Thursday, May 31, 2012

Tomgram: Nick Turse, Hot Drone-On-Drone Action | TomDispatch - BUT OPEN & UNDEFENDED BORDERS WITH NARCOMEX

Tomgram: Nick Turse, Hot Drone-On-Drone Action | TomDispatch


WIKILEAKS EXPOSES OBAMA'S AGENDA OF LA RAZA SUPREMACY AND AN ILLEGAL IN EVERY AMERICAN JOB TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED. THE LEGALS GET THE TAX BILLS FOR THE MEX WELFARE AND CRIME TIDAL WAVE.
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2012/05/illegals-obama-promises-his-la-raza.html

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/05/wikileaks-exposed-obamas-la-raza-open.html


The Obama administration has also cut worksite enforcement efforts by 70%, allowing illegal immigrants to continue working in jobs that rightfully belong to citizens and legal workers.


*

Obama Quietly Erasing Borders (Article)






*




ARTICLE


8 Out of 10 Illegals Apprehended in 2010 Never Prosecuted
http://www.alipac.us/article-6162-thread-1-0.html



THE ENTIRE REASON THE BORDERS ARE LEFT OPEN IS TO CUT WAGES!

THE LA RAZA DEMS HAVE SABOTAGED E-VERIFY TO HELP EASE MORE ILLEGALS INTO OUR JOBS. IN MEX-OCCUPIED CA, THE LA RAZA (ILLEGALS) CONTROLLED STATE LEGISLATURE PASSED A LAW MAKING IT ILLEGAL FOR EMPLOYERS TO USE E-VERIFY. OBAMA HAS SUED AZ TO STOP E-VERIFY…. HERE’S WHY:

“We could cut unemployment in half simply by reclaiming the jobs taken by illegal workers,” said Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, co-chairman of the Reclaim American Jobs Caucus. “President Obama is on the wrong side of the American people on immigration. The president should support policies that help citizens and legal immigrants find the jobs they need and deserve rather than fail to enforce immigration laws.”

*

 “The principal beneficiaries of our current immigration policy are affluent Americans who hire immigrants at substandard wages for low-end work. Harvard economist George Borjas estimates that American workers lose $190 billion annually in depressed wages caused by the constant flooding of the labor market at the low-wage end.” Christian Science Monitor

*

“Listen to people from the National Council of La Raza, LULAC, CARECEN, Latino TV networks, the Piolin radio show (that’s Hispanic anti-Rush Limbaugh), and you will see that the U.S. is replete with its own Chavezes-in-waiting.”




ILLEGALS - OBAMA PROMISES HIS LA RAZA PARTY BASE of ILLEGALS EASIER LOOTING THAN EVER... For Their Votes!

WIKILEAKS EXPOSES OBAMA'S AGENDA OF LA RAZA SUPREMACY AND AN ILLEGAL IN EVERY AMERICAN JOB TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED. THE LEGALS GET THE TAX BILLS FOR THE MEX WELFARE AND CRIME TIDAL WAVE.

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/05/wikileaks-exposed-obamas-la-raza-open.html


The Obama administration has also cut worksite enforcement efforts by 70%, allowing illegal immigrants to continue working in jobs that rightfully belong to citizens and legal workers.

Obama Quietly Erasing Borders (Article)

ARTICLE

8 Out of 10 Illegals Apprehended in 2010 Never Prosecuted
http://www.alipac.us/article-6162-thread-1-0.html

THE ENTIRE REASON THE BORDERS ARE LEFT OPEN IS TO CUT WAGES!

THE LA RAZA DEMS HAVE SABOTAGED E-VERIFY TO HELP EASE MORE ILLEGALS INTO OUR JOBS. IN MEX-OCCUPIED CA, THE LA RAZA (ILLEGALS) CONTROLLED STATE LEGISLATURE PASSED A LAW MAKING IT ILLEGAL FOR EMPLOYERS TO USE E-VERIFY. OBAMA HAS SUED AZ TO STOP E-VERIFY…. HERE’S WHY:

“We could cut unemployment in half simply by reclaiming the jobs taken by illegal workers,” said Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, co-chairman of the Reclaim American Jobs Caucus. “President Obama is on the wrong side of the American people on immigration. The president should support policies that help citizens and legal immigrants find the jobs they need and deserve rather than fail to enforce immigration laws.”

*

 “The principal beneficiaries of our current immigration policy are affluent Americans who hire immigrants at substandard wages for low-end work. Harvard economist George Borjas estimates that American workers lose $190 billion annually in depressed wages caused by the constant flooding of the labor market at the low-wage end.” Christian Science Monitor

*

“Listen to people from the National Council of La Raza, LULAC, CARECEN, Latino TV networks, the Piolin radio show (that’s Hispanic anti-Rush Limbaugh), and you will see that the U.S. is replete with its own Chavezes-in-waiting.”




