok. After listening to talk radio for a couple of hours, here's what we need to do to defeat this amnesty bill. We mustn't give up, we were able to defeat the Dubai Ports deal, we can defeat this, especially with the number of Democratic voters out there that are outraged. Here's the plan. I don't want any excuses for not getting on the phones:
1. Call* your Senators. Tell them your outrage. Call the people I mentioned above.
2. If you live close by, VISIT THEIR DISTRICT OFFICE. ASK TO SPEAK TO THEM. SPEAK TO SOMEONE ELSE IF NECESSARY. We need most (25) of the Republican Senators to stand firm on this issue. Some of the Democrats will cross party lines to vote against it.
3. Call your congressmen. The most crucial part of this plan probably rests on getting the House GOP to stand firm. Here again, several Democrats in contested districts will probably cross party lines. Visit their district offices if possible
4. Call the Whitehouse.
We've got a nation to save here. NO EXCUSES. Step out of your comfort zone and call!
* 'Call' means email, call, fax, threaten, cajole, etc.
PRCalDude
Here's Bush's boys, laughing it up over bending you over .
PRCalDude
Ok. Calling and letting our 'lawmakers' have it is having an effect, according to emails I've been receiving from NumbersUSA. Do your part and call. I'm going into go into Feinstein's district office on Monday, when the cloture vote goes on, in addition to the calls and emails I've sent. The bill is starting to receive criticism from the left for screwing American workers. Don't give up the ship! If this thing passes, and you didn't do anything, you have nobody to blame but yourself.
27 Comments
Reader Comments (27)
Wow, are you kidding me? It's in progress right now? I'm gonna go look stuff up... be back later.
There is nothing reasonable about this bill. If there is anything being compromised it is our legal system with regard to enforcing our border and imigration laws.
"Here's Bush's boys, laughing it up over bending you over."
Kind of like a long distance geopolitical hazing.
Thank you Sir! May I have another?
<40% of all workers in L.A. County ( L.A. County has 10.2 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants working without a green card.>
The serious problem of illegal immigration is compounded by the unpatriotic fact that there are tens and tens of millions of American citizens, usually the rich, who are knowingly participating in the economic exploitation of these people.
The rich, by that I also include even the Country-Club Republicans, hire the illegals for immoral, low wages, and then the rich fire American citizens who insist (rightly) on being paid at least the minimum wage. The rich "save money" so that they can live in even larger mansions. The rich hide away in their wealthy suburds, where they do not see the evil effects of their actions on the larger society.
Illegal immigration is an immoral system that thrives on exploitation.
Even Milton Friedman, the great economist who popularized libertarian free market economics, opposed illegal immigration.
Do the rich experience the negative consequences of their evil actions ("economic exploitation") regarding illegal immigration? No.
Do their children go to overcrowded schools? No.
Are their schools forced to hire foreign language translators, whereas other school districts are hiring more qualified teachers to teach advanced classes at an earlier age? No. The rich send their kids to the best schools.
Do the home values of the rich decline in value because illegal aliens are living in over-crowded single family homes? The answer is no. The rich do not see these evil consequences of their support for illegal immigration.
The illegals, obviously, do not live in the wealthier areas, so the rich do not experience steep home valuation declines, like many do.
Illegal immigration is a cruel system that is exploitative in its very nature.
The rich promise immoral, low wages for the illegals, and then once amnesty (more on this in a second) is granted, they then fire these same folks, and hire different illegal aliens who are more than willing to work for immorally, low wages (HINT: well below federally-mandated minimum wage).
Remember, amnesty ("path to USA citizenship for law-breakers") has been granted to illegal aliens 7 times since 1986. Source: google, "Numbers USA"
Larry,
We're not being bent over in the hazing sense. We're being bent over and screwed.
DieHard,
Yeah, the rich are screwing us, but it seems to me that they pay the lion's share of the taxes. It's just as stupid for them to want it also, because whatever they save in wages to these banditos, they lose three times in the services they subsidize with their taxes. Of course, rich and intelligent don't go hand in hand. Just my thoughts. We're on our way to a new civil war, and I can't wait.
<Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal , whose births were paid for by taxpayers.>
I work at a hospital, and I see this every single day, on every single shift.
But it is not just illegal aliens from one country. It is rather illegal aliens from every country. The reason is because America has an established pattern of rewarding law-breakers with USA citizenship.
Many un-married,very young, pregnant women come into the hospital,in the hopes of establishing eventual USA citizenship through the common practice of "anchor baby" citizenship.
I cannot imagine the negative and painful consequences this may have on the children, who are now growing up in father-less homes, all because the mother wanted to have USA citizenship.
Walter,
I was being tactful with regard to hazing, otherwise I agree with you.
DieHard,
As far as "the rich" people go, there have always been rich people and poor people. But this has as much to do with ambition and natural ability (or the luck of inheritance) as it has to do with anything else.
The example of illegals working in L.A. for cash illustrates a whole range of problems, from the illegals all the way up to the people illegally paying them under-the-table.
But this under-the-table stuff is due to lack of scruples, not amount of wealth. We all need to remember (at least those of us who work honestly for a living) that those who give us our jobs and our paychecks are part of "the rich" whom we so often vilify.
I heartily agree that the problem is all of the people taking advantage of our generosity while giving little back. We say they are necessary to our economy, but in the end I see a significant Net Loss. Charity is charity, but being used is also just being used.
}}}
Furthermore, we are taken advantage of by our government when 'they' refuse to enforce our laws. First, they are our laws, not the governments. Second, contrary to popular opinion laws are not made to be broken, even by the government. And passing legislation that subverts existing law, without really changing existing law, is just another way of non-enforcement.
I'm all for helping illegals become legal, but not by helping them skirt the law to take advantage of our generosity.
Laurence wrote:
<DieHard,
As far as "the rich" people go, there have always been rich people and poor people. But this has as much to do with ambition and natural ability (or the luck of inheritance) as it has to do with anything else.
The example of illegals working in L.A. for cash illustrates a whole range of problems, from the illegals all the way up to the people illegally paying them under-the-table.
But this under-the-table stuff is due to lack of scruples, not amount of wealth. We all need to remember (at least those of us who work honestly for a living) that those who give us our jobs and our paychecks are part of "the rich" whom we so often vilify.>
Laurence,
I am a libertarian, generally, on matters relating to economics. Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell are my favorite economists. I am a "free market" guy who hates socialism, because it is contrary to what we learn from Scripture concerning human nature. I am the opposite of the Religious Left or Economic Left or Evangelical Left (Jim Wallis type).
I oppose the "punish the wealthy" type of thinking that is prominent in the Evangelical Left worldview.
My purpose above was only to re-iterate Old Testament themes of the "rich oppressing the poor," and try to show the similarities to the illegal immigration debate.
I never intended to vilify the rich. I was only trying to re-communicate Old Testament themes, and show their applicability to our current topic.
You are indeed correct about the "lack of scrupples" being the main issue here.
Sorry for the earlier confusion.
I find that people who are most concerned about illegal immigration tend to live in the border states of AZ, NM, California, etc.
And rightly so. After all, they see the effects of the problem every single day.
What I simply do not understand is why traditional "Red States", like Arizona, continue to re-elect McCain with a dominant showing of over 70 plus percent.
Granted, McCain does pick up a lot of support from AZ Democrats.
But I am very surpised that the conservative base in AZ has not abandoned him.
After all, McCain has left the conservatives a long time ago.
Diehard,
I think we're on the same page with regard to economics. Maybe a poor choice of phrasing on my part suggested otherwise.
As far as McCain. It's kind of like when I lived in Wyoming and they always voted in a Democratic Governor. The issue is not always about party line in independently minded states like Arizona and Wyoming, but about who's the best (or better) qualified for the job.
Locally Arizona and Wyoming are very conservative locally, but when it comes to defending themselves in Federal Politics a good Democrat will bring more federal money to the state than a true Republican ever would.
