Immigration Reform

Apr 192015

by Daniel Greenfield — April 17, 2015 

“This is a place of inspiring memories. Here less than a thousand men, inspired by the urge of freedom, defeated a superior force intrenched in this strategic position,” President Herbert Hoover said.

“This small band of patriots turned back a dangerous invasion.”

But no matter how often dangerous invasions are defeated, they come again.

Monument to the Battle of Kings Mountain

Monument to the Battle of Kings Mountain

The thousand men that Hoover spoke of gained their victory at the Battle of Kings Mountain. The Spartan Regiment that fought there when, as Theodore Roosevelt wrote, “All the Southern lands lay at the feet of the conquerors” and “There was not a single organized body of American troops left” gave their name to Spartanburg, South Carolina.

And now, Spartanburg faces a dangerous invasion with only a handful of patriots inspired by the urge of freedom to stand against it.

The invasion is a silent and secret one. The soldiers come as refugees funneled through ratlines run by liberal churches and other pseudo-religious organizations. Tens of thousands of Muslim migrants come from conflict zones to small towns and cities across the country just like Spartanburg each year.

Muslim invasion taking place under Obama's watch and by his order.

Muslim invasion taking place under Obama’s watch and by his order.

But Spartanburg’s fighting spirit is still alive and Congressman Trey Gowdy, who represents the Spartanburg area, has challenged a plan to dump migrants, including possibly Syrians, there, inquiring whether they have criminal records and what background checks have been performed on them.

According to Thomas Jefferson, the Battle of Kings Mountain turned the tide in the Revolutionary War. Likewise the shot fired at Spartanburg may have great implications for the rest of the country. The invasion of Spartanburg is really an invasion of America through the Refugee Resettlement Program.

Most Americans know very little about the machinery of migration. They only notice that something is happening when their towns begin to change and their way of life begins to come apart. When they do think about immigration, their impression is of a massive howitzer cannon firing off new arrivals into major cities. Refugee resettlement however is more of a sniper rifle targeting places like Spartanburg with a limited number of arrivals that then begin to dramatically transform their host area through community organizations, localized welfare and the chain migration of families.

And then before you know it, what used to be Cedar-Riverside on the Mississippi is Little Mogadishu and what was Wilmar on the Great Northern Railway is Little Mogadishu and what was Lewiston of the mills is also another Little Mogadishu. And then eventually America becomes one big Mogadishu.

In 1980, Jimmy Carter signed Ted Kennedy’s Refugee Act into law. The Refugee Act used the UN definition of refugee while allowing up to 50,000 refugees to be admitted each year. The number has since increased with 70,000 refugees admitted last year alone. The ceiling for the number of refugees is determined each year. And that determination has a significant impact on the lives of Americans.

Refugee resettlement has long since become a machine bringing together an army of bureaucrats from a number of different offices with religious contractors who act as Volags, short for Voluntary Agencies, providing a pious justification for the colonization of the country while they gorge on taxpayer funds.

The list of Volags includes the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society and the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, but the refugees are rarely of their faith.

The number one language spoken by refugees admitted to the United States last year is Arabic. The third most common language is Somali.

Almost twice as many Somalis as Spanish-speakers were admitted as refugees last year. Minnesota alone has suffered under the weight of over 10,000 Somalis over the last decade. And the number of Somalis more than tripled under Obama, flooding communities and devastating entire areas of the country.

Obama has been silently bringing in thousands of undocumented Muslims into American cities and towns since he first came into office in 2009.

Obama has been silently bringing in thousands of undocumented Muslims into American cities and towns since he first came into office in 2009.

The number of Arabic speakers also drastically increased, going from under 10,000 to nearly 18,000. We took in four Arabic speaking refugees for every Spanish-speaking refugee.

While it might be nice to imagine that persecuted Christians or Yazidis are being taken in from Syria, the vast majority of refugees are Sunni Muslims, the same sect that birthed Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS.

In one month, we took in 437 Sunni Muslims from Syria, 1 Catholic, 47 Christians and 1 Yazidi.

The Volags may invoke the Bible in defense of refugee resettlement, but they are invoking it in the service of the Koran. Whether a cross or a star dangles on the door, inside is the dark crescent of Islam.

Unlike most other forms of immigration, refugee resettlement is the most dangerous and the least likely to be questioned. Its tactic of dumping migrants into communities, which are swiftly forced to adapt to demands for interpreters, social services, welfare and violence, is clothed in the pious garb of religion.

While the government gives religious groups money, they give it moral shielding, and the local people lose their rights, their homes, their money and sometimes their lives. But the attack on Spartanburg has brought attention to the practices of this secretive and deceptive program.

Congressman Gowdy’s letter is an important first step in casting light on its shadowy practices. While many Americans who have lost jobs, homes and loved ones to this terrible tide have come to despair, the lesson of Spartanburg remains with us. A handful of patriots prevailed in South Carolina against superior odds when the cause seemed abandoned and lost, when the armies that should have stood had broken and only a handful of rebels remained from what had once been a great cause.

America was built by handfuls of patriots doing their part in the right place at the right time. We remember the pivotal movements, but we often forget the length of the road to their victories.

All the statistics and information in this article came from one site, Ann Corcoran’s Refugee Resettlement Watch.

On July 1st, 2007, Ann debuted her first post, a fact sheet on Refugee Resettlement. Ten days later, she recorded 200 views and commented that, “If the mainstream media won’t touch this issue, won’t investigate it or debate it, guess we will be going around them directly to you.”

American.Muslim.girlToday Ann continues to drive the debate in directions the media doesn’t want. Her work has reached Gowdy’s attention and it has armed thousands of citizen activists with the information that they need to protect their homes, their communities and their country. She is an example of how we can all make a difference by tackling individual issues overlooked by many with thoroughness, clarity and depth.

“It was a little army and a little battle, but it was of mighty portent,” Hoover said of the Spartan Regiment and the Battle of Kings Mountain.

Even if we do not form great armies and fight great battles, we can all be little armies fighting little battles and it may be that we shall one day learn that these little battles were of mighty portent.

America faces battles on many fronts. The greatest of these is the battle for our identity. We fight for our right to be who we are. Who we always were. The mass migration is not immigration, it is colonization. Its goal is to destroy the American system by destroying the American spirit.

When we fight even the little battles for our way of life, we keep that spirit, the spirit of the Spartan Regiment, the spirit of Spartanburg, alive.


via An Invasion of Refugees.

Feb 162015

By Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times – Thursday, February 12, 2015

President Obama’s temporary deportation amnesty will make it easier for illegal immigrants to improperly register and vote in elections, state elections officials testified to Congress on Thursday, saying that the driver’s licenses and Social Security numbers they will be granted create a major voting loophole.

Voting booths soon to be defiled by illegal voters.

Voting booths soon to be defiled by illegal voters.

While stressing that it remains illegal for noncitizens to vote, secretaries of state from Ohio and Kansas said they won’t have the tools to sniff out illegal immigrants who register anyway, ignoring stiff penalties to fill out the registration forms that are easily available at shopping malls, motor vehicle bureaus and in curbside registration drives.

Anyone registering to vote attests that he or she is a citizen, but Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted said mass registration drives often aren’t able to give due attention to that part, and so illegal immigrants will still get through.