MEXICANS MURDER MORE AMERICANS THAN ALL THE MUSLIM MURDERS OVER THERE! Where is the Real Terrorism? OVER THERE ON MUSLIM BORDERS, OR RIGHT HERE ON THE NARCOMEX BORDER?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

DEMS HAND ILLEGALS NOT ONLY OPEN BORDERS, GRINGO-PAID ANCHOR BABY WELFARE, BUT DREAM ACT DISCOUNTS FOR ILLEGALS IN COLLEGE! BUT WHAT HAVE THEY DONE FOR AMERICAN STUDENTS? NADA!



 PLEASE CONNECT WITH JUDICIAL WATCH.org AND GET ON THEIR E-NEWS… AND SUPPORT THEIR EFFORTS
JUDICIAL WATCH CONTINUES TO PUSH BACK LA RAZA SUPREMACY!

But not in MEXIFORNIA. CA PUTS OUT $20 BILLION IN SOCIAL SERVICES TO ILLEGALS, HAS THE WORST EDUCATION IN THE UNION, AND YET LA RAZA DEM, JERRY BROWN REPAID HIS ILLEGAL VOTERS BY VOTING FOR LA RAZA TUITION DISCOUNTS.

*


*

From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:

Judicial Watch Forces New Jersey School to Abandon Discounted Tuition for Illegal Aliens

In a dramatic and clear-cut victory for the rule of law, Judicial Watch forced the County College of Morris (CCM) in New Jersey to reverse an unlawful policy which allowed illegal aliens discounted tuition at the school! As expected, the decision came down last Thursday. The headline of a New Jersey Daily Record article the following day tells the whole story: “Lawsuit Worries Prompted Reversal on College Tuition for Illegal Immigrants.”

As reported by the Daily Record:

One County College of Morris trustee mentioned the prospect of being sued and paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills. Others said legal considerations played a part in their deliberations over tuition rates for illegal immigrants.

In the weeks leading up to their vote…CCM's trustees had received letters from freeholders and a national conservative group called Judicial Watch saying they were violating federal laws. Concerns about those laws, and the possibility of lawsuits, seemed to spur a 9-2 vote to charge higher, out-of-state rates to undocumented students even if they live in the county.

Indeed, as I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, Judicial Watch sent a letter to the Chairman of the Board of Trustees for CCM challenging the school’s policy of providing discounted tuition for “undocumented” aliens. CCM immediately informed Judicial Watch that it had commenced a review of its tuition policy. And one week later, the school’s trustees voted to overturn a policy they had established just two months prior.

The chair of the Board of Trustees suggested Judicial Watch had “bullied” the poor Board into reversing itself. My colleague, attorney Paul Orfanedes, answered this charge directly in the media:

‘If you think encouraging people to follow the law is bullying, then we are bullying,’ he said after being told Johnson had used the term ‘bullying’ to describe some of the reaction to CCM's February policy change.

As you can see, sometimes even the threat of a lawsuit can work wonders! This is a tremendous victory for Judicial Watch and its supporters. And we are thrilled CCM’s Board of Trustees made the right decision to bring its tuition policy in line with federal law, even if some trustees may have been reluctant (to say the least).

You may recall Judicial Watch was tipped off to CCM’s illegal policy by the February 18, 2011, edition of The New Jersey Star-Ledger:

For the first time in nearly a decade, illegal immigrants will be allowed to take classes at the County College of Morris in a policy change that is drawing praise from some education officials and sharp criticism from immigration policy activists.

The trustees at the Randolph-based college voted 7-1 earlier this week to reverse a rule barring undocumented students, school officials said. Starting this summer, the public two-year college will be one of the first schools in New Jersey to openly acknowledge it is enrolling illegal immigrants and allowing them to pay the same tuition rate as other county residents.

(Prior to the policy change CCM had barred illegal aliens from admission to the school, so this was quite a switch.)

The article piqued the interest of JW’s lawyers and investigators, who obtained a copy of the CCM admissions policy. And sure enough, it clearly stated that any illegal alien who graduated from an American high school (or possesses a GED equivalent), was under the age of 35, and had lived in the U.S. for five consecutive years, would be eligible for admission. And the policy further stipulated that illegal alien students could pay a discounted in-county tuition rate!

As Judicial Watch noted in its letter, illegal aliens are ineligible for state and local public benefits, such as discounted tuition, under federal law:

There is no way to reconcile CCM’s policy with federal law. The policy provides a public benefit to individuals who are clearly ineligible for benefits [under federal law], and New Jersey has not authorized the provision of such benefits…CCM may not ignore federal laws when those laws are not consistent with its own policy preferences. We hope that CCM will reevaluate its new policy and conform it to the requirements of federal law.

