Saturday, May 5, 2012

IS AMERICAN NOW A MEXICAN DUMPSTER WHERE ILLEGALS CLIMB OUR BORDERS TO LOOT?




AMERICA CANNOT AFFORD MORE IMMIGRANTS

By Frosty Wooldridge
January 30, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

Let’s face it—the entire third world, which comprises much of Africa, Asia, Mexico, Central America and South America would love to migrate to the United States of America. Three to four billion human beings subsist on less than $2 daily. Millions line up to immigrate legally each year. Millions more line up to immigrate illegally. They move to America for a better life.

That’s four billion wanna-be immigrants. As it is, America takes more immigrants than all other countries combined. It cannot continue on its current path if it expects to survive the 21st century with any sense of ecological, economical and standard of living viability.

In a five minute astoundingly simple yet brilliant video, “Immigration, Poverty, and Gum Balls”, Roy Beck, director of www.numbersusa.ORG, graphically illustrates the impact of overpopulation. Take five minutes to see for yourself.

*


*

At our current rate of legal immigration, our kids will have to deal with 75 million immigrants within 24 years and 100 million more immigrants landing in this country within the next 38 years. That’s a numerical fact. If Americans continue to be apathetic, lethargic and just plain stupid, their kids will reap horrendous consequences.

As you can see below, our Congress continues dallying, delaying and obfuscating any meaningful action. But it continues mass immigration without pause.

As chairman of the Immigration, Border Security, and Claims Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Hostettler held a hearing on July 18, 2006: “Should we embrace the Senate’s grant of amnesty to millions of illegal aliens and repeat the mistakes of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986?”

*

11 MILLION ILLEGALS? THEY’VE BEEN USING THAT PHONY NUMBER FOR THE LAST TWO DECADES AS MILLIONS OF ILLEGALS HOPPED OUR BORDERS, JOBS AND BREED LIKE BUNNIES FOR ANCHOR BABY WELFARE!


*

“Today there are approximately 11 million illegal aliens in the United States, making illegal immigration one of the most serious issues facing our nation,” said Hostettler. “In May, the Senate passed legislation that would provide amnesty for most of the illegal aliens currently in the U.S., in a way that is eerily similar to the amnesty Congress granted in 1986.

“At this hearing we have the opportunity to examine how the U.S. dealt with illegal immigration 20 years ago, why that approach did not work, and the direction we should take in light of our past failure. In 1986, there were approximately 3-million illegal aliens in the U.S. Congress responded by passing the Immigration Reform and Control Act, or IRCA. There are several key features to IRCA. First, it provided amnesty to 2.7-million illegal aliens in several different categories.

“Aliens who had been illegally present since 1982 were granted a general amnesty, while agricultural workers who arrived more recently were granted amnesty under the Special Agricultural Worker Program. The amnesty was accompanied by a plan designed to stop employment of illegal aliens in the U.S. IRCA created an employer sanctions scheme for employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens, and required employers to check the identity and work eligibility documents of all employees, to ensure lawful immigration status.

“At the time, policy makers truly believed that it would be a one-time amnesty, and the problem of illegal immigration would be solved. Congress rejected recommendations made by the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy in 1981, which stated, in part:

The Commission believes that a legalization program is a necessary part of enforcement, but it does not believe that the U.S. should begin the process of legalization until new enforcement measures have been instituted to make it clear that the U.S. is determined to curtail new flows of undocumented illegal aliens. Without more effective enforcement than the U.S. has had in the past, legalization could serve as a stimulus to further illegal entry. The Select Commission is opposed to any program that could precipitate such movement.

“Then-Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY), co-author of IRCA, affirmed his commitment to amnesty in exchange by stating, “I firmly believe that a one-time only legalization program is not only good public policy, it is good sense, and it is fully in the best interests of this country.” Time showed us that IRCA has utterly and completely failed, mainly due to the fact that Congress did not heed the warning of the Select Commission regarding the need for real enforcement prior to any discussion of such legislation.