John Husted - Ohio Secretary of State

John Husted – Ohio Secretary of State

Kansas Secretary of State Kris W. Kobach said even some motor vehicle bureau workers automatically ask customers if they want to register to vote, which some noncitizens in the past have cited as their reason for breaking the law to register.

“It’s a guarantee it will happen,” Mr. Kobach said.

Democrats disputed that it was an issue at all, saying Mr. Obama’s new policy, which could apply to more than 4 million illegal immigrants, doesn’t change anything in state or federal law.

Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia’s nonvoting member of Congress, accused Republicans of an effort at voter suppression.

“The president’s executive order gives immigrants the right to stay — immigrants who have been here for years, immigrants who have been working hard and whose labor we have needed,” Ms. Norton said. “The Republicans may want to go down in history as the party who tried once again 100 years later to nullify the right to vote. Well, I am here to say they shall not succeed.”



Rep. Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Democrat, said he doubted illegal immigrants would risk running afoul of the law — which could get them deported — just to be an insignificant part of an election.

The hearing was the latest GOP effort to dent Mr. Obama’s executive action, announced in November, which grants tentative legal status and work permits to as many as 4 million illegal immigrant parents whose children are either U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. The president also expanded a 2012 policy for so-called Dreamers, or illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, granting them tentative legal status and work permits as well.

Republicans say there are a host of unintended consequences, including the chances of illegal voting, a perverse incentive created by Obamacare that would make newly legalized workers more attractive to some businesses than American workers and complications with the tax code.

voter-fraud-illegal-aliens-for-obamaThe newly legalized workers can apply for back refunds from the IRS even for years when they didn’t file their taxes, agency Commissioner John Koskinen told Congress on Wednesday.

Mr. Koskinen said the White House never spoke with him about potential consequences before Mr. Obama announced his policy changes. The secretaries of state who testified to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on Thursday said they too never heard from Mr. Obama ahead of time.

Mr. Husted has written the Obama administration asking for help in identifying the name and date of birth of all noncitizens who get Social Security numbers, which he said would allow states to go back and clear illegally registered voters from their rolls.

He said the administration hasn’t responded.

“Why I wrote the letter is I want to comply with federal law,” he said.

Matthew Dunlap, Maine’s secretary of state, said he believed the laws already on the books are good enough to stop any voting mischief in his state, and he doubted illegal immigrants had incentive or intent to try to interfere with U.S. elections.

“My experience is they don’t come here to vote, and they don’t come here to drive. They come here for a better life,” he said.

Mr. Kobach countered with a story about a legal permanent resident who had not yet become a citizen but who registered and voted nonetheless, and who said she wanted to support candidates who would help her earn citizenship faster.

Only four states require proof of citizenship before someone registers to vote, Mr. Kobach said. And even in those states, the federal government offers voter registration cards that don’t require proof of citizenship, giving determined illegal immigrants a way to circumvent checks.

[Watch Obama in the video below lying through his teeth about his true agenda and telling us that he would not do any of the very things he has done and continues to do to this day.]



via Obama amnesty creates loophole for illegal immigrants to register, vote in elections – Washington Times.

Dec 052014

by Genevieve Wood — December 04, 2014

Incentives matter.

Nine-month-old Kevin Isaac. His mother Mirian Villalobos, is an illegal immigrant from Honduras. (Photo: Michael Ainsworth/Dallas Morning News/MCT)

Nine-month-old Kevin Isaac. His mother Mirian Villalobos, is an illegal immigrant from Honduras. (Photo: Michael Ainsworth/Dallas Morning News/MCT)

Human experience and common sense tells us you get more of the behavior you reward – and there has been no better case study of that on a policy level than the issue of illegal immigration.

That is why any serious immigration reform considered in the next Congress should revisit the concept of birthright citizenship (namely that all children born on U.S. soil are citizens, regardless of their parents’ status), or what is sometimes referred to as the “anchor baby” issue.

Congress should do so for primarily the following reasons:

  • It incentivizes illegal immigrants to have children on U.S. soil in hopes it will allow them, the parents, to gain legal status.
  • It fuels chain migration, the process whereby one legal family member, once 21 years of age, is able to apply to bring in parents, siblings and in-laws.  At the age of 18, one is able to apply to bring in a spouse and any unmarried children.
  • It is costly to the U.S. taxpayer.  While illegal immigrants themselves do not qualify for welfare, they can obtain Medicaid and food stamps on behalf of their U.S.-born children. Findings in one study show that “nationwide, 40 percent of illegal alien-headed households receive some type of welfare.”
  • And last but not least, birthright citizenship, as currently understood, is arguably unconstitutional.

According to NumbersUSA, citizenship is given to “an estimated minimum 400,000 babies each year who don’t have even one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent legal immigrant.”


Simply having a baby in the U.S. doesn’t mean the parents, if here illegally, will be allowed to stay – they and the child can still be deported and the child can then apply to re-enter the U.S. when he/she reaches 21 years of age.  But there’s no question that an illegal immigrant who has a U.S.-born child has a better chance than others of getting an immigration court or judge to grant him some sort of legal status or delay in deportation.

And when it comes to increasing immigration numbers in the U.S., findings from a report by the Center for Immigration Studies in 2010 show chain migration is the main driver:

Of the 1,130,818 immigrants who were granted legal permanent residency in 2009, a total of 747,413 (or, 66.1 percent) were family-sponsored immigrants. A change to U.S. immigration laws in the late 1950s — one that allowed for the admission of extended family members outside the nuclear family — resulted in the average annual flow increasing from 250,000 then, to over 1 million today.

For America’s first 100-plus years, the idea that just because someone was born on U.S. soil made them a U.S. citizen was disavowed.  But a end anchor babiesSupreme Court decision in 1898 (yes, there was judicial activism back then, too) that broadly and wrongly interpreted the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause changed all that.

The original intent of the Citizenship Clause was to ensure former slaves were given citizenship status.  It was never intended to give such status to children born here because their parents were living here as foreign ambassadors, diplomats or consuls, or simply because their non-citizen parent(s) had a baby while visiting or residing, legal or otherwise, in the U.S.

Heritage Foundation legal scholar Hans von Spakovsky puts it this way:

It is just plain wrong to claim that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students or tourists are automatically U.S. citizens. They do not meet the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional allegiance obligations. They are, in fact, subject to the political jurisdiction (and allegiance) of the country of their parents. The same applies to the children of illegal aliens because children born in the United States to foreign citizens are citizens of their parents’ home country.

I rarely suggest America follow international trends, but this is one area where we could take a cue from others around the world. A recent study of 194 countries shows that only 30 grant a form of birthright citizenship.  No European countries allow it – the United Kingdom ended the practice in 1983 and Ireland in 2004. Among advanced economies, the U.S. and Canada are the only two countries that still allow it.

Congress is empowered via the Constitution to determine our country’s naturalization laws and should put an end to “birthright” citizenship.


via Not All Kids Born in the US Should Be Made Citizens.

Nov 282014

by Victor Davis Hanson — Nov 27, 2014

Obama said he had to move now because of a dawdling Congress.




He forgot to mention that there were Democratic majorities in Congress in 2009 and 2010, yet he did nothing, in fear of punishment at the polls.

Nor did Obama push amnesty in 2011 or 2012, afraid of hurting his own re-election chances.