And that’s exactly what happened.

This is not our first attempt to stop institutions of higher education from giving preferential treatment to illegal aliens.



We filed a taxpayer lawsuit in January against the Board of Trustees of Maryland’s Montgomery College for unlawfully allowing discounted “in-county” tuition rates for students graduating from Montgomery County public high schools, regardless of their place of residency or immigration status. (Click here for more information.) In response to our lawsuit, the Maryland Legislature bailed the school out by passing legislation authorizing the illegal alien tuition policy. The good news, however, is that this decision may now be subjected to a voter referendum.

As you can see, Judicial Watch has taken on a leadership role in the debate over taxpayer-financed in-state tuition for illegal aliens. And we will not slow down. We are currently considering action and legal challenges in other states. So stay






*

WE HAVE A GOVERNMENT THAT STANDS UP FOR LA RAZA TO HISPANDER FOR THE ILLEGALS’ VOTES. WHO STANDS UP FOR THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS THAT STRUGGLES TO EDUCATE OUR CHILDREN, EVEN AS THIRD-WORLDERS AND  ILLEGALS ARE BEING IMPORTED TO TAKE ALL THE JOBS?



*



“At the hearing, Dr. Rakesh Kochar, Associate Director for Research at the Pew Hispanic Center, testified that in the year following the official end of the recession (June 2009), foreign-born workers gained 656,000 jobs while native-born workers lost an additional 1.2 million jobs.”



*

“Cowardly” To Reverse Illegal Immigrant Tuition Break


Last Updated: Mon, 04/25/2011 - 3:10pm

New Jersey’s largest newspaper is accusing officials at a public college in Randolph of being “cowardly” and “gutless” for reversing a controversial policy offering illegal immigrants discounted tuition after Judicial Watch challenged it.

Amid strong opposition, trustees at the County College of Morris, a two-year school with an enrollment of about 9,000, voted earlier this year to give illegal aliens cheaper in-state tuition even though New Jersey’s legislature had rejected a measure that would have granted undocumented students the perk at all public institutions of higher learning.

The County College of Morris passed its own policy to help an “increasing number of students” who could not be educated at the school, according to its president. The move could not have come at a worst time, in the midst of a dire financial crisis that has negatively impacted public education at every level in the Garden State.

Judicial Watch quickly challenged the measure, pointing out to college trustees in a letter that illegal immigrants are ineligible for state and local public benefits such as discounted tuition under federal law. Under intense pressure, the County College of Morris responded by saying that it would “reevaluate” its new illegal alien tuition policy by this month. Last week trustees reversed the contentious measure, angering immigration advocates and New Jersey’s biggest newspaper.

In a scathing editorial published this week, the Star-Ledger calls the reversal a victory for the “pitch-fork and torch brigade” that will shape immigration policy if Congress doesn’t pass amnesty legislation. The piece accuses those who oppose illegal immigration of making life as “difficult and miserable as possible” for “each and every” illegal immigrant in the United States “no matter the cost to immigrant families or the communities where they live and work.”

It further points out that, by charging illegal aliens the much higher out-of-state tuition, colleges “close the door on many undocumented teenagers who aspire to better things.” After all, they were brought to this country without any say in the matter, the editorial says. “But it seems there’s not enough punishment to go around for families and their children already forced to live in the shadows.”

Judicial Watch has been a frontrunner in efforts to stop the use of public funds to promote illegal immigration. Earlier this year Judicial Watch filed a taxpayer lawsuit against Maryland’s Montgomery College for unlawfully offering discounted tuition rates to illegal aliens who graduate from local high schools. The policy violates both Maryland and federal law and places a substantial financial burden on Montgomery County taxpayers, who subsidize the cost of students attending the community college.
*

Lawsuit worries prompted reversal on college tuition for illegal immigrants

Trustees' chairwoman says board had been bullied

4:49 PM, Apr. 21, 2011  |  

One County College of Morris trustee mentioned the prospect of being sued and paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills. Others said legal considerations played a part in their deliberations over tuition rates for illegal immigrants.

In the weeks leading up to their vote on Wednesday night, CCM's trustees had received letters from freeholders and a national conservative group called Judicial Watch saying they were violating federal laws. Concerns about those laws, and the possibility of lawsuits, seemed to spur a 9-2 vote to charge higher, out-of-state rates to undocumented students even if they live in the county.

The vote came at the end of a meeting in front of more than 200 people that lasted almost four hours and included emotional testimony from dozens of people on both sides of the issue.

After the vote, some undocumented students who said they could not afford out of state tuition rates had tears in their eyes. The vote reversed part of a policy that the same board approved, 7-1, just two months ago.
"I'm not in favor of defending in court a vote of ours that might cost tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees," trustee Alan Gordon said during the meeting.