“Illegal immigration has not been controlled, but has increased significantly in the past two decades. Employer sanctions have been enforced in a farcical manner. Furthermore, the I-9 [Employment Eligibility Verification Form] system has proved to be a failure, because an illegal alien can cheaply and easily obtain counterfeit documents to show his or her employer. Employers, in a Catch 22 situation, cannot require additional proof that the documents presented are legitimate for fear of running afoul of discrimination laws.

“In May [2006], the Senate passed the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty, which is remarkably similar to the 1986 amnesty. The Reid-Kennedy bill also provides several categories of amnesty, including a general amnesty for anyone who can show that he has been in the country for more than five years, and including an agriculture amnesty. Again, proponents of the current proposals believe that this amnesty will solve the problem once and for all. But Congress and the administration have no credibility with the American people.

“Why should Americans have any reason to believe that the supposed enhanced enforcement provisions in Reid-Kennedy will be effectively enforced by the administration any more than successive administrations have enforced IRCA? The administration will probably implement amnesty for millions of illegal aliens quite quickly. Enforcement will likely lag behind, if it occurs at all.

“We will find ourselves in exactly the same place we found ourselves 20 years ago. Amnesty sends out the message that the U.S. is not serious about enforcing our laws. It is an affront to the millions of immigrants...who wait their turn and use the legal immigration system. When the U.S. grants amnesty and forgives law breaking, it encourages more illegal immigration in the future. The grant of amnesty in 1986 did nothing to resolve the illegal immigration problem; it made the problem worse, as increased numbers of illegal aliens pour across the border waiting for their turn.

“With an amnesty, a new wave of illegal aliens will come to wait for theirs. I believe that Benjamin Franklin once said that “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.” We cannot expect to solve the problem of illegal aliens by encouraging law breaking through amnesty. It didn’t work in 1986, and it will certainly not work in 2006.”

It won’t work in 2012. Our U.S Congress continues to dither while millions flood into our country. We face ominous consequences as to numbers, languages, cultures and poverty. It is not possible to continue on our current immigration path.

This is why:

“Immigration by the numbers—off the chart” by Roy Beck

This 10 minute demonstration shows Americans the results of unending mass immigration on the quality of life and sustainability for future generations: in a word “Mind boggling!” www.NumbersUSA.org

I don’t know why Americans aren’t marching in the streets, screaming at every mayor, governor, U.S. senator, House rep and media outlet. I am beyond understanding why our citizens choose this accelerating death spiral of our country. But because of our apathy, the immigrants keep pouring into this country at over 100,000 per month (legally), they birth children at 900,000 annually and the illegals never stop their onslaught. Folks, we face incredible consequences, but we continue our apathy that will lead to our demise. I have been writing these warnings weekly for 20 years and still, no action by Americans or our leaders. We must want to destroy our civilization and way of life. We will get our wish if we continue on this path.

For further information, you may visit www.TheSocialContract.com to read about the devastating effects of mass immigration.

Listen to Frosty Wooldridge on Wednesdays as he interviews top national leaders on his radio show "Connecting the Dots" at www.themicroeffect.com at 6:00 PM Mountain Time. Adjust tuning in to your time zone.

Frosty Wooldridge possesses a unique view of the world, cultures and families in that he has bicycled around the globe 100,000 miles, on six continents and six times across the United States in the past 30 years. His published books include: "HANDBOOK FOR TOURING BICYCLISTS"; “STRIKE THREE! TAKE YOUR BASE”; “IMMIGRATION’S UNARMED INVASION: DEADLY CONSEQUENCES”; “MOTORCYCLE ADVENTURE TO ALASKA: INTO THE WIND—A TEEN NOVEL”; “BICYCLING AROUND THE WORLD: TIRE TRACKS FOR YOUR IMAGINATION”; “AN EXTREME ENCOUNTER: ANTARCTICA.” His next book: “TILTING THE STATUE OF LIBERTY INTO A SWAMP.” He lives in Denver, Colorado.






PAT BUCHANAN’S NEW BOOK: “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?”


*






THE BELOW ARTICLE COMES FROM MEX-OWNED NEW YORK TIMES, WHICH IS NOW 10% OWNED BY THE RICHEST MAN IN THE WORLD, MEXICAN CARLOS SLIM.