Worries over sabotaging Democratic chances in the 2014 midterms explain his inaction from 2012 until now. He certainly wouldn’t have waited until 2015 to act, because Republicans will then control Congress.

Given that he has no more elections and can claim no lasting achievements, Obama now sees amnesty as his last desperate chance at establishing some sort of legacy.

Obama cited empathy for undocumented immigrants. But he expressed no such worry about the hundreds of thousands of applicants who wait for years in line rather than simply illegally cross the border.

Any would-be immigrant would have been far wiser to have broken rather than abided by federal laws. Citizens who knowingly offer false information on federal affidavits or provide false Social Security numbers would not receive the sort of amnesties likely to be given to undocumented immigrants.

Obama has downplayed Americans’ worries about social costs and competition for jobs, but studies show illegal immigration has depressed the wages of entry-level American workers while making social services costly for states and burdensome for U.S. citizens.

Obama says he has the legal authority to rewrite immigration law without working with Congress. Yet on more than 20 occasions when it was politically inexpedient to grant amnesties, Obama insisted that he would not — or that such a move was prohibited by the Constitution.

Obama not long ago warned us about the dangers of granting amnesties by fiat. “The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States,” he said. On another occasion, he lamented, “Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. … But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”



By setting aside settled immigration policy and ignoring statutes he finds inconvenient, Obama has set a new precedent that a president can arbitrarily declare what is valid and what is not valid immigration law. Should his successors make up their own versions of any federal statutes they choose, in areas ranging from abortion and gun control to drug enforcement and environmental protection?

Obama claims he has the legal authority to grant amnesty because Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush did it. But again, Obama predictably misleads. Both of those presidents worked with Congress to ensure that new immigration legislation would not split apart families. The amnesties they granted were in accordance with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and had only a fraction of the impact that Obama’s executive order would have.

More importantly, even those congressionally sanctioned and narrow amnesties were largely seen as failures. Past non-enforcement of immigration law helped lead to the explosion in illegal immigration of recent years.

Obama says Congress is stalling. But his characterization of congressional inaction simply means that the Congress does not wish to pass Obama’s version of immigration reform. In 2015, if the Republican Congress submits an immigration bill to Obama, he will likely veto it. Would he then term his own opposition “obstructionism”?

Obama has claimed that under his administration, deportations have increased. That, too, is untrue.

The fraudulent statistics used to make this claim redefine how deportation is measured — in much the same manner that other federal statistics like unemployment rates and GDP growth were recalibrated for partisan purposes. Under Obama, Mexican citizens who are apprehended after crossing the border and returned to Mexico are classified as having been deported.



Obama carefully omitted key details about qualifications for amnesty. He cited a criminal background check, but does that mean immigrants convicted of crimes such as driving under the influence or other serious misdemeanors will be deported? What about filing false federal affidavits or Social Security numbers — crimes that are usually felonies?

The president suggested that all undocumented immigrants are here to work. Most are. But recent statistics still suggest that almost 40 percent of undocumented immigrants rely on some sort of state or federal welfare assistance.

Obama will immediately reward millions of undocumented immigrants with exemption from immigration law. But does that mean those who do not qualify — those who committed felonies or serious misdemeanors, who have no sustained record of work, or who have been in the United States for only a year or two — will now face deportation that is as rapidly applied as amnesty?

Because Obama has serially misled the American people on key issues such as Obamacare, the Benghazi attacks and his own prior constitutional inability to grant amnesty, there is no reason to believe him on the details of his new immigration move. Assume instead that Obama sees his executive order simply as a first step in a continual unilateral effort to dismantle immigration law that he finds incompatible with his own larger agenda.

For Obama, federal law is inconvenient — and therefore irrelevant.


via An inconvenient law | John Hawkins’ Right Wing News.

Nov 282014

by Noah Rothman — November 26, 2014 

As Allahpundit observed on Tuesday, congressional Republicans agree that Barack Obama’s executive actions involving the extension of legal status to millions of illegal immigrants have to be fought.

Emperor Obama announces his illegal executive action on immigration

Emperor Obama announces his illegal executive action on immigration

The GOP is, however, split on what methods would be the most effective in blunting or even reversing Obama’s actions.

Congress’s more conservative elements believe that a series of symbolic measures should be used in conjunction with more operationally focused tactics. Some, like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), have suggested that Congress should not invite Obama to Congress for his annual State of the Union Address and that no presidential nominee should be confirmed until these orders are stricken.

Others believe that more practical measures should be taken, and those who support his approach have largely settled on a plan that would use a continuing budget resolution in combination with an omnibus spending bill to fund the government with the exception of Obama’s immigration enforcement measures. Allahpundit noted that the GOP is calling the plan “CROmnibus.”

Ted Cruz wants to hold up Obama nominees, among other things, in response to Obama's illegal amnesty action

Ted Cruz wants to hold up Obama nominees, among other things, in response to Obama’s illegal amnesty action

Some like top House appropriator Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY) have claimed that the GOP does not have the authority to de-fund the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency. “The agency has the ability to continue to collect and use fees to continue current operations, and to expand operations as under a new Executive Order, without needing legislative approval by the Appropriations Committee or the Congress, even under a continuing resolution or a government shutdown,” read a House Appropriations Committee statement.

On Wednesday, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) told Breitbart that a report via the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service contends that Rogers is incorrect. The CRS indicated that Congress can deny funds to the immigration enforcement agency despite the fact that it operates primarily on revenues collected through the imposition of fees.

A fee-funded agency or activity typically refers to one in which the amounts appropriated by Congress for that agency or activity are derived from fees collected from some external source. Importantly, amounts received as fees by federal agencies must still be appropriated by Congress to that agency in order to be available for obligation or expenditure by the agency. In some cases, this appropriation is provided through the annual appropriations process. In other instances, it is an appropriation that has been enacted independently of the annual appropriations process (such as a permanent appropriation in an authorizing act). In either case, the funds available to the agency through fee collections would be subject to the same potential restrictions imposed by Congress on the use of its appropriations as any other type of appropriated funds.

According to The Huffington Post’s Igor Bobic, this strategy would be the safest political course for the GOP. “Funding for that agency would then be contingent on the president’s willingness to rescind his executive action shielding millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation,” he wrote. “Under such a plan, Republicans would avoid a costly government shutdown fight and still offer eager conservatives a viable way to counter the president.”

Nov 222014

by Matthew Vadum — November 21, 2014

Ignoring the brutal, historic slap-down angry American voters gave his party this month, President Obama unveiled plans for a unilaterally imposed amnesty that will shield an estimated 5 million illegal aliens from deportation.

President Obama Delivers Remarks On Executive Action Immigration Reform


Whether Republicans, now in possession of a thunderous mandate to fight Obama tooth and nail, will fight this despotic usurpation of the lawmaking powers of Congress remains to be seen.

Obama doesn’t care. He is pressing on, hoping to fill America with millions of new Democrat voters. And he’s going to kill American jobs in the process.

“We expect people who live in this country to play by the rules,” said the president. The address from the White House came yesterday, which just so happened to be Revolution Day (also known as Civil War Day) in Mexico.