Elaine Johnson, chairwoman of the trustees, voted with the minority and said she believed the trustees had been bullied, although she did not specify who was doing the bullying. She said the February vote to charge in-county tuition to undocumented students, many of whom have lived in the U.S. most of their lives, seemed simple at the time.

"Then the bigotry, hatred, threats and lies came," she said. "I realize bullying is so wrong. . . . There is no law that currently exists that makes the act we took (in February) illegal."
The CCM trustees voted on Feb. 26 to allow some undocumented students into the school — as long as they lived in the U.S. at least five years and were here before they were 16. They had been barred following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The trustees also voted to charge in-county tuition to students who live in Morris County.

That gave CCM a written policy similar to what many other county colleges are doing across the state without writing it down. A recent New Jersey Press Media survey found most county colleges, without adopting policies, check only whether students reside in their counties and not whether they are documented.
Morris County freeholders, saying they didn't want to support tuition breaks for illegal immigrants with taxpayer money, asked the CCM trustees to reconsider the lower tuition rates.

"I was pleased with the (Wednesday night) vote, and I also was pleased with the process," said Margaret Nordstom, a freeholder liaison to CCM.
Edward Yaw, president of CCM, said college attorneys in recent weeks had taken a closer look at relevant laws and court cases related to them, and that "the legal aspect" had been a driving factor for many of the trustees' apparent change of heart. Yaw had been in favor of the February policy but didn't take a position on Wednesday's amendment, other than to say it allows undocumented students to get an education. He did say laws related to tuition breaks for undocumented students are ambiguous.

"I still believe there's no law that prohibits the actions (that the board) previously took," Yaw said. "We felt all along the potential was there to be sued by one side or the other."

About one week before the vote, Judicial Watch sent a letter to Johnson saying CCM's policy adopted in February violated a 1996 federal law barring illegal immigrants from receiving "local public benefits" unless they are provided by state law. Judicial Watch has sued a Maryland school over in-county rates for undocumented students.
Paul Orfanedes, director of litigation for Judicial Watch, said his group is considering whether to continue the lawsuit now that Maryland has passed a law that, once signed, would make it the 11th state to offer in-state tuition to undocumented students. He said the letter to CCM was meant to clarify the law.

"If you think encouraging people to follow the law is bullying, then we are bullying," he said after being told Johnson had used the term "bullying" to describe some of the reaction to CCM's February policy change.

Alina Das, a professor with the New York University Law School Immigrant Rights Clinic, said the federal law does not "specifically prohibit" lower tuition rates. The NYU clinic has been giving legal direction to Wind of the Spirit, a local immigrant rights group.

Yaw said CCM might revisit the issue if additional court cases clarify related federal laws.
A related federal statute prohibits providing postsecondary benefits to illegal immigrants based on state residency if the same benefit isn’t available to legal residents. County freeholders have argued that means CCM would have been required to charge in-county rates to students from other states.

However, the California State Supreme Court recently ruled that the federal law didn’t preempt a state law allowing in-state tuition for undocumented students who graduate from California high schools. Judges said in their ruling that the state law is based on where students go to school and not on “residence,” as specified in the federal law. The case is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

CCM’s admissions policy allows admitting undocumented students only if they have graduated from New Jersey high schools. Yaw said a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the California case might offer some guidance and be “a trigger” for additional discussions about offering in-county rates for some illegal immigrants who live in the county.

http://www.JUDICIALWATCH.org

*




INVESTORS.com

Dream Act Makes Children Pawns

Posted 12/07/2010 06:59 PM ET

Immigration: Congress is expected to vote on the Dream Act on Wednesday, providing a path to citizenship to millions of illegal immigrant youth. It's a bad precedent that uses kids, costs taxpayers and invites new amnesties.

After years of failing to sell mass amnesty to voters, the open-borders lobby has turned to tugging at Americans' heartstrings, presenting treacly stories of illegal immigrants brought here as children who then bettered themselves here.

Somehow legalizing this group ahead of all the other people awaiting immigration visas legally is supposed to specially benefit all of us, even though the most obvious beneficiaries are the individuals themselves. But out of guilt, or because we "owe" them "justice," the case is being made for passing the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act.

That act provides a path to citizenship for some 2.1 million illegals who have lived here continuously for five years, avoided felony convictions, came to the U.S. before they turned 16 and completed two years of college or U.S. military service within six years.

Now, in the lame-duck session of Congress, the open-borders lobby has lawmakers right where it wants them. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has filed Senate cloture to bring the Dream Act to a vote as soon as Wednesday, and the House may vote even sooner.

It's a scam, using children unethically to achieve an open-borders political agenda that opens the door to perverse incentives.