It kind of a self-serving and hypocritical point of view. But a lot of people I know think that way. But, what we need to do is educate people that making these kinds of short sighted decisions for immediate gain just makes everthing harder for everyone in the long term.
Diehard - You are on the right path as a Libertarian, now take a walk on the wild side. I believe we should not participate in the anti-christ government system at all. Still kind and speaking with grace, but separated completely.
Still praying for the leaders, but set apart and sanctified for another kingdom. Like the law, God uses the government to bring believers to Christ by showing us the useless futility in the whole corrupt system. Only the Spirit of Christ can accomplish God's will, being in politics causes frustration and cynicism.
How many bills to overturn Roe v Wade did Reagan introduce into Congress? George Bush #1? Geaorge Bush #2? The answer is none, they just took your votes and laughed behind the pro-life backs. And how many of your politicians will turn their backs on the immigration problem because they want Latino votes?
It is corrupt beyond repair. Let it go where it is heading anyway.
<Diehard - You are on the right path as a Libertarian, now take a walk on the wild side. I believe we should not participate in the anti-christ government system at all. Still kind and speaking with grace, but separated completely.>
What's up, Henry? :-)
You have not defined "participate," clearly enough, so that limits my response to the following:
William Wilberforce, speaking from the authority of the Bible, told me to continue being faithful, while never forgeting the distinction between primary/secondary goals of the individual Christian, but nonetheless continually striving for faithfulness in all spheres of life.
Participate or not to participate?
If all worldly governments are inherently sinful, how then do we govern ourselves?
If we participate in no government, then are we not effectively promoting anarchy?
If Christians do not participate we guarantee an anti-Christian government.
Look at the what happened to the nations of Israel, and then Judah. When true believers participated in their governing, God blessed them. When the government came under the control of non-believers, God punished them.
If we Christians abandon our government, we assure ourselves of the consequences.
Let us not throw the baby out with the bath-water, so to speak.
Concerning the subject of illegal immigration and politics, I became very disillusioned concerning the following facts:
a.) none of the MSM or local TV networks mentioned the fact that the Fort Dix terrorist planners were illegal aliens who had crossed the Texas border illegally years ago. When the Fort Dix news **barely** hit the front page, I predicted that amnesty legislation would be immediately dead on arrival. I was wrong.
b.) even ultra conservatives like Richard Lugar of Indiana and Kyl of Arizona support blanket amnesty without any hint of border enforcement.
Things are not looking too good right now...
I wonder if the recent passing of the bill to fund the war in Iraq has influenced a compromise on this amnesty bill.
Dems compromise on war funding. GOP compromises on amnesty.
Hmmm... I may be reading too much between the lines.
To quote Allahpundit at www.hotair.com,
"I leave you with an exit question:"
if Bush was a Democrat, would you support impeachment proceedings?
Think of it this way. Charges of impeachment were brought against Clinton when he had a 67% approval rating.
Americans have died in a war that was ***portrayed differently*** than what the current facts suggest.
I am not encouraging impeachment one way or the other.
I am only suggesting that it is becoming a very serious possibility, now with Bush hovering in the 28-32% approval ratings. Plus, you have Henry Waxman in charge of House investigations, and he is digging up all kinds of stuff.
Maybe Bush talked with Pelosi and Reid, and they agreed to do an amnesty bill....
I found this to be very interesting and reflective of the sad "political double-speak." Janet Napolitano, the Democrat governor of Arizona, urges Congress in the following article to **not forget the border**, referring to the need for at least some border enforcement.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/01/opinion/01napolitano.html
But before you believe "the hype," check out the following:
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30B12F63F550C748CDDAF0894DE404482&fta=y&incamp=archive:article_related
Part of the article reads:
"Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona has vetoed a bill that would have punished employers who hire illegal immigrants and authorized the police to arrest illegal immigrants on trespassing charges merely for being in the state."
I believe that the word, "border enforcement" is just hype and meaningless words for the pro-amnesty crowd.
They do not want the problem to disappear, precisely because they thrive off the problem: Democrats receiving more future votes, and businesses firing USA citizens and hiring illegals who are willing to work at below minimum wage.