THE TIMES IS NOW THE MOUTHPIECE FOR LA RAZA PROPAGANDA FOR OPEN BORDERS AND AMNESTY. YOU SIMPLY WILL NOT READ ANYTHING ABOUT THE TRUE COST OF MEXICO’S INVASION, WELFARE STATE IN OUR BORDERS, OR CRIME TIDAL WAVE IN THE TIMES!



February 26, 2012

With Book, Buchanan Set His Fate


As the conservative polemicist Pat Buchanan prepared last fall for the release of his book “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?,” some friends who worked with him at MSNBC were worried. The book, they told him, would provoke controversy and threaten his professional well-being.

Undeterred, Mr. Buchanan began his book tour, but his friends were right. He stopped being asked to appear on shows on MSNBC, the cable news channel where he had been employed for nearly 10 years. On Feb. 16, the channel said in a brief statement: “We’ve parted ways with Pat Buchanan. We wish him well.”  (MSNBC IS TO LIBERALS WHAT FOX IS TO CONSERVATIVES. IT IS THE LA RAZA NEWS! IT PUSHES LA RAZA NEWS AS MUCH AS MEX-OWNED NEW YORK TIMES!)

Why was he pushed out? To Mr. Buchanan, 73, a white Catholic, his departure was a disappointing overreaction both to the book — which conveyed his long-held concerns about the effects of demographic changes in the United States — and to complaints about it by liberal advocacy groups.

In the pessimistic book, he bemoaned that birthrate trends and “Third World” immigration were precipitating “the end of white America.”

At MSNBC, “there was apprehension that my book would cause some kind of explosion and firestorm, which it did not,” Mr. Buchanan said by telephone on Saturday. “To be honest, I’ve never had a better reception for a book I’ve written.”

To executives at MSNBC, however, the book’s statements were indefensible and, though they did not say so publicly, incongruent with a channel that has branded itself as progressive and forward-thinking and has a disproportionately high share of African-American and Hispanic viewers.

Though Phil Griffin, the president of MSNBC, denied that the channel’s political identity was a consideration in the breakup, he said last week, “I want MSNBC to reflect America in the 21st century, not the America of the 1940s.”

As cable news channels like MSNBC and Fox News Channel have grown highly politicized, they have become arbiters of the bounds of acceptable discourse — not always a comfortable role for those involved. A corporate allergy to controversy sometimes exists, even though controversy is what sometimes motivates channels to hire commentators and compels people to watch.

Timothy Stanley, a British historian whose biography of Mr. Buchanan, “The Crusader,” was released two weeks ago, said he thought the departure was a “marketing decision” by MSNBC, a unit of Comcast. “They took an opportunity to get rid of someone who was doing damage to their liberal brand.”

Mr. Buchanan has always been an ardent conservative. That’s why he was hired by MSNBC in 2002, after spending the previous 20 years as host of CNN’s “Crossfire” between unsuccessful runs for president. At that time, MSNBC called itself “fiercely independent” and had no clear political tilt.

Though accused by some of hate and intolerance, Mr. Buchanan was, for a long time, the visible conservative commentator on MSNBC. He was well liked by colleagues at the channel, even by those with opposite views. “Nobody was more polite, gracious and charming,” said David Shuster, who shared an office with him for several years and is now a substitute anchor for Current TV, a liberal competitor of MSNBC.

Mr. Buchanan was paid well, too. By 2007, he was making more than $500,000 a year at MSNBC, the most of any commentator, according to past and present MSNBC employees who insisted on anonymity because contract details were confidential. The employees said his salary was high in part because he was co-anchor of a show in 2002 and 2003.

And he was writing conservative calls to arms all the while. In 2002, it was “The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization;” in 2006, it was “State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America.”

While the most recent book is “much more comprehensive,” Mr. Buchanan said, “basically the theme is the same one.”