“We expect those who cut the line will not be unfairly rewarded,” the president continued. Yet Obama went on to propose just such a reward in the form of a special “deal” for unlawful immigrants:

So we’re going to offer the following deal: If you’ve with been in America more than five years. If you have children who are American citizens or illegal residents. If you register, pass a criminal background check and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes, you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily without fear of deportation. You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law. That’s what this deal is.

Strangely, Obama, who routinely flouts the Constitution, still acknowledges some limits to his power. The deal, he said, does not apply to recently arrived illegal aliens or illegals who have yet to sneak into the country.

“It does not grant citizenship or the right to stay here permanently, or offer the same benefits that citizens receive,” Obama said. “Only Congress can do that. All we’re saying is we’re not going to deport you.”



Whether the benefits illegal aliens receive are as generous as benefits that citizens receive is beside the point. Illegal aliens are already eligible for extensive benefits from the government and Obama is a big believer in getting poor people addicted to welfare. No serious person believes illegals won’t have access to social programs.

In the address Obama played semantic games. What he’s doing is not an amnesty, he said:

Amnesty is the immigration system we have today. Millions of people who live here without paying their taxes or playing by the rules, while politicians use the issue to scare people and whip up votes at election time. That’s the real amnesty, leaving this broken system the way it is. Mass amnesty would be unfair.

The former part-time adjunct constitutional law lecturer has it wrong. A failure to enforce a law isn’t tantamount to amnesty. Amnesty is an official governmental act of forgiveness that excuses a violation of the law. Being in a state of legal limbo in which law enforcement hasn’t yet called your number isn’t the same as amnesty.

Nor is the immigration system broken, at least not in the way Obama means.

When progressives say the system is broken, they mean it is functioning in a less than optimal manner, failing to capture every single prospective illegal alien available to wade across the Rio Grande or walk across the nation’s largely undefended border with Mexico. To them, immigration policy is a taxpayer-subsidized get-out-the-vote scheme for Democrats and the best reform they could imagine would be to abolish America’s borders altogether. Obama’s new amnesty plan is a step in this direction.

It is also a profoundly cynical move that rewards lawbreaking and begets future immigration amnesties. It will spell electoral death for the Republican Party in coming years because Latinos, who are believed to comprise the bulk of the illegals, have traditionally shown a strong preference for the Democratic Party and its left-of-center public policies. The amnesty for 5 million illegals is likely just the beginning. The government recently issued a procurement order seeking a contractor to make as many as 34 million immigration documents over the coming five years.

During his address, Obama quoted the Book of Exodus, saying:

Scripture tells us that we shall not oppress a stranger, for we know the heart of a stranger — we were strangers once, too. My fellow Americans, we are and always will be a nation of immigrants. We were strangers once, too.

But the immigrants in question are not the legal immigrants of the past who followed the rules when they came to this country. They are invaders who broke the law and who continue to break the law by being here. America is not, nor has it ever been, a nation of illegal immigrants.

To qualify for relief from deportation, individuals will have to register with the government, pass criminal and national security background checks, pay their taxes, and pay a processing fee, according to a White House handout. Applications can’t be filed until early next year.

Parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents as of the date of the announcement are eligible, provided that they are not “enforcement priorities” and have been present in the U.S. since Jan. 1, 2010. Also eligible are individuals who arrived in this country before Jan. 1, 2010 and before turning 16 years old, regardless of how old they are now. Processing times for certain categories of green card applicants will be accelerated. Recent arrivals who entered the country after Jan. 1 of this year will not be eligible to apply.

Obama lapdogs were ecstatic about the planned amnesty.

Echoing Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) who absurdly compared Obama’s executive order to the Emancipation Proclamation, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) asked, “Does the public know that the Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order?”


Except that the Emancipation Proclamation freed categories of slaves, innocent people victimized by an abhorrent institution, not illegal aliens who took it upon themselves to invade the country and abuse the goodwill of Americans. The only thing the two executive orders have in common is that a president signed them.

Republicans are deeply split on the amnesty issue so anyone expecting Republican lawmakers to give Obama a well-deserved rhetorical mauling two weeks after the GOP crushed Democrats in midterm elections will be disappointed in coming days. That’s not what the emasculated party of Lincoln does because it is terrified of being called racist for opposing the nation’s first (half) black president.

Despite running a virtually content-free campaign, on Nov. 4 the GOP flipped control of the 100-seat U.S. Senate, winning at least 53 seats as of this writing. The House GOP increased its majority, winning at least 244 out of 435 seats. In the new year Republicans will control at least 31 state governors’ mansions and at least 68 of the 99 state legislative chambers across the country (Nebraska’s legislature has only one chamber). In at least 23 states Republicans will control the governorship and both houses of the state legislature. Democrats can make the same claim about only 7 states.

The election was arguably, depending on the psephological metrics used, the worst showing for the Democratic Party in its history.

Despite the newly enfeebled status of the Democrats, the House GOP’s response was predictably weak. Instead of righteously inveighing against the grave threat that Obama’s actions pose to the republic, on Twitter the official House Republican feed meekly exhorted the president to cooperate with them.

“We need a real fix, not a quick fix. Let’s fix our broken immigration system together,” read one GOP tweet. Another said, “Mr. President, stop acting alone. Let’s work together.” Maybe the GOP’s communications professionals would like to roast some s’mores and sing Kumbaya with the president.

And Obama must be quaking in his jackboots. Even after six years of getting beaten to a pulp, constantly sucker-punched by the nation’s Alinskyite president, congressional Republicans still aren’t anywhere close to grasping what he really is. They continue to treat Obama as if he’s a legitimate, sincere president who actually wants to do what’s best for America. They foolishly believe Obama cares about his falling public approval numbers and his presidential legacy. They refuse to acknowledge that he is a radical revolutionary figure hellbent on destroying, or in his own words, fundamentally transforming, the U.S. They actually seem to think Obama is interested in negotiating with them to find policy solutions that benefit the country. Many elected GOPers appear not to have an inkling that embracing amnesty is the same as signing a death warrant for the Republican Party.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who supports amnesty in principle but is under intense pressure from conservative lawmakers, is trying to put down a rebellion in his own House GOP conference. Although Obama has previously protested that he is not a king or an emperor, “he’s sure acting like one,” Boehner, who may face a challenge to his speakership in January, said yesterday.

Jellyfish Boehner and Weasel McConnell

Jellyfish Boehner and Weasel McConnell

Incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was characteristically vague.

“If President Obama acts in defiance of the people and imposes his will on the country, Congress will act,” he said.

Retiring Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) told USA Today earlier this week that Obama’s amnesty could spark civil unrest. “The country’s going to go nuts, because they’re going to see it as a move outside the authority of the president, and it’s going to be a very serious situation.”

“You’re going to see — hopefully not — but you could see instances of anarchy … You could see violence,” Coburn said. Obama will be behaving like “an autocratic leader that’s going to disregard what the Constitution says and make law anyway.”

“Instead of having the rule of law handling in our country today, now we’re starting to have the rule of rulers, and that’s the total antithesis of what this country was founded on,” he said. “Here’s how people think: Well, if the law doesn’t apply to the president … then why should it apply to me?”

House Appropriations Committee chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) appears to have taken the wrong lesson from the electoral bloodbath this month that set Democrats back 150 years. Although voters delivered the message that they want Obama stopped, Rogers interprets the election as a mandate for surrender.  

Hal Rogers (R-Ky.)

Hal Rogers (R-Ky.)

“I believe a major consequence of this election is a loud and clear mandate from the American people for Washington to stop the gridlock, work together across ideological lines and start producing real accomplishments on their behalf,” Rogers wrote in an op-ed.

Rogers wants Congress to pass a long-term funding bill called an omnibus appropriations bill before the government’s authority to spend money expires on Dec. 11. It would keep the government operating for the rest of the federal fiscal year which runs to Sept. 30, 2015.

There will be “an extraordinary amount of work to do when the new Congress convenes in January … but there simply won’t be the political bandwidth available to address these pressing issues if Congress is bogged down in old battles and protracted to-do lists.”

Some Republicans have proposed defunding the parts of the government that would process amnesty-related paperwork.

Separately, Rogers has made the absurd suggestion that Congress approve a big, all-encompassing spending bill now and then rescind amnesty-relating funding next year. Rescissions happen but they’re relatively rare. Why bother giving Obama a green light to proceed with the amnesty now in the hope of slamming on the brakes in the new year?

The real problem with enacting an omnibus spending bill, according to Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, is that such a funding measure “would enable Obama to complete his lawless amnesty scheme.”

Rogers insists that the amnesty cannot be stopped through the appropriations process.

It would be “impossible to defund President Obama’s executive order through a government spending bill,” House Appropriations Committee spokeswoman Jennifer Hing said yesterday, explaining that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is funded by user fees.

It is a facile, easily disproved argument. USCIS, an agency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is part of the federal government. It was created by Congress and Congress can do anything it wants to it. It can give it money, take money away from it, give it a spanking, or order it to stand on one leg and bark like a dog.

In a development overshadowed by the unveiling of the amnesty, DHS announced yesterday that it will grant “temporary protected status” to up to 8,000 people from the Ebola-afflicted African countries of Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone. These visitors may apply for work permits for 18 months. Unlike ordinary recipients of temporary protected status, these Ebola refugees will not be allowed to travel to their home countries and then return to the U.S., in order to prevent the spread of Ebola.

Or so the story goes. If Obama can find a way to let them stay in the U.S., he’ll do it.

via To Amnesty 5 Million | FrontPage Magazine.

Nov 192014

by Michelle Malkin — Nov 19, 2014

President Obama is poised to show his “compassion” this week by granting work cards to an estimated five million illegal immigrants through an imperial executive order.



As for the vast, untold number of law-abiding citizens whose identities have been stolen by foreign law-breakers, two words: Tough luck.

Social Security card fraudsters have made out like bandits thanks to the White House. Their victims are about to get kicked in the teeth again.

Two years ago, when Obama launched his first administrative amnesty known as “DACA” (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), the White House gave aid and comfort to illegal alien applicants who were concerned that their previous felony identity theft and fraud crimes would preclude them from the new non-deportation benefits. The Department of Homeland (In)security made clear that illegal workers who wanted coveted employment documents would not have to disclose to the feds whether they used stolen Social Security numbers.

See Obama’s facebook invitation to watch the immigration anonouncement….

Center for Immigration Studies analyst Jon Feere reported at the time that ethnic lobbyists and open-borders businesses lobbied the Obama administration hard “to keep American victims of ID theft in the dark while shielding unscrupulous businesses from enforcement.” As an Obama official told The New York Times, DHS employees are “not interested in using this as a way to identify one-off cases where some individual may have violated some federal law in an employment relationship.”

Translation: See no identity theft. Hear no identity theft. Speak no identity theft.

A high-profile immigration attorney crowed: “Good news for deferred action applicants: If you used a false Social Security card, you need not reveal the number on your deferred action application forms. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has clarified that when the forms ask for an applicant’s Social Security number, it refers to Social Security numbers issued to the applicant. If you used a friend’s number, a made-up number or a stolen number, you should answer N/A for ‘not applicable’ where it asks for the number.”


Since then, more than 500,000 DACA applications have been approved with abysmal oversight, little public disclosure and total absolution for identity rip-off artists. The latest planned administrative amnesty will dwarf that ongoing fiasco.

Victimless crimes? Tell that to those who have been harmed by the estimated 75 percent of working-age illegal aliens who have fraudulently used Social Security cards to obtain employment. Tell it to victims in border states with the highest percentages of illegal aliens, where job-related identity theft is rampant.


via A White House Mass Pardon for Identity Thieves – Michelle Malkin – Page 1.

Nov 172014

By Bruce McQuain — November 17, 2014

In his 2006 book, “The Audacity of Hope”,  then Senator Barack Obama laid out the argument against illegal immigration:


“[T]here’s no denying that many blacks share the same anxieties as many whites about the wave of illegal immigration flooding our Southern border—a sense that what’s happening now is fundamentally different from what has gone on before.”

”Not all these fears are irrational,” he wrote.

“The number of immigrants added to the labor force every year is of a magnitude not seen in this country for over a century,” Obama noted. “If this huge influx of mostly low-skill workers provides some benefits to the economy as a whole—especially by keeping our workforce young, in contrast to an increasingly geriatric Europe and Japan—it also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and put strains on an already overburdened safety net.”


So why is he now contemplating doing, in a down economy with high unemployment and high deficits (and stretched welfare system), exactly what he previously claimed was harmful to America and its workers?  Has he somehow “evolved” in his thinking to a belief that his logically sound 2006 argument is now poppycock?  That somehow flooding the US with immigrant workers will somehow keep wages up and not put a strain on the “already overburdened safety net?”  It seems pretty counterintuitive, doesn’t it?

But then, let us not forget that this is the guy who condemned George W. Bush for his use of executive orders and executive overreach and promised not to do it if he were elected to the presidency:

“I taught constitutional law for ten years. I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that were facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.”

Of course, he hasn’t “reverse[d]” it, has he?  And past public polls have shown an overwhelming majority of Americans don’t support the use of executive orders to circumvent Congress (and let us not forget that he had an overwhelming Democratic majority for his first two years in office and essentially ignored the immigration issue).

Ross Douthat summarizes:

So there is no public will at work here. There is only the will to power of this White House.

Which is why the thinking liberal’s move, if this action goes forward, will be to invoke structural forces, flaws inherent in our constitutional order, to justify Obama’s unilateralism. This won’t be a completely fallacious argument: Presidential systems like ours have a long record, especially in Latin America, of producing standoffs between executive and legislative branches, which tends to make executive power grabs more likely. In the United States this tendency has been less dangerous — our imperial presidency has grown on us gradually; the worst overreaches have often been rolled back. But we do seem to be in an era whose various forces — our open-ended post-9/11 wars, the ideological uniformity of the parties — are making a kind of creeping caudillismo more likely.

But if that evil must come, woe to the president who chooses it. And make no mistake, the president is free to choose. No immediate crisis forces his hand; no doom awaits the country if he waits. He once campaigned on constitutionalism and executive restraint; he once abjured exactly this power. There is still time for him to respect the limits of his office, the lines of authority established by the Constitution, the outcome of the last election.

Or he can choose the power grab, and the accompanying disgrace.

And there’s little doubt, he will choose the latter and further add to his reputation as someone who has no political integrity at all.


via Immigration: Obama set to do what he said in 2006 would hurt American blue collar workers « Hot Air.