The Dream Act is an effort to mimic the benefits illegals derive from having anchor babies in the U.S., a tactic used by millions as an "insurance policy" to avoid deportation and achieve legal status.

The awfulness of that incentive can be seen in the case of Edgar Jimenez Lugo, the 14-year-old U.S. "citizen" who was arrested in Mexico after a rather spectacular career beheading rivals and innocent people for $2,500 each on behalf of a Mexican cartel enforcer.

Cronica, a Mexican newspaper, reported that the throwaway kid was born in San Diego and then spent his life with Mexican parents who took him back to Morelos, Mexico, and "wandered around." Apparently the child's birth in San Diego was the same gambit millions of other immigrants use to game the system for U.S. entry. And he's only facing three years in jail in Mexico, so he'll soon become our problem — not Mexico's.

The Dream Act makes every baby an anchor baby, commodifying children, as young Jimenez seems to have been. It extends the incentive for parents to use their kids to beat immigration laws.

Under the Dream Act it may take 10 years for an illegal to achieve full U.S. citizenship, but there's little doubt he will. And as soon as he does achieve citizenship, he will sponsor the parents who brought him into the country illegally — thus achieving the original intention of the law-breaking parents.

This bill is really an amnesty bill. The 1986 amnesty signed by President Reagan provided amnesty to 2.7 million illegals. Now, 24 years on, we have 12 million illegals to amnesty.

Columnist Michelle Malkin points to six successive amnesties since the 1986 act. Each has raised anticipation of new ones for illegals. For them, no need to hurry for the amnesty train — the next one will be along in just a moment.

Worse, the Dream Act will cost a lot. By some estimates it's a $6.2 billion bill for taxpayers, but it may be even more. Judges over the years have already ruled that children of illegals are entitled to "free" U.S. public education through the 12th grade, plus "free" medical care, bankrupting hospital emergency rooms.

The Dream Act will give them even more.

With a treasured U.S. green card as motivation, all they have to do is clog up community college enrollments with no minimum performance standards, crowding out legitimate students who are interested in learning, or else sign up for diploma-mill trade schools with government loans they aren't under any obligation to repay.

For every Harvard valedictorian the illegal immigration lobby presents as a poster boy, there will be thousands of gang members who will qualify because the cops haven't caught them yet.

Worst of all is the entitlement mentality this bill creates.

Suddenly the U.S. taxpayer "owes" all this, as the brazen illegal students parading around in graduation robes for cameras without fear of apprehension make clear. This entitlement mentality is no success ethic. And it won't stop at the Dream Act.

It just underscores the disgusting ethic of special interests playing grievance and identity politics by using children as pawns.

The only good answer to this is no.


*

Here’s one teacher’s report on the illegals in our schools.

TEACHER’S POSTING ON CRAIGSLIST:

Subject: Cheap Labor This should make everyone think, be you Democrat, Republican or Independent  From a California school teacher.

"As you listen to the news about the student protests over illegal immigration, there are some things that you should be aware of:  I am in charge of the English-as-a-second-language department at a large southern California high school which is designated a Title 1 school, meaning that its students average lower socioeconomic and income levels.  Most of the schools you are hearing about, South Gate High, Bell Gardens, Huntington Park, etc., where these students are protesting, are also Title 1 schools.  Title 1 schools are on the free breakfast and free lunch program. When I say free breakfast, I'm not talking a glass of milk and roll -- but a full breakfast and cereal bar with fruits and juices that would make a Marriott proud. The waste of this food is monumental, with trays and trays of it being dumped in the trash uneaten. (OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK)  I estimate that well over 50% of these students are obese or at least moderately overweight. About 75% or more DO have cell phones. The school also provides day care centers for the unwed teenage pregnant girls (some as young as 13) so they can attend class without the inconvenience of having to arrange for babysitters or having family watch their kids. (OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK)  I was ordered to spend $700,000 on my department or risk losing funding for the upcoming year even though there was little need for anything; my budget was already substantial. I ended up buying new computers for the computer learning center, half of which, one month later, have been carved with graffiti by the appreciative students who obviously feel humbled and grateful to have a free education in America. (OUR TAX DOLLARS A T WORK)  I have had to intervene several times for young and substitute teachers whose classes consist of many illegal immigrant students here in the country less then 3 months who raised so much hell with the female teachers, calling them "Putas" whores and throwing things that the teachers were in tears.  Free medical, free education, free food, day care etc., etc., etc. Is it any wonder they feel entitled to not only be in this country but to demand rights, privileges and entitlements? To those who want to point out how much these illegal immigrants contribute to our society because they LIKE their gardener and housekeeper and they like to pay less for tomatoes: spend some time in the real world of illegal immigration and see the TRUE costs.

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.










THE SITUATION OF LA RAZA SUPREMACY IS MUCH WORSE THAN THIS AUTHOR COVERS IN HIS ARTICLE ON DREAM ACTS.

THERE ARE ONLY EIGHT (8) COUNTIES WITH A POPULATION GREATER THAN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, WHERE HALF OF ALL JOBS GO TO ILLEGALS USING STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS. LEAD BY LA RAZA SUPREMACIST LIKE GIL CEDILLO, THE STATE PASSED A LAW QUICKLY SIGNED BY LA RAZA DEM JERRY BROWN (ELECTED BY ILLEGALS) THAT MAKES IT ILLEGAL FOR EMPLOYERS TO USE E-VERIFY.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY PAYS OUT $600 MILLION TO ILLEGALS ON WELFARE (source: JUDICIAL WATCH). NOT A SINGLE LEGAL VOTED TO BE MEXICO’S ANCHOR BABY BIRTHING CENTER, OR WELFARE LOOTING STATE!

ONE-THIRD OF THE DRIVERS IN MEXIFORNIA ARE ILLEGALS DRIVING ILLEGALLY WITHOUT LICENSES, INSURANCE AND FREQUENTLY IN CARS REGISTERED IN NOMINEE’S NAMES TO AVOID BEING IMPOUNDED WHEN CAUGHT. LA RAZA SUPREMACIST GIL CEDILLO AND THE LA RAZA FACTION IN SACRAMENTO ARE PUSHING TO END THAT. HEY. THEY’RE ILLEGALS, INVITED HERE TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED FOR THE PAYMASTERS OF THE LA RAZA DEMS, LIKE CONGRESSWOMAN ZOE LOFGREN. NEARLY 95% OF THE CAMPAIGN BRIBES THIS ADVOCATE FOR OPEN BORDERS, CHAIN MIGRATION, AMNESTY OR AT LEAST CONTINUED NON-ENFORCEMENT, ARE FROM EMPLOYERS THAT BENEFIT FROM SOME OF THIS STAGGERINGLY EXPENSIVE “CHEAP” MEX LABOR.



WHO BENEFITS?

LA RAZA DEM, AND ADVOCATE FOR OPEN BORDERS AND NO E-VERIFY SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN HAS LONG HIRED ILLEGALS AT HER S.F. HOTEL, JUST MILES FROM HER $16 MILLION DOLLAR WAR PROFITEER’S MANSION!



LA RAZA DEM, AND ADVOCATE FOR  OPEN BORDERS AND NO E-VERIFY CONGRESSWOMAN NANCY PELOSI HIRES ILLEGALS AT HER  RESTAURANTS AND HER ST. HELENA, NAPA WINERY.



BARBARA BOXER, ONE OF THE MOST CORRUPT POLITICIANS IN CA HISTORY, WAS REELECTED BY ILLEGALS BASED ON HER PLATFORM OF CONTINUED NON-ENFORCEMENT AND NO E-VERIFY!



NOT ONCE, BUT THREE TIMES….!!! ON BEHALF OF THEIR BIG AG BIZ DONORS, BOXER AND FEINSTEIN HAVE PUSHED FOR A “SPECIAL AMNESTY” FOR 1.5 MILLION ILLEGAL FARM WORKERS…… DESPITE THE FACT THAT ONE-THIRD OF THESE FARM WORKERS COME TO GROW ANCHOR BABIES AND COLLECT WELFARE!

*

SOMETHING ELSE THE OCCUPIED LEGALS SHOULD KNOW: ACCORDING TO CA ATTORNEY GEN. KAMALA HARRIS (AN OPEN BORDERS LA RAZA DEM), NEARLY HALF OF ALL MURDERS IN MEXIFORNIA ARE BY MEXICAN GANGS!!!

*

THE STATE OF CA OPERATES DEFICITS OF $28 MILLION AND STILL PAYS OUT $20 BILLION IN SOCIAL SERVICES TO ILLEGALS!

NOT ONE LEGAL VOTED FOR ANY OF THIS!

BUT THEN THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA IS DOES NOT INCLUDE  LEGALS!

Lloyd Billingsley
The DREAM and the Nightmare
In California, students are better off being illegal immigrants than legal.
30 March 2012

Last year, Governor Jerry Brown signed the California DREAM Act, which makes students in the country illegally eligible for grants and waivers to attend one of the state’s public colleges or universities. The students must have attended school in the state for three years, “affirm that they are in the process of applying to legalize their immigration status,” and show both financial need and academic achievement. Assemblyman Gil Cedillo, the Los Angeles Democrat who authored the DREAM Act, hails the legislation as a victory for those “in the country through no fault of their own.” Opponents such as Republican assemblyman Tim Donnelly—a first-term legislator not given to understatement—called Cedillo’s legislation the “California Nightmare Act,” said it is “morally wrong,” and would create “a new entitlement that is going to cause tens of thousands of people to come here illegally from all over the world.”

Poster children for the DREAM Act abound. Mandeep Chahal, for example, was six years old when her parents brought her to the United States from India. Chahal wants to be a doctor; her fellow students at Los Altos High School near Palo Alto voted her the person “Most Likely to Save the World.” That’s a tall order, but to deny such a person the opportunity seems unreasonable. “Many parents of these children pay taxes for many services they cannot get,” argues Cedillo.

Cedillo’s point implies that illegal immigrants are the only ones subject to this dynamic. But consider: my taxes subsidize the Medi-Cal system, which provides medical care for low-income state residents, but I couldn’t “get” health care that way, even in the year my income was so low that my daughter qualified for a Pell Grant. Likewise, the taxes of, say, a California welder help pay for top-drawer pensions and benefits for state government employees, but he can’t enjoy those benefits himself. Neither is he entitled to get a government job merely because his taxes help pay the salaries and benefits of workers at the Department of Motor Vehicles, CalTrans, the California Air Resources Board, the Franchise Tax Board, California’s Department of Education, the State Board of Equalization, the Coastal Commission, and on and on.

The taxes of a fast-food worker help subsidize the University of California at Berkeley, but nothing guarantees that taxpayer admission to Berkeley. The state’s Master Plan for Higher Education does guarantee everyone a place in the system, whether at a community college, a state university, or within the UC system. But no one is promised a place at the top, and the system grants no special favors to legal immigrants. When I came to the United States, legally, in 1977, I had been studying at the University of Windsor, a four-year school in my hometown of Windsor, Ontario. I wanted to continue my studies at San Diego State University but was not allowed to transfer because I hadn’t attended high school in California. SDSU administrators suggested I try the state’s community college system, which seemed a step down from what I had in mind. But eventually, I put two children through San Diego State. They’re now working in productive careers, a tax burden to no one. No legislation rewards parents for that achievement or for coming to the United States with proper documents.

Cedillo’s law, by contrast, rewards those who came to California illegally. Will the law, therefore, encourage more people to enter the state illegally, as Donnelly and other critics assert?

(IN FACT THERE ARE MORE THAN 11 MILLION ILLEGALS IN SOUTHERN CA ALONE! NOW NEARLY 40% OF CA ARE ILLEGALS, 33% OF NEVADA AND 24% OF COLORADO. MOST  NON LA RAZA PROPAGANDA SOURCES BUT THE NUMBER OF ILLEGALS AT 40 MILLION AND BREEDING LIKE BUNNIES!)

Recall how Congress passed and President Ronald Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which gave amnesty to several million undocumented immigrants. A quarter of a century later, the number of illegal immigrants stands at 11.5 million. It seems clear that the 1986 act didn’t discourage foreign nationals from entering the United States without signing the guest book. One of those who obtained citizenship under the Act was Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa, who made his way through UC Berkeley and Harvard Medical School and is now associate professor of neurosurgery and oncology at the Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center in Baltimore. Quinones-Hinojosa and others who have spoken out in support of the DREAM Act often give the impression that their cases are typical of illegal aliens. Not exactly. Amnesty measures, however well-intentioned, usually bring unintended consequences.

THE REALITY OF LA RAZA’S LOOTING OF CA:

Consider Ignacio Mesa Viera, subject of a recent front-page story in the Sacramento Bee. He came to the United States illegally in 1979 to work and help his family, as he explained, but was convicted on a drug offense in 1995. He was deported but returned to the United States, whereupon he was busted for another drug offense in 2008. Before his recent deportation, the U.S. government was paying for Viera’s kidney dialysis, a treatment that can cost more than $60,000 a year. “I imagine that the reason they don’t want to let me stay in this country,” Viera told the Bee, “is they don’t want to be paying for this.”

Cedillo and his colleagues need to know that everybody’s taxes pay for services they and their children “cannot get”—including kidney dialysis and other expensive medical treatments courtesy of the federal government. Meantime, as a University of California report noted last year, tens of thousands of middle-class, taxpaying legal residents are being squeezed out of an affordable college education even as the legislature contrives to provide scholarships for the children of illegal aliens. The lawmakers’ solution is to create yet another entitlement in the form of a new $1 billion scholarship program for students whose families earn less than $150,000 a year. Such is life in the Golden State, even with a DREAM Act in place.

Lloyd Billingsley is the author of Hollywood Party: How Communism Seduced the American Film Industry in the 1930s and 1940s and the former editorial director of the Pacific Research Institute.

*

*

OBAMA HAS PROMISED HIS LA RAZA “THE RACE” PARTY BASE of ILLEGALS AMNESTY, NO E-VERIFY, NO I.D. FOR REQUIRED OF ILLEGALS VOTING… OR AT LEAST CONTINUED NON-ENFORCEMENT!

OBAMA HANDS MASSIVE WELFARE TO ILLEGALS, ALONG WITH OUR JOBS TO BUY THE ILLEGALS' ILLEGAL VOTES!






The truth about the DREAM Act






Published March 20, 2012



| FoxNews.com



·Text Size



The DREAM Act has become a rallying cry for President Obama, members of his administration, and liberal Democrats everywhere. President Obama has vowed to “keep fighting for the DREAM Act,” which would grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.



It’s true when listeners or those polled don’t know the facts that the DREAM Act has some appeal. After all, we are all naturally sympathetic when children are involved.



But the descriptions of the DREAM Act voiced by President Obama and his cohorts are not accurate. And the consequences are never told.



DREAM Act supporters claim that only children would benefit from such a bill, but the facts tell another story. Under most DREAM Act proposals, amnesty would be given to individuals up to the age of 30—not exactly children. And some other proposals don’t even have an age limit.



These supporters also maintain that illegal immigrants can’t go college without the DREAM Act. But the truth is that illegal immigrants can already go to college in most states.



And ultimately, most versions of the DREAM Act actually don’t even force illegal immigrants to comply with all the requirements in the bill, such as going to college or joining the military. The administration can waive requirements because of “hardship”at its complete discretion.



DREAM Act proposals are also a magnet for fraud. Many illegal immigrants will fraudulently claim they came here as children or that they are under 30. And the federal government has no way to check whether their claims are true or not.



Such massive fraud occurred after the 1986 amnesty for illegal immigrants who claimed they were agricultural workers. Studies found two-thirds of all applications for the 1986 amnesty were fraudulent.



(ANYONE THAT THINKS THERE ARE ONLY 11 MILLION ILLEGALS IN OUR BORDERS SHOULD COME VISIT CA! LOOK AROUND AND TRY TO FIND A NON-HISPANIC ENGLISH SPEAKING LEGAL! CA IS NOW 40% ILLEGAL. NEVADA IS NOW 33% ILLEGAL. COLORADO IS NOW 20% ILLEGAL. AND LA RAZA IS NOW MOVING INTO THE AMERICAN SOUTH)



And this amnesty did nothing to stop illegal immigration. In 1986, there were about three million illegal immigrants living in the U.S. Today, there are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. and about seven million of them work here, unfairly taking jobs from unemployed Americans.



While DREAM Act supporters claim that it would only benefit children, they skip over the fact that it actually rewards the very illegal immigrant parents who knowingly violated our laws. Once their children become U.S. citizens, they can petition for their illegal immigrant parents and adult siblings to be legalized, who will then bring in others in an endless chain.



This kind of chain migration only encourages more illegal immigration, as parents will bring their children to the U.S. in hopes of receiving citizenship.



President Obama tried to get the DREAM Act passed during a lame duck session about a year ago but it faced bipartisan opposition in Congress. This hasn’t stopped the administration from passing its agenda. The Obama administration does everything it can to let illegal immigrants stay here, which compounds the problem.



Political appointees at the Department of Homeland Security recently issued new deportation guidelines that amount to backdoor amnesty and strike another blow at millions of unemployed U.S. workers.



Under the administration’s new deportation policy, DHS officials review all incoming and most pending cases before an immigration court to determine if the illegal immigrant can remain in the U.S. Since the administration has made clear that many illegal immigrants are not considered priorities for removal, including potential DREAM Act beneficiaries, this could open the door to allow millions of illegal immigrants to live and work in the U.S. without a vote of Congress.



The Obama administration has also cut worksite enforcement efforts by 70%, allowing illegal immigrants to continue working in jobs that rightfully belong to citizens and legal workers. And the list goes on and on – this administration has a pattern of ignoring the laws and intent of Congress.



The United States is based on the rule of law but the Obama administration already has dirty hands by abusing administrative authority to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. The DREAM Act doesn’t stop illegal immigration—it only encourages more of it by rewarding lawbreakers.



Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) is Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee









The Obama administration has also cut worksite enforcement efforts by 70%, allowing illegal immigrants to continue working in jobs that rightfully belong to citizens and legal workers.



THE ENTIRE REASON THE BORDERS ARE LEFT OPEN IS TO CUT WAGES!



"We could cut unemployment in half simply by reclaiming the jobs taken by illegal workers," said Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, co-chairman of the Reclaim American Jobs Caucus. "President Obama is on the wrong side of the American people on immigration. The president should support policies that help citizens and legal immigrants find the jobs they need and deserve rather than fail to enforce immigration laws."