Monday, June 26, 2006

Latest Demands by Illegal Aliens

Cross Posted from: DeMediacratic Nation

It is unneccessary that I add any comments here, as this basically speaks for itself.

From the Chattanooga Times Free Press (subscription):

Our nation's unwillingness to enforce laws against illegal immigration is having predictable results: Illegals believe their ability to stay here is more or less protected, so they are demanding more of this country.

California is one of 10 states that irresponsibly offer lower in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens -- rates unavailable to American citizens who happen to live outside those states.

That is not enough, it seems. Illegals from across California brazenly showed up at the Capitol in Sacramento recently to demand passage of a bill making them eligible for taxpayer-funded student financial aid for college.

That is a slap in the face of U.S. citizens in California, some of whom would be denied aid because of the added competition for limited funds.

The state Senate already has passed the bill. It is unclear whether Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will support it if it makes it through the House of Representatives, though he unwisely supports in-state tuition rates for illegals.

A backer of the financial aid bill, Democrat Sen. Gil Cedillo, told The Sacramento Bee it is only logical to hand out the aid once illegals have been admitted to colleges in the state.

He has it backward. They shouldn't be admitted to the colleges in the first place. But having made that mistake, neither California nor any state should compound it by sweetening the pot still further will financial aid.

**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email the coalition and let me know at what level you would like to participate.**

Thursday, June 22, 2006

The -Ism Schism

Cross posted from CommonSenseAmerica:

There seems to be some confusion in the illegal immigration debate, as this article illustrates:

From The San Francisco Chronicle:

Ruben Navarrette Jr. writes:

Dobbs has said repeatedly that the only thing that concerns him is “illegal” immigration. But on his show he sounded the alarm bells when the Heritage Foundation put out a report warning that offering illegal immigrants a path to legalization could mean taking in as much as 100 million more legal immigrants.

If you’re sincere about one, why freak out over the other? Unless, of course, you’re not as pro-legal immigration as you pretend to be. Unless, of course, what concerns you — or those you’re trying to pander to — isn’t just that people are coming illegally, but that they change the language and cultural landscape of the country once they arrive.

There are words to describe that sort of thing. Unfortunately for those who have trouble accepting the truth about what this debate is really about — and what it’s been about for more than 200 years — the words all end in “-ism.”

I agree that the word ends in “-ism”. The word is Patriotism. It is not racism that compels people who love their country to expect their laws to be enforced against those that would enter illegally.

The only “-ism” we should all be concerned with is the fact that “racism” is most definitely a part of this debate but it is constantly being used against the wrong groups.

While some are still trying to play the “race card” against anyone that does not agree with their open border agenda, I would like to ask a couple of questions. And I’m going to go ahead and ask them out loud.

If the definition of racism is “belief in racial superiority” then;

Wouldn’t it be racism that would cause a neighboring country to spit on the laws of another nation and encourage its citizens to ignore them?

Wouldn’t it be racism that would cause some to believe their race is entitled to demand that a foreign country change its immigration laws for them?

Wouldn’t it be racism that would cause some to believe that their race should be allowed preferential treatment above all others on earth when it comes to immigrating to the United States?

And perhaps even more telling, wouldn’t it be racism that would cause some to believe that their race is above the laws of any nation?

Just curious.

**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email the coalition and let me know at what level you would like to participate.**

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Pa. City Poised for Immigration Crackdown

Crossposted from Morning Coffee:

With tensions rising and the police department and municipal budget stretched thin, Hazleton is about to embark on one of the toughest crackdowns on illegal immigrants anywhere in the United States.

Last week the mayor of this former coal town introduced, and the City Council tentatively approved, a measure that would revoke the business licenses of companies that employ illegal immigrants; impose $1,000 fines on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants; and make English the official language of the city.

It is good to see local leaders taking action to enforce the laws. The Senate and House should be taking lessons from this guy.

Mayor Barletta said he had no choice but to act after two illegal immigrants from the Dominican Republic were charged last month with shooting and killing a 29-year-old man. Other recent incidents involving illegal immigrants have rattled this city 80 miles northwest of Philadelphia, including the arrest of a 14-year-old boy for firing a gun at a playground.

"This is crazy," the mayor said. "People are afraid to walk the streets. There's going to be law and order back in Hazleton, and I'm going to use every tool I possibly can."

The City Council, which approved the measure in a 4-1 vote, must vote on it twice more before it can become law. The next vote is scheduled for mid-July.
Full Story here

Uncooperative Blogger posted a couple weeks ago on San Bernardino Ca. proposing similar local laws.

California Conservative has more here

**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email the coalition and let me know at what level you would like to participate.

Friday, June 16, 2006

Minuteman Founder Gets it Wrong On Pence Plan

H/t Right Truth.

Minuteman founder Jim Gilchrist stated in an article published by WorldNetDaily that he did not support an upcoming bill sponsored by Republican Representative Mike Pence. According to the article this is contrary to what Rep. Pence told a Republican Study group at the Heritage Foundation. I have not seen nor can I verify exactly what Rep. Pence told the study group but there is a transcript on Rep. Pence's blog of a conversation between Mr. Gilchrist and Rep. Pence. This conversation took place on KOGO AM in San Diego while Rep. Pence was being interviewed by Mark Larson.

To Mr. Gilchrist's credit it does not appear to me that at anytime in the short conversation did he explicitly endorse the Pence plan. However, he did heap a good amount of praise for what Rep. Pence is trying to do. Likewise, Rep. Pence had nothing but praise for Mr. Gilchrist and the men and women of the Minuteman organization. Mutual praise notwithstanding if in fact Rep. Pence told a Republican Study Group that the Minuteman organization endorsed his plan he should not of done so based on the conversation that I read. By the same token if Mr. Gilchrist's praise for the work Rep. Pence is engaged in was genuine then he should not have been so critical of the Pence plan in the WorldNetDaily article.

The inference I drew from Mr. Gilchrist's comments were that he was really not all that familiar with the Pence plan. Mr. Gilchrist stated, "I congratulated Congressman Pence on putting forth alternatives but that does not mean I think the alternatives Congressman Pence proposed are the solution. Quite frankly, I don't." He went on to state that the "only solution that has any chance to work is for us to close the borders first, before we start talking about any kind of guest worker program."

Now I am not exactly sure whether Mr. Gilchrist is saying that he believes that there should be a bill passed now that only addresses closing and securing the border or if he is implying that Pence's plan puts that issue secondary to his guest worker program. Either way he is wrong. Rep. Pence's plan clearly puts securing the border as the first and foremost priority. Proposing or supporting a bill that is only focused on border security and has no plan beyond that is not only shortsighted but would never be signed into law even if it did pass through Congress, which it would not.

Mr. Gilchrist did express his belief that the Sensenbrenner Bill (HR 4437) was the only solution. Pence has nothing but praise for H.R. 4437 and the bill he plans to propose includes H.R. 4437. The only language in Pence's bill that is left out from H.R. 4437 is the felony provision for illegal presence and ensuring that "Good Samaritans" are not arrested for helping illegal immigrants.

Gilchrist was also very critical of Pence's plan for "Ellis Island Centers". These are part of his guest worker program. These centers would be set up and run by the private sector and after background and health screenings would issue guest worker visas. This is the part of the plan that draws the most criticism and not just from Gilchrist. It is hard to believe for some that a large number of illegal immigrants would voluntarily leave the country to enter one of these facilities. Gilchrist equates it to a "get out of jail free card".

This is where the stiff penalties for employers that continue to employ illegals after the bill is passed comes into play. Gilchrist among others criticize this by correctly stating that there is already a law on the books that could punish employers and that law should be enforced. Absolutely. The key phrase is should be enforced. He also questions how Pence's plan would prevent employers from continuing to pay their illegal workers under the table and not even asking for their guest worker credentials. Well what prevents them from doing that now? Pence's plan calls for the enforcement of laws against employers that hire illegals but it also gives them at least a little incentive to follow the law. This is done through costly fines, stiff penalties, and by setting up a process where they will be able to get their workers back in a relatively short amount of time.

Now many still criticize this because they are not absolutely sure that there are in fact jobs that Americans will not do. Well, do not delude yourself there are. The welfare state created over the last 35 years or so has ensured that fact. It is a fact that if all of the illegal immigrants that are working in America today suddenly disappeared tomorrow it would greatly damage our economy. In any case before an employer can go apply to one of these centers for a guest worker they must prove that they first tried to hire an American.

I think it is important for people to realize that not all illegal immigrants are bad people. Yes it is true that they broke our laws entering this country. For many that has been the only law broken and they have been very productive members of our society for some time now. I understand that it is hard for some to accept that many will be forgiven without punishment and allowed re-entry into the country. However, if the right plan is put into place then the ones allowed re-entry would be the ones we would want here in the first place. With the right plan in place those that continue to break our laws and are counter-productive to our society will be incarcerated or deported. Finally, with the right plan in place we will prevent, as much as possible, any further illegal entry.

The Pence plan has many more aspects to it and I encourage all to research it for themselves. These are just a few that I have outlined there are many others that help protect American workers. Is it perfect? Certainly not. However, in conjunction with H.R. 4437 and with other ideas from additional members of Congress and the people it can certainly be a good start to dealing with a complicated problem. I have no problem with Gilchrist or the Minuteman organization opposing Pence's plan. But we have to be realistic with our expectations. Simply fortifying the border and enforcing the laws already on the books is not realistic. It is not realistic to think that law enforcement can deport 12 million people. It is highly unrealistic to believe that the sudden absence of these workers would not adversely affect our economy. To me the Pence plan or something similar to it is a reasonable solution and deserves some objectivity.

**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email the coalition and let me know at what level you would like to participate.

The Latin Pipeline

As if we needed further evidence that it is not just Mexicans taking advantage of our porous borders.

From Reuters:

Honduras is becoming a key staging point for human trafficking rings bringing undocumented Cuban immigrants to the United States, authorities said on Thursday.

The Central American nation has long been a stepping stone for Latin American immigrants bound for the U.S. border, but the government said at least 292 Cubans have washed up on the palm-fringed Caribbean coast this year, up from 177 in 2005.

Migration authorities say organized human trafficking gangs spirit the Cuban nationals north through neighboring Guatemala and Mexico to the United States, in an illicit trafficking pipeline funded by Cuban relatives living stateside.

Honduran Foreign Minister Milton Jimenez said that while authorities give asylum to the Cubans they nab, police have started an investigation to try to break up the human trafficking rings at work in the country.

"We cannot tolerate the fact that there are three or four coyotes (professional smugglers) using our territory," he said.

Under U.S. policy, Cubans who reach U.S. soil can stay but the U.S. Coast Guard works to intercept Cubans coming from the sea. These people are repatriated.

To avoid the Coast Guard, smugglers have shifted their focus to Mexico and Central America, from where Cuban migrants try to make it into the United States.

Somehow I am thinking that it is a lot more than three or four coyotes, but at least they seem interested in doing something about it.

Being extremely sympathetic to Cuban nationals trying to escape Communist tyranny, this would not bother me at all if once they got to Mexico they were forced to seek entry into the U.S. legally due to our efficient border security.

**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email the coalition and let me know at what level you would like to participate.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006


In 1777 on this date the Continental Congress in Philadelphia adopted the Stars and Stripes as our national flag. The first celebration of Flag Day was on this date in 1877 and there has been an annual celebration since about 1885 or so.

How many flags did you see flying today?

Amnesty Bill Under Microscope

Cross posted from CommonSenseAmerica:

We may be watching the slow and painful death of the asinine amnesty bill our lovely Senators tried to sail under the radar of the American public.

Forbes reports:

Hopes for a quick compromise on immigration were dealt a blow Tuesday after House Speaker Dennis Hastert said he wanted to take a “long look” at a Senate bill offering possible citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants.

Hastert said hearings on the Senate bill should be held before appointing anyone to a House-Senate committee to negotiate a compromise immigration bill. Later, he said he was unsure what the House’s next move would be.

“We’re going to take a long look at it,” Hastert said late Tuesday.

But a “long look” at this bill will reveal exactly what its opponents have been saying all along:

Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama:

I will tell you, and I will say it plainly, and others may not, but this legislation fails miserably in that regard. It is unworthy of the Senate. It should never pass, it should never become the law of the United States of America. It does not meet our highest ideals. It does not create a system that is consistent with the national interest of the United States.

House Representative Charlie Norwood of Georgia:

“This bill constitutes treachery against U.S. sovereignty,” says Norwood. “This allows every illegal alien in America to use the fraudulent document industry they have created in the criminal back alleys of our country to claim they have been here 5 years and can now stay forever. They have granted blanket amnesty for citizens of foreign nations against tax fraud, Social Security fraud, Medicare fraud, identity fraud, and bank fraud - all crimes for which there is no forgiveness or mercy for citizens of the United States.”

Senator John Cornyn of Texas:

“I remain committed to comprehensive reform, but I cannot support a deeply flawed bill.”

Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa:

“I was burned once in 1986 when I voted for amnesty believing that it would solve our problems. Now, we have a 12 million illegal immigrant problem. I’m not getting burned again,” Grassley said. “Not only do we have a glide path to citizenship, but it’s a glide path with plenty of loopholes that don’t meet the common sense test.”

You can also read Senator Grassley’s Top 10 Flaws with Amnesty and Guest Worker of Comprehensive Immigration here.

It appears that if our elected officials actually take a “long look” at this bill, it will result in the death of this ridiculous piece of legislation which gives the illegal immigrant more rights and benefits than the legal immigrant and the American citizen.

**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email the coalition and let me know at what level you would like to participate.**

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

I Knew There Was a God

First they discover that there is an ingredient in beer that helps fight prostate cancer. (Ok so you have to drink 17 beers a day to get any of the effect, so what.) But now they are saying today that coffee may reduce the risk of cirrhosis.

This has been a great week!

Pence and Common Sense

On Monday Morning Coffee had a post on House Republican Mike Pence's Op-Ed piece from the Wall Street Journal titled A Middle Ground on Immigration.

The author over at Morning Coffee was right on when they stated that Pence's plan "on the surface appears to be logical and based on common sense". Representative Pence's executive summary was also included in the post:

The Four-Step Solution: No Amnesty Immigration Reform

I see the solution as a four-step process:

1. Secure our border.

2. Make the decision, once and for all, to deny amnesty to people whose first act in the United States was a violation of the law.

3. Put in place a guest worker program, without amnesty, that will efficiently provide American employers with willing guest workers who come to America legally.

4. Enforce tough employer sanctions that ensure a full partnership between American business and the American government in the enforcement of our laws on immigration and guest workers.

This plan is truly full of common sense and is worth further scrutiny. I certainly intend on contacting my Representatives to encourage them to support Pence's bill. Certainly no bill is perfect and not every bill is going to satisfy everyone but this seems like a compromise that I believe most legal and reasonable Americans can find some happiness in.

First and foremost Pence recognizes the importance of secure borders. Not only that but he says that it should be priority one and he is absolutely correct. The proposal also recognizes that deporting 12 million illegal immigrants is an impossibility. He is absolutely right in proposing a plan to crack down on employers. Part of the plan is that in order to be a guest worker in America you have to go home first. If employers are made to follow the law then illegals that truly want to work and prosper in America will go home to apply for a work visa. Those that choose ignore this will eventually be caught and deported. Employers that choose to ignore this will eventually be caught and punished. Amensty is not acceptable. Amensty will just encourage others to break our laws and come here illegally.

One of the most innovative aspects of Pence's plan is the proposed use of the private sector to process and place guest workers at what he calls "Ellis Island Centers". Pence recognizes that another Government bureaucracy is the last thing that is needed. This is conservatism and capitalism at its best. This part of the plan creates jobs and the competition created between private companies should ensure efficiency. These companies will not only grant work visas but they will also compile the necessary data for the FBI to do background checks as well as provide health screenings.

If nothing else I hope that Pence's plan at least makes those spineless Senators reconsider the Amnesty plan that they have endorsed. As stated before Pence's plan is worth more scrutiny and is so far the best and most reasonable plan that I have seen. There are many more details available please go research for yourself.

**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email the coalition and let me know at what level you would like to participate.**

Monday, June 12, 2006

Republican House Resolution

Another shining example of how Democrats just do not get it.

From Reuters:

Republicans in the House of Representatives on Monday introduced a resolution they said would be the springboard for a thorough debate on the Iraq war, but Democrats decried it for dealing broadly with the war on terrorism instead focusing on Iraq.

The House later this week is to debate the resolution, which declares the United States will prevail in the war on terror and does not mention Iraq until the eighth paragraph.

The top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee Rep. Ike Skelton stated "most of the resolution dealt with the war on terrorism, and referred "only secondarily to the war in Iraq"." He also sent a letter to Republican House leader John Boehner that stated, "I think you well understand that the war in Iraq is a separate conflict, an insurgency with terrorist elements and sectarian violence."

WMD's or no WMD's invading Iraq was the right thing to do. WMD's or no WMD's Saddam Hussein was a terrorist. No he was not a terrorist in the al-Zarqawi or bin Laden sense of the word but he was a terrorist nonetheless. A very dangerous man that attacked his neighbors, his own people and supported more "traditional" terrorists. Fighting a War on Terror around the Middle East and leaving Saddam Hussein in power would have been the equivalent of liberating Europe but leaving Adolf Hitler in control of Germany.

The War in Iraq and the War on Terror are one in the same. I am not sure that all Democrats fail to see the bigger picture that supports this assertion. I am sure that they believe that separating the two and characterizing the War in Iraq as a mistake is the best way to hurt Bush and ensure that the American people will lose their will. If they succeed the repercussions will come full circle. If the American people give up on Iraq they will give up on the War on Terror. That may be all right with them but you can be assured that the terrorists will not give up and the repercussions of that will very likely cost American lives.

Luckily the House Republicans do seem to get it...

But Boehner in a statement cast the debate as a means to highlight "clear differences between Republicans and Democrats on how best to confront the Global War on Terror." He said the debate "will be about the fundamental question: Are we going to confront the threat of terrorism and defeat it, or will we relent and retreat in the hopes that it just goes away?"

Before mentioning Iraq, the House resolution in several paragraphs cited Afghanistan and Libya as evidence of progress in the war on terror. Further down, it said former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and his regime "supported terrorists," and said terrorists have proclaimed Iraq the "central front" in their war against those opposed to their ideology.

The resolution also declared it is not in the national interest to "set an arbitrary date to withdraw or redeploy" U.S. forces from Iraq, and said the United States is committed to "completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure and united Iraq."

Let's hope that Senate Republicans have the same backbone that their colleagues in the House seem to have.

The Philadelphia Story

By now everyone has heard about Joey Vento the owner of Geno's Steaks of South Philadelphia. Mr. Vento placed a sign in his place of business that says "This is America-when ordering, speak English." As you can imagine in today's PC world in which we live this has caused a bit of an outrage from some groups. Earlier today I saw this story from Reuters:

A civil rights watchdog agency has decided to open an investigation into a Philadelphia cheese steak restaurant that posted a sign saying "This is America - when ordering, speak English."

The Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations will file a complaint later on Monday, effectively opening an agency case against Geno's Steaks of South Philadelphia, said Rachel Lawton, acting executive director of the agency.

The Philadelphia controversy has fed a national debate over immigration in which the U.S. Senate passed a bill that would declare English the national language and politicians have raised objections to a Spanish version of the national anthem.

The sign may violate the city's Fair Practices Ordinance, which bans businesses from discriminating on the basis of nationality or ethnicity, Lawton said.

"The complaint will say that the sign discourages patronage by non-English speakers because of their national origin and/or ancestry," said Lawton, whose agency enforces the city's anti-discrimination laws.

As usual these groups only see what they want in regards to anyone that does anything that they remotely disagree with. Since this story originally broke there have been several follow-ups. Even though I do not know Mr. Vento it is clear to me that he is in no way attempting to discriminate or belittle anyone. By making this statement he is simply trying to promote assimilation. In fact, he states this very thing in the article. Mr. Vento said, "no one is refused service and no one is discriminated against. The sign, which has been displayed for about six months, is meant to encourage immigrants to learn English."

Now I will grant you that this sign and policy could be a cause of uncomfort to some foreign tourists that may visit his establishment. But then again most tourists traveling to another country at least try and learn enough of the language to order food or ask for directions. They almost always have either a book or something electronic that will help them translate. At any rate this is about immigrants that live and have lived here and have not bothered to learn enough of our language to order a sandwich.

According to the rest of the article if the sign is a violation of city ordinance he could be ordered to take it down. This is something that Mr. Vento says he has no intention to do. The article also states that Mr. Roberto Santiago the director of the city's Council of Spanish Speaking Organizations has received about 50 "hate" emails in response to his opposition of the sign. He also went on to state that "This is dividing the nation, I'm really saddened by these individuals who are upset by having to be tolerant. I'm glad I'm living in an America where comments like Mr. Vento's are out of order."

Mr. Santiago is doing a great job of spinning this into a fight against racism. The only thing that Mr. Vento and the rest of us are intolerant towards is the breaking of our Countries' laws. We are intolerant to the fact that some of those that are here illegally are taking advantage of employment opportunities, freedom and the services provided by our country but have no intention of assimilating. I believe that Mr. Santiago will find that is what most Americans believe is out of order.

**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email the coalition and let me know at what level you would like to participate.**

New Al-Qaida Leader in Iraq

Al-Qaida in Iraq has announced a successor to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Sheik Abu Hamza al-Muhajer has been named as the new leader. Nobody seems to know exactly who this guy is because he may have just chosen this name as a new alias.

Whoever he is, here is hoping that he dies soon in a very loud and grotesque manner.

The Door Swings Both Ways

Cross posted from CommonSenseAmerica:

Just as those who claim to see racism as the foundation of every disagreement in our nation are most often the worst offenders, the true hypocrites are usually the people that scream “hypocrisy” the loudest.

From KFMB, CA:

A new billboard in the South Bay is causing quite a stir, as the battle over immigration reform continues.

The billboard, located near Interstate 5 and less than a mile from the border, reads “Stop The Invasion” and “Secure Our Borders,” and the phone number of Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s San Diego office.

A similar billboard went up recently in Duarte in Los Angeles County. Other billboards have been put up in Atlanta, Dallas, Miami, Phoenix and West Virginia, Elliot said.

The interim president and general counsel of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund says the move amounts to hypocrisy.

“This group that happens to put up the billboards purports to be a family-oriented, family values organization,” Trasvina told a Southern California television station. “Family reunification is a cornerstone of our immigration policies.”

Hmmm, it seems to me that “family reunification” can take place in either Mexico or the United States.

So please tell me, how it is hypocritical to try to send people home to their families or to stop them from leaving their families in the first place?

Wouldn’t it be more correct to say that it is actually the pro-illegal immigration advocates that are hypocritical by condoning those who have illegally entered our country and then demanding their entire family be allowed to come to this country under the guise of “family reunification”?

Let’s see, considering the very definition of hypocrisy is “feigned high principles”, I would say it is pretty easy to spot the hypocrites in this argument.

**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email the coalition and let me know at what level you would like to participate.**