But MSNBC is not the same channel. In the last few years it has leaned to the left, particularly in prime time, causing Mr. Buchanan to seem more and more like an outlier, even on “Morning Joe,” the talk show co-hosted by Joe Scarborough, a former Republican member of Congress. Mr. Buchanan occasionally came up against MSNBC’s boundaries. In early October he referred to President Obama as “your boy, Barack Obama” in a debate with the Rev. Al Sharpton, and some viewers took it as a racial slur, spurring him to say on “Morning Joe” the next day that he was using boxing terminology.

Two weeks later, “Suicide of a Superpower” was released and was picked apart by liberal groups like Media Matters for America. Mr. Griffin, who had an advance copy, was troubled by its overall lament of diversity and by specific insinuations, including that American Jews had made a “collective decision” to decrease their population through abortion and that the “diverse army of today” may not be superior to the all-white Confederate Army of the Civil War.

In explaining their points of view, Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Griffin found themselves saying the same thing, “Read the book.”

Mr. Stanley said that “Buchanan is very clever and careful at not saying whether the end of white America is a good or bad thing.”

The channel halted Mr. Buchanan’s appearances. He started promoting his book on Fox News, which has higher ratings than MSNBC, and other outlets. He rebuffed Mr. Griffin’s proposal for an hourlong debate with Mr. Sharpton about the book. In November, he fell ill and was hospitalized for 10 days, he said.

In January, as Mr. Buchanan’s absence gained attention, Mr. Griffin was quoted as saying that “the ideas he put forth aren’t really appropriate for national dialogue, much less the dialogue on MSNBC.” They soon started discussing severance terms, Mr. Buchanan said. MSNBC executives said they were relieved that his departure had received relatively little attention when it was announced. Dismayed, however, several of the channel’s hosts spoke up in support of him.

Mr. Scarborough and his co-host, Mika Brzezinski, said in a statement that while they disagreed “strongly” with the book, they believed “those differences should have been debated in public,” on “Morning Joe.”

Chris Matthews, a longtime friend, said on his show: “To Pat, the world can never be better than the one he grew up in as a young boy — Blessed Sacrament Church and Grade School, Gonzaga High School, Georgetown University. No country will ever be better than the United States of America of the early 1950s.”

That was one of Mr. Griffin’s points: that Mr. Buchanan was a product of a earlier era. Some conservatives called his removal “censorship.” Others said it contributed to the narrowing of the American mind — liberals at MSNBC, conservatives at Fox. Mr. Buchanan seemed to agree; “the American people are divorcing one another, they’re separating from one another,” he said. (He appeared on Fox on Feb. 17, the day after his departure was made public, though he said over the weekend that he had not been offered a job there.)

But Michael Steele, the former Republican National Committee chairman, said he was asked to be an MSNBC contributor last year specifically to create “greater ideological diversity.”

“I don’t believe Pat’s departure is a signal that Phil is backing away from that,” Mr. Steele said by e-mail. “Instead you’re beginning to see the emergence of ‘diverse’ conservative voices like Steve Schmidt, Robert Traynham, Meghan McCain and Robert Costa appearing on various shows throughout the day and evening. No doubt, Pat’s passion and fight will continue — it just may look and sound a bit different.”

*

PAT BUCHANAN ON OBAMA’S HISPANDERING FOR  THE ILLEGALS’ VOTES:

What is the response of Barack Obama, who took an oath to see to it that federal laws are faithfully executed?

He is siding with the law-breakers. He is pandering to the ethnic lobbies. He is not berating a Mexican regime that aids and abets this invasion of the country of which he is commander in chief. Instead, he attacks the government of Arizona for trying to fill a gaping hole in law enforcement left by his own dereliction of duty.

*

TOWNHALL.com



Whose Country Is This?




Pat Buchanan
Tuesday, April 27, 2010

With the support of 70 percent of its citizens, Arizona has ordered sheriffs and police to secure the border and remove illegal aliens, half a million of whom now reside there.

Arizona acted because the U.S. government has abdicated its constitutional duty to protect the states from invasion and refuses to enforce America's immigration laws.

"We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act," said Gov. Jan Brewer. "But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created an unacceptable situation."