Jun 252014

By Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa — June 24, 2014

Shocking, hidden agenda behind border crisis. Top Cold War defector explains devious reason for mass immigration


Illegal aliens at our borders — A covert strategy…

Editor’s note: One year ago today, WND Books released the historic book “Disinformation: Former Spy Chief Reveals Secret Strategies for Undermining Freedom, Attacking


Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa

Religion, and Promoting Terrorism,” by Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking intelligence official ever to defect from the Soviet bloc, with co-author Prof. Ronald Rychlak. The companion film documentary, “Disinformation: The Secret Strategy to Destroy the West,” recently won a prestigious Telly Award.

Virtually all of the 1,087 comments on a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed titled “Immigration Reform Can’t Wait,” by Rupert Murdoch, who owns that prestigious newspaper, disagreed with the article’s call for an immediate “path to citizenship” for our millions of illegal immigrants.

This disagreement is historically significant: America is beginning to see through the thick veil of disinformation designed to conceal the secret intelligence weapon of mass immigration under a mask of humanitarianism.

“This is not a humanitarian crisis,” stated the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers. “It is a predictable, orchestrated and contrived assault on the compassionate side of Americans.” Two congressmen avowed that the flooding of America’s Southern borders with illegal-alien children might derive from a secret strategy to transform the U.S. into a socialist state.

Do not take me wrong. I am a conservative who appreciates Fox News, I have often been published in the Wall Street Journal, and I am myself an immigrant – in fact, I paid with two death sentences (from my native Romania) for the privilege of becoming a citizen of this great country.

But in my other life, as one of the top members of the KGB’s intelligence community, I was involved in a super-secret operation tasked to switch the allegiance of Western Europe and Israel away from the United States and capitalism over to the Soviet bloc and socialism by flooding the Western world with various immigrants, while hiding this assault under the disinformation mask of “humanitarianism”.


Joseph Stalin

After I defected, I exposed that anti-American mass immigration offensive in a memo to President Carter – who wrote on it, “All new to me” – and in my book “Red Horizons,” whose motto was Gutta cavat lapidem, non vi sed saepe cadendo (A drop makes a hole in a stone not by force but by constant dripping). That was the KGB dictum suggesting how mass immigration would move Western Europe and Israel over to our side: drop by drop by drop. It would take time, but wherever you could not use a drill, that was the best way to make a hole.

Last year I exposed that old offensive again in “Disinformation,” a book I co-authored with Professor Ronald Rychlak, because Russia has now become a dictatorship of the KGB (renamed FSB). And just as with all the other disinformation campaigns past and present I reveal in that book, today mass immigration has become a weapon of the emotions used against the U.S. itself.

Here is the KGB’s mass-immigration disinformation scenario in a nutshell:
After Stalin died, his “immutable” theory of the world proletarian revolution was replaced with Khrushchev’s “parliamentary road to power”. Communist insurgencies were out. Mass immigrations – of Soviet bloc propagandists – were in. It worked. By the mid-1950s, some 30 million people in Western Europe were voting the Communist Party ticket. Communism had not been imposed on them by force, as it had been in Eastern Europe, but that was not the whole story. Our mass immigration plot, supported by the numerous émigré organizations we financed in the West, was so successful that we even started selling some of our own citizens to capitalist countries for hard currency.
West Germany became my personal target in 1956, when I was appointed chief of Romania’s espionage station in that country. My operational directive, written by KGB advisers, looked like a five-year plan for transforming West Germany into a socialist country by inundating it with immigrants of German origin. Moscow believed that a mass influx of immigrants from Soviet bloc countries would not only spread the miracles of socialism to West Germany, but it would also overwhelm its governmental bureaucracy, squeeze the country’s treasury, provoke economic chaos and sway the West Germans into voting the socialist ticket.

The KGB community was not able to change West Germany into a socialist country, but that was not for lack of trying. During the rest of my time in Romania, West Germany was inundated with immigrants from the Soviet bloc. Of course, the East German Stasi (secret police) enjoyed a unique advantage, but Romania followed in second place, for it had a large German minority.

In the late 1960s, the Romanian contribution to this immense flow of émigrés received a special boost when the Bonn government quietly let it be known it was prepared to pay Bucharest cash dollars for every Romanian of German heritage allowed to emigrate to West Germany.

According to a book published by a West German ambassador to Romania, who kept track of this human traffic, Bucharest had sold off 200,000 Volksdeutsche (ethnic Germans living outside of the Reich) up until 1989, when the Soviet bloc collapsed.[1] Some of the Volksdeutsche who emigrated to West Germany were intelligence agents who had been trained in planting the seed of anti-Americanism. The rest were just expected to popularize the cradle-to grave socialist concept of the welfare state. People everywhere love free lunches.

In the early 1970s, when West Germany opened its borders to Yugoslav émigrés needed as guest workers, Tito’s foreign intelligence service joined the fray. According to Silvo Gorenc, my Yugoslav counterpart, almost a million Yugoslav émigrés were sent to West Germany. In the mid-1970s, when West Germany started importing guest workers from Turkey as well, the Romanian espionage service began recruiting Romanians of Turkish origin (Romania had a large Turkish community) and dispatching them to West Germany – directly or via Turkey.

Here is not the place for me to describe the details of that gargantuan mass immigration endeavor. Let it suffice to say that the per-capita rate of immigration to Germany in the 1980s was substantially higher than that of the U.S., and that there are over 15 million people with immigrant background living in today’s Germany, whose population is 82 million. Just before I left Romania for good, the DIE (Romania’s foreign intelligence service, which I headed) received a letter signed by KGB chairman Yuri Andropov stating our immigration offensive on West Germany had played a substantial role in determining the government and the parliament of that country to adopt the policy of Ostpolitik (“an opening toward the East”).


West German Chancellor Willy Brandt, foreground left, meets his East German counterpart for the first time.

In April 1974 I had my last meeting with Willy Brandt, the chancellor who authored West Germany’s Ostpolitik. Brandt seemed distressed. He did not even raise his vaunted Ostpolitik with me, as he had usually done in the past. It was shortly after the arrest of Günther Guillaume as a Stasi illegal officer,[2] and Brandt could talk about nothing else.

Guillaume, one of the immigrants from East Germany, had risen to become a staunch member of West Germany’s socialist party, the SPD, [3] and a trusted adviser to Chancellor Brandt himself. Guillaume had been instrumental in persuading the socialist Brandt to repeal West Germany’s Hallstein Doctrine, adopted under the conservative Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, which had declared West Germany the exclusive representative of the entire German nation. Guillaume also influenced Brandt to sign an agreement with the Soviet Union officially recognizing East Germany. Guillaume’s arrest as a Soviet bloc spy was simply shattering, and Brandt admitted to me that he felt betrayed.

One month later Brandt would write to the West German president: “I accept political responsibility for negligence in connection with the Guillaume espionage affair and declare my resignation from the office of federal chancellor.”[4]

In 1998, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, another pro-Soviet socialist, was instrumental in granting mass citizenship to most German immigrants. This made those immigrants a powerful political force. During the same year of 1998, Joschka Fischer, whose parents had immigrated from Hungary, became vice chancellor of West Germany. Soon, the German media revealed that Fischer had been affiliated with the Revolutionärer Kampf, a terrorist organization financed by the KGB, and that he had once attended a 1969 PLO meeting in Algiers at which the PLO adopted a resolution to achieve final victory against Israel. German journalist Bettina Roehl, the daughter of the late Ulrike Meinhof, co-leader of the terrorist Baader-Meinhof, proved that Fischer had indeed been a terrorist during the 1970s. She provided pictures showing a helmeted Fischer beating a German police officer, Rainer Marx, during an April 7, 1973, violent demonstration in Frankfurt/Main’s Luisenplatz. In 2002, Joschka Fischer publicly apologized to Rainer Marx, the beaten police officer.

The anti-Americanism sowed by Schroeder-Fischer mass immigration policies bore fruit.

In June 2002, a documentary on “U.S. war crimes” in Afghanistan was shown in the Bundestag. And on Sept. 19, 2002, a German cabinet minister, Herta Dauebler-Gmelin, compared President George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler.

West Germany subsequently rebelled against Schroeder’s mass immigration policy and in 2005 voted him out of power, in spite of the votes he got from the millions of immigrants just granted citizenship. Schroeder retired from political life, and Fischer moved to quiet, leafy Princeton University in the U.S. to write his memoirs and teach political science.

Soon after, Germany was astounded to learn that Schroeder was holding a high position at the Russian Gazprom company. In an editorial headlined “Gerhard Schroeder’s Sellout,” the Washington Post noted:

It is the sort of behavior we have – sadly – come to expect from some in Congress. But when Gerhard Schroeder, the former German chancellor, announced last week that he was going to work for Gazprom, the Russian energy behemoth, he catapulted himself into a different league. It’s one thing for a legislator to resign his job, leave his committee chairmanship and go to work for a company over whose industry he once had jurisdiction. It’s quite another thing when the chancellor of Germany – one of the world’s largest economies – leaves his job and goes to work for a company controlled by the Russian government that is helping to build a Baltic Sea gas pipeline that he championed while in office. To make the decision even more unpalatable, it turns out that the chief executive of the pipeline consortium is none other than a former East German secret police officer who was friendly with Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, back when Putin was a KGB agent in East Germany. If nothing else, Schroeder deserves opprobrium for his bad taste.



Russian President Vladimir Putin and former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder

In April 2006, Radoslaw Sikorski, then Poland’s defense minister, compared this pipeline project to the infamous 1939 Hitler-Stalin Pact that redrew the map of Europe.[5] Indeed, the current dependence on Russian gas has prevented Western Europe from acting decisively against Putin’s stealing of Crimea, and against his further efforts to rebuild the old Soviet Union, whose breakup, in Putin’s view, “was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.”

I am no longer in the bear’s lair, and I of course do not have proof that the KGB/FSB has a hand in our current mass immigration crisis. One day, however, I saw on Fox News thousands of illegal immigrants who marched through Washington, D.C., chanting: “Today we walk, tomorrow we vote”.

That was one of the slogans of the KGB’s old Gutta cavat lapidem.

I know I am not politically correct. But I also know that in 1978, when I broke with the Soviet bloc, the KGB was a state within a state and that now the KGB (by whatever name) is running the state.

“There are no ex-KGB officers!” President Putin once told his subordinates. “A KGB officer leaves us only feet first!”

Those were the same old KGB phrases I used to hear in my other life, at the top levels of the KGB community.

In my other life, the KGB community was deeply involved in spreading anti-Americanism in South America, whose map has now become mostly red. KGB advisers and Russian military ships and bombers are back in Cuba – and newly in Venezuela – for the first time since the Cuban missile crisis. Nicaragua, Honduras and Argentina are shepherded into the Russian fold. Brazil, the world’s 10th largest economy, had even installed a former KGB-inspired guerrilla fighter, Dilma Rousseff, as the country’s president. All these things give me strong reason to suspect a KGB hand behind the current sudden mass immigration of children from South America being dropped at our Southern borders.

During those years of my other life, the KGB community was busily spreading terrorism in South America, Western Europe and the Middle East with the help of mass immigration. The current mass immigration of ISIS terrorists in Iraq and Syria furthermore suggests that today’s Russia – now run by the intelligence apparatus – is successfully using the secret KGB weapon of mass immigration in that part of the world as well.

I have strong reason to believe that a comprehensive policy for dealing with Russia, which is building a new anti-American axis, Moscow-Tehran-Beijing-Caracas, and the largest oil cartel in history, is a lot more important right now than granting citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants who have invaded our country.


Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, second from right, with Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa just behind his right shoulder

Becoming a citizen of this great country is, in my humble view, an honor, not an entitlement. For Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel, who was also born in Romania, America has always symbolized hope – not early citizenship and a free lunch. “Hope is a key word in the vocabulary of men and women like myself and so many others who discovered in America the strength to overcome cynicism and despair,” he said. Elie Wiesel knows better than any what real hope means. It was the hope that America would defeat the Nazis during World War II and eventually come to his rescue that kept him alive in the German death camp.

There are millions of others who, like Wiesel and like me, are ready to start their lives from scratch for the privilege of living in this magnanimous land of freedom. I hope they will. But have them follow the American traditions and laws that made this country a beacon for the whole world.

via Shocking, hidden agenda behind border crisis.

Jun 252014

By John Bennett — June 25, 2014

Senator Rand Paul is far too willing to support amnesty for illegal aliens.

Paul pointedly replied to Breitbart News after their headline “Rand Paul: Let’s Compromise on Amnesty.” In response to that headline, Paul tweeted:


I will not let sloppy journalists characterize my position as “amnesty.” It is simply untrue.— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) June 12, 2014


Rand Paul and Jack Hunter join the amnesty crowd — Do you feel betrayed?

Well, Senator Paul, perhaps you should be worried that the public will not let sloppy politicians characterize their pro-amnesty positions as anything other than amnesty.

Here’s why Paul’s position amounts to amnesty: while speaking with David Axelrod, Paul agreed that he “would grant [the 11 million illegal aliens] a legalized status in the form of a work visa and allow them to await citizenship.” The 11 million broke our law but they will be allowed to stay and become citizens instead of complying with the law. They will not be held accountable to the current law, but instead their illegal conduct will be rewarded. That’s amnesty — in fact it is amnesty plus a perverse reward wrapped inside a terrible policy incentive.

For those inclined to agree with Paul on the need for “immigration reform”, it is instructive to note where Paul’s reasoning falls apart: Paul writes, “The Obama administration’s lawless executive orders legalizing people who came here illegally will only encourage more illegal immigration — unless we act now with real, strong, verifiable border security.” But if  “executive orders legalizing people who came here illegally will only encourage more illegal immigration,” then wouldn’t a Congressional act “legalizing people who came here illegally” also“encourage more illegal immigration”?

Paul makes it sound as if America will benefit from amnesty because the border will finally be secure after “reform.” In other words, we should just accept that border security is being held hostage, and we should gladly pay the amnesty ransom. The truth is that we have a better option: force politicians to enforce our laws at threat of losing their jobs. The entire debate about “immigration reform” is a terrible charade, riddled with nonsense spread by ill-informed politicians, including several Republicans.

Calling a bad policy a “reform” is one of the oldest tricks in the book, and Americans just aren’t buying it. The trouble that elites like Sen. Paul face is that a conscientious citizen, with an hours’ worth of free time, can learn as much about immigration policy as the average Senator. In the eyes of many concerned citizens, the president, Congress, and Senate are failing their duty to protect our border and maintain America’s sovereignty. In that regard, Sen. Paul is just about as guilty as the president. They’ve each carelessly promoted a “path to normalization” (Paul’s words), or “immigration reform” (as Paul constantly repeats).

Rand Paul-amnesty

Rand Paul will support amnesty for lawbreakers.

Paul and Obama have both invited illegal immigration; Paul is only slightly less blatant in his disregard for the rule of law on matters of immigration. Paul, Obama, and the rest of the “immigration reform” crowd have all made clear that if you cross our border illegally, you will be allowed to stay. This sends a message to the entire world that we don’t have enough discretion to protect our national boundary.

Senator Paul claims to be opposed to “lawless” immigration policy,which he calls “a beacon for more illegal immigrants.” What does he expect will happen if Congress officially declares that 11 million illegal aliens will be granted amnesty? How will that be any less of a “beacon”? A congressional endorsement of amnesty will signal that we have largely abandoned enforcement of our immigration laws.

American politicians seem to be dissolving our border at the exact time many Western countries are moving to restrict illegal immigration, as well as legal immigration. For instance, in France, theFront National (FN) party achieved a record victory in last month’s EU election, finishing ahead of France’s two major parties. FN’s president Marine Le Pen, in her memorable way, says this about immigration:

Immigration is an organized replacement of our population. This threatens our very survival. We don’t have the means to integrate those who are already here. The result is endless cultural conflict.

If only we had political leadership in America with half the national pride of France’s Le Pen. Instead, we must contend with politicians like Rand Paul, who is laboring under the weight of certain historical myths. For example, he claims, “Immigrants are drawn to the magnet of free market capitalism here in the United States.” That claim is, in important respects, demonstrably false.

What Paul needs to realize is that no politician in this day and age will be given the benefit of the doubt when they recite platitudes; few politicians command even a shred of trust. This is especially true on immigration matters. So when Breitbart’s Tony Lee writes that Paul supports amnesty, sensible conservatives are prone to believe Lee’s characterization. That’s because, more often than not, politicians tend to obscure the facts while outlets like Breitbart tend to bluntly state the facts, and most readers recognize as much. Politicians, including Paul to an extent, have simply lost credibility. 


Rand Paul needs to have someone open up a can of “whoopass” on him…. Or maybe he just needs “the Cantor Treatment”

Paul is not entitled to any deference because of his family name. In fact, it looks as if he might need a dose of the Cantor treatment. Unless Paul starts promoting enforcement and border security, with no amnesty ransom in exchange, he’ll continue to estrange himself from the voters who are paying attention. Given the crisis on our southern border, politicians should be attempting to build credibility with the public, not encouraging lawlessness.

The Obama administration, through executive orders and the bully pulpit, brought on the current crisis at our southern border. If amnesty passes, Congress will shout the same message the Obama administration has been sending: Give me your tired, your poor, your “disadvantaged” yearning for more government. If Paul is genuinely opposed to a “lawless” immigration system, then he would staunchly oppose any effort to reward illegal entry or visa overstay.

When Paul talks about “immigration reform,” this is nothing but a cosmopolitan euphemism for amnesty. Whether border enforcement is included in “immigration reform” or not, legalization means amnesty. If the 11 million illegal aliens will be exempted from the law, and in fact rewarded, then we are faced with amnesty. Therefore, the much-touted border enforcement is nothing but a sweetener for amnesty. The immigration reform “compromise” Paul favors really boils down to this: we give the Democrats and their pro-amnesty GOP allies a cookie for doing what they are supposed to do, which is enforcing our immigration law.

via Articles: ‘Amnesty’ by any Other Name.

Jun 132014

  by Michelle Malkin — June 13, 2014

A source tipped me off last week to a curious occurrence: It seems that two planeloads of illegal aliens were recently shipped to Massachusetts. The first reportedly landed at Hanscom Air Force Base in Bedford. According to my tipster, approximately 160 illegal immigrants arrived on that flight and stayed nearly a week before being transferred to a Department of Homeland Security site and then released.

The second flight reportedly was diverted from Hanscom to Boston’s Logan Airport this past weekend. I am told that both Massachusetts and New Hampshire officials were on hand. I reached out to Hanscom AFB for confirmation, but did not receive a call back by my deadline.

Hanscom Air Force Base

Hanscom Air Force Base – Dumping ground for Obama’s illegals.

Question: How many other military bases are stealthily being used to redistribute, house, process and release illegal border crossers? What we do know for sure is that the Obama administration already has converted several other military bases across the country into outposts for tens of thousands of illegal aliens from Central and South America. San Antonio’s Lackland Air Force Base opened its doors as an illegal immigrant camp last month. Port Hueneme Naval Base in Ventura County, Calif., will shelter nearly 600 illegal border-crossing children and teens. The Fort Sill Army post in Lawton, Okla., was ordered on Friday to take in 1,200 illegal aliens despite the objections of GOP Gov. Mary Fallin, who blasted the White House, saying, “The Obama administration continues to fail in its duty to protect our borders and continues to promote policies that encourage, rather than discourage, illegal immigration.” A makeshift detention center in Nogales, Ariz., is being used as the central clearing station for the latest illegal alien surge. The deluge is a threat to national security, public safety and public health — not to mention a slap in the face to the law-abiding men and women in uniform on those bases and a kick in the teeth to law-abiding people around the world patiently waiting for approval of their visas.illegal Meanwhile, a law enforcement source in Texas tells me this week that countless illegal aliens are being released into the general public despite testing positive for tuberculosis. “The feds are putting them on public transportation to God knows where,” he said. Another source, working in the border patrol in south Texas, tells me: “Our station, along with every other station, is flooded with women and small children. One lady yesterday had a baby as young as 8 months. And they’re coming over with pink eye and scabies. So getting them medically cleared becomes a priority. They’ll be here for almost a week, so we provide them with formula and diapers. We have a catering service contracted to feed them because it’s too many for us to feed on our own. And of course, they end up being released because every family housing facility is full. They’re supposed to show up for immigration court at a later date, but they don’t.”

catch and release program

Obama’s Catch and Release Policy for illegal immigrants

Same old, same old. I’ve reported for years on the feds’ catch-and-release games and deportation Kabuki. The “notice to appear” letters — known as “run letters” — are a notorious joke in open-borders circles. The latest “crisis” is a wholly manufactured byproduct of White House administrative amnesties, which are supported by a toxic alliance of ethnic-vote-seeking Democrats and cheap-labor-hungry Big Business Republicans. The flood comes just as Obama’s DHS announced a two-year extension for beneficiaries of the “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (DACA) program. A whopping 560,000 illegal aliens have been granted amnesty under DACA and also have received employment authorization. As I’ve said for two decades, illegal alien amnesties guarantee two things: more illegal immigration and more Democratic voters. Now we have a White House forcing U.S. military bases to provide interminable benefits and services to illegal aliens for political gain, while said White House evades responsibility for allowing military veterans to die waiting for the most basic of medical services. And where’s the GOP “leadership” in this country? Doing the bidding of the amnesty-loving U.S. Chamber of Commerce and demonizing Republican candidