OBAMA HAS SABOTAGED E-VERIFY. MEX-OCCUPIED CA HAS MADE E-VERIFY ILLEGAL FOR EMPLOYERS TO USE. THIS WAS PERPETRATED ON THE STATE BY THE LA RAZA-CONTROLLED STATE LEGISLATURE.
ROMNEY CLAIMS HE WOULD IMPOSE E-VERIFY NATIONWIDE, WHICH WOULD PUT MILLIONS OF AMERICANS (LEGALS) BACK INTO AMERICAN JOBS, AND SEND MILLIONS OF MEX LOOTERS BACK TO NARCOMEX!
Morning Bell: You Have To Pass This Amnesty To Find Out What
Is In It
Posted December 8th,
2010 at 9:39am in Protect America, Rule
of Law with 26 comments
Print
This Post
The nation’s
unemployment rate stands at 9.8 percent, a post–World War II record 19th month
that unemployment has been over 9 percent. President Barack Obama is 7.3 million jobs short of what he promised his failed
stimulus would deliver. The American people are staring down the barrel of the largest tax hike in American
history. So what do Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–CA) have
Congress voting on today? Amnesty. Specifically, the House and Senate
will be voting on the fourth and fifth versions of the
DREAM Act, which would
legalize anywhere between 300,000 and 2.1
million illegal immigrants.
Supporters of the
DREAM Act claim the bill would provide citizenship only to children who go to
college or join the military. But all any version of the legislation
requires is that an applicant attend any college for just two years.
And if President Obama wants to reward non-citizen service members with
citizenship, he already has the power to do so. The Secretary of Defense already has
the authority under 10 U.S.C. § 504 (b) to enlist illegal immigrants in the
military if “such enlistment is vital to the national interest,” and 8 U.S.C. §
1440 allows such immigrants to become naturalized U.S. citizens, with their
applications handled at accelerated rates. The military component of the DREAM Act is a complete red
herring.
Neither of these
bills has gone through their respective committees, and only one has been
scored by the Congressional Budget Office. As a result, they are chock full of
loopholes designed by open border advocates to make an even wider amnesty
possible.
One bill would even
grant Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano the power to waive the
college and military requirements if the illegal immigrant can
demonstrate “compelling circumstances” and the immigrant’s removal would cause
a hardship to the them, their spouse, their parents, or their
children. When exactly would removal from this country not cause a hardship?
What other loopholes are in these bills? As Speaker Pelosi might say: “You have
to pass this amnesty so that you can find out what is in it.”
The DREAM Acts are
also an invitation for fraud. All of the bills would make it illegal for any
information in an amnesty application to be used to initiate removal
proceedings against an applicant. Law enforcement agencies would be forced to
prove that any information they used to find, detain, and try to remove an
illegal immigrant was already in their files before an application was
received or was not derived from the application. If an illegal immigrant lies
about his age to qualify for the program, and the lie is never detected, he
gets amnesty. And if the lie is found out, no worries—law enforcement is
forbidden from using that lie against him.
The real goal of the
DREAM Act is to make it even harder for our nation’s law enforcement agencies
to enforce any immigration laws. And Congress is not the only forum where
amnesty advocates are working to undermine the rule of law today. Right across
the street from the Capitol, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments over an Arizona immigration
enforcement law. This is not a hearing on the controversial SB 1070 law that
passed earlier this year. This case, supported by the usual amnesty suspects
(La Raza, the SEIU, the Chamber of Commerce, etc.), challenges Arizona’s 2007 E-Verify law, which penalizes employers who do
not verify the legal status of their employees. This challenge by amnesty
advocates to even common-sense immigration enforcement measures should send a
clear measure to anyone wavering on the DREAM Act: Any enforcement mechanisms
that DREAM Act supporters agree to today will be immediately challenged in
court tomorrow. Enforcement is fickle; amnesty is forever.
Our country does need
immigration reform. We need smarter border security, stronger
interior enforcement, and a more efficient naturalization system. But amnesty plans like the DREAM Act
undermine real reform. The DREAM Act encourages people to ignore our borders,
undermines our law enforcement across the country, and makes fools of
law-abiding immigrants who play by the rules.
*
Is Illegal
Immigration Moral?
By
Victor Davis Hanson
11/25/2010
We
know illegal immigration is no longer really unlawful, but is it moral?
Usually
Americans debate the fiscal costs of illegal immigration. Supporters of open
borders rightly remind us that illegal immigrants pay sales taxes. Often their
payroll-tax contributions are not later tapped by Social Security payouts.
Opponents
counter that illegal immigrants are more likely to end up on state assistance,
are less likely to report cash income, and cost the state more through the
duplicate issuing of services and documents in both English and Spanish. Such
to-and-fro talking points are endless.
So is the debate over beneficiaries
of illegal immigration. Are profit-minded employers villains who want cheap
labor in lieu of hiring more expensive Americans? Or is the culprit a cynical
Mexican government that counts on billions of dollars in remittances from its
expatriate poor that it otherwise ignored?
Or
is the engine that drives illegal immigration the American middle class? Why
should millions of suburbanites assume that, like 18th-century French
aristocrats, they should have imported labor to clean their homes, manicure
their lawns and watch over their kids?
Or
is the catalyst the self-interested professional Latino lobby in politics and
academia that sees a steady stream of impoverished Latin American nationals as
a permanent victimized constituency, empowering and showcasing elite
self-appointed spokesmen such as themselves?
Or
is the real advocate the Democratic Party that wishes to remake the electoral
map of the American Southwest by ensuring larger future pools of natural
supporters? Again, the debate over who benefits and why is never-ending.
But
what is often left out of the equation is the moral dimension of illegal
immigration. We see the issue too often reduced to caricature, involving a
noble, impoverished victim without much free will and subject to cosmic forces
of sinister oppression. But everyone makes free choices that affect others. So
ponder the ethics of a guest arriving in a host country knowingly against its
sovereign protocols and laws.
First,
there is the larger effect on the sanctity of a legal system. If a guest
ignores the law -- and thereby often must keep breaking more laws -- should
citizens also have the right to similarly pick and choose which statutes they
find worthy of honoring and which are too bothersome? Once it is deemed moral
for the impoverished to cross a border without a passport, could not the same
arguments of social justice be used for the poor of any status not to report
earned income or even file a 1040 form?
Second,
what is the effect of mass illegal immigration on impoverished U.S. citizens?
Does anyone care? When 10 million to 15 million aliens are here illegally,
where is the leverage for the American working poor to bargain with employers?
If it is deemed ethical to grant in-state tuition discounts to
illegal-immigrant students, is it equally ethical to charge three times as much
for out-of-state, financially needy American students -- whose federal
government usually offers billions to subsidize state colleges and
universities? If foreign nationals are afforded more entitlements, are there
fewer for U.S. citizens?
Third,
consider the moral ramifications on legal immigration -- the traditional great
strength of the American nation. What are we to tell the legal immigrant from
Oaxaca who got a green card at some cost and trouble, or who, once legally in
the United States, went through the lengthy and expensive process of acquiring
citizenship? Was he a dupe to dutifully follow our laws?
And
given the current precedent, if a million soon-to-be-impoverished Greeks, 2
million fleeing North Koreans, or 5 million starving Somalis were to enter the
United States illegally and en masse, could anyone object to their unlawful
entry and residence? If so, on what legal, practical or moral grounds?
Fourth,
examine the morality of remittances. It is deemed noble to send billions of
dollars back to families and friends struggling in Latin America. But how is
such a considerable loss of income made up? Are American taxpayers supposed to
step in to subsidize increased social services so that illegal immigrants can
afford to send billions of dollars back across the border? What is the morality
of that equation in times of recession? Shouldn't illegal immigrants at least
try to buy health insurance before sending cash back to Mexico?
The
debate over illegal immigration is too often confined to costs and benefits.
But ultimately it is a complicated moral issue -- and one often ignored by all
too many moralists.
Victor
Davis Hanson
Victor
Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford
University, and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal.
No comments:
Post a Comment