We have a crisis in Arizona because we have a failed state in Washington.

What is the response of Barack Obama, who took an oath to see to it that federal laws are faithfully executed?

He is siding with the law-breakers. He is pandering to the ethnic lobbies. He is not berating a Mexican regime that aids and abets this invasion of the country of which he is commander in chief. Instead, he attacks the government of Arizona for trying to fill a gaping hole in law enforcement left by his own dereliction of duty.

He has denounced Arizona as "misguided." He has called on the Justice Department to ensure that Arizona's sheriffs and police do not violate anyone's civil rights. But he has said nothing about the rights of the people of Arizona who must deal with the costs of having hundreds of thousands of lawbreakers in their midst.

How's that for Andrew Jackson-style leadership?

Obama has done everything but his duty to enforce the law.

Undeniably, making it a state as well as a federal crime to be in this country illegally, and requiring police to check the immigration status of anyone they have a "reasonable suspicion" is here illegally, is tough and burdensome. But what choice did Arizona have?

The state has a fiscal crisis caused in part by the burden of providing schooling and social welfare for illegals and their families, who consume far more in services than they pay in taxes and who continue to pour in. Even John McCain is now calling for 3,000 troops on the border.

Police officers and a prominent rancher have been murdered. There have been kidnappings believed to be tied to the Mexican drug cartels. There are nightly high-speed chases through the barrios where innocent people are constantly at risk.

If Arizona does not get control of the border and stop the invasion, U.S. citizens will stop coming to Arizona and will begin to depart, as they are already fleeing California.



A country that cannot control its borders isn't really a country anymore, Ronald Reagan reminded us.



What we are talking about here is the Balkanization and breakup of a nation into ethnic enclaves. A country that cannot control its borders isn't really a country anymore, Ronald Reagan reminded us.

The tasks that Arizonans are themselves undertaking are ones that belong by right, the Constitution and federal law to the Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Homeland Security.

Arizona has been compelled to assume the feds' role because the feds won't do their job. And for that dereliction of duty the buck stops on the desk of the president of the United States.

Why is Obama paralyzed? Why does he not enforce the law, even if he dislikes it, by punishing the businessmen who hire illegals and by sending the 12 million to 20 million illegals back home? President Eisenhower did it. Why won't he?

*

OBAMA THE HISPANDERING PRESIDENT SELLING OUT HIS OWN COUNTRY FOR THE ILLEGALS’ VOTES!

*



Because he is politically correct. Because he owes a big debt to the Hispanic lobby that helped deliver two-thirds of that vote in 2008. Though most citizens of Hispanic descent in Arizona want the border protected and the laws enforced, the Hispanic lobby demands that the law be changed.

Fair enough. But the nation rose up as one to reject the "path-to-citizenship" -- i.e., amnesty -- that the 2007 plan of George W. Bush, McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama envisioned.

Al Sharpton threatens to go to Phoenix and march in the streets against the new Arizona law. Let him go.



JOBS? NO LEGAL NEED APPLY HERE!



Let us see how many African-Americans, who are today frozen out of the 8 million jobs held by illegal aliens that might otherwise go to them or their children, will march to defend an invasion for which they are themselves paying the heaviest price.

Last year, while Americans were losing a net of 5 million jobs, the U.S. government -- Bush and Obama both -- issued 1,131,000 green cards to legal immigrants to come and take the jobs that did open up, a flood of immigrants equaled in only four other years in our history.

What are we doing to our own people?

Whose country is this, anyway?

America today has an establishment that, because it does not like the immigration laws, countenances and condones wholesale violation of those laws.

Nevertheless, under those laws, the U.S. government is obligated to deport illegal aliens and punish businesses that knowingly hire them.

This is not an option. It is an obligation.

Can anyone say Barack Obama is meeting that obligation?

*

FAIRUS.org

The Administration's Phantom Immigration Enforcement Policy

According to DHS’s own reports, very little of our nation’s borders (Southwestern or otherwise) are secure, and gaining control is not even a goal of the department.

By Ira Mehlman
Published on 12/07/2009
Townhall.com

The setting was not quite the flight deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln with a “Mission Accomplished” banner as the backdrop, but it was the next best thing. Speaking at the Center for American Progress (CAP) on Nov. 13, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano declared victory over illegal immigration and announced that the Obama administration is ready to move forward with a mass amnesty for the millions of illegal aliens already living in the United States.

Arguing the Obama administration’s case for amnesty, Napolitano laid out what she described as the “three-legged stool” for immigration reform. As the administration views it, immigration reform must include “a commitment to serious and effective enforcement, improved legal flows for families and workers, and a firm but fair way to deal with those who are already here.”

Acknowledging that a lack of confidence in the government’s ability and commitment to effectively enforce the immigration laws it passes proved to be the Waterloo of previous efforts to gain amnesty for illegal aliens, Napolitano was quick to reassure the American public that those concerns could be put to rest.

“For starters, the security of the Southwest border has been transformed from where it was in 2007,” stated the secretary. Not only is the border locked up tight, she continued, but the situation is well in-hand in the interior of the country as well. “We’ve also shown that the government is serious and strategic in its approach to enforcement by making changes in how we enforce the law in the interior of the country and at worksites…Furthermore, we’ve transformed worksite enforcement to truly address the demand side of illegal immigration.”

If Rep. Joe Wilson had been in attendance to hear Secretary Napolitano’s CAP speech he might well have had a few choice comments to offer. But since he wasn’t, we will have to rely on the Department of Homeland Security’s own data to assess the veracity of Napolitano’s claims.

According to DHS’s own reports, very little of our nation’s borders (Southwestern or otherwise) are secure, and gaining control is not even a goal of the department. DHS claims to have “effective control” over just 894 miles of border. That’s 894 out of 8,607 miles they are charged with protecting. As for the other 7,713 miles? DHS’s stated border security goal for FY 2010 is the same 894 miles.

The administration’s strategic approach to interior and worksite enforcement is just as chimerical as its strategy at the border, unless one considers shuffling paper to be a strategy. DHS data, released November 18, show that administrative arrests of immigration law violators fell by 68 percent between 2008 and 2009. The department also carried out 60 percent fewer arrests for criminal violations of immigration laws, 58 percent fewer criminal indictments, and won 63 percent fewer convictions.

While the official unemployment rate has climbed from 7.6 percent when President Obama took office in January to 10 percent today, the administration’s worksite enforcement strategy has amounted to a bureaucratic game of musical chairs. The administration has all but ended worksite enforcement actions and replaced them with paperwork audits. When the audits determine that illegal aliens are on the payroll, employers are given the opportunity to fire them with little or no adverse consequence to the company, while no action is taken to remove the illegal workers from the country. The illegal workers simply acquire a new set of fraudulent documents and move on to the next employer seeking workers willing to accept substandard wages.

In Janet Napolitano’s alternative reality a mere 10 percent of our borders under “effective control” and sharp declines in arrests and prosecutions of immigration lawbreakers may be construed as confidence builders, but it is hard to imagine that the American public is going to see it that way. If anything, the administration’s record has left the public less confident that promises of future immigration enforcement would be worth the government paper they’re printed on.

As Americans scrutinize the administration’s plans to overhaul immigration policy, they are likely to find little in the “three-legged stool” being offered that they like or trust. The first leg – enforcement – the administration has all but sawed off. The second – increased admissions of extended family members and workers – makes little sense with some 25 million Americans either unemployed or relegated to part-time work. And the third – amnesty for millions of illegal aliens – is anathema to their sense of justice and fair play.

As Americans well know, declaring “Mission Accomplished” and actually accomplishing a mission are two completely different things. When it comes to enforcing immigration laws, the only message the public is receiving from this administration is “Mission Aborted.”

*

MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com

*

Lou Dobbs Tonight
Monday, September 28, 2009

And T.J. BONNER, president of the National Border Patrol Council, will weigh in on the federal government’s decision to pull nearly 400 agents from the U.S.-Mexican border. As always, Lou will take your calls to discuss the issues that matter most-and to get your thoughts on where America is headed.

*








No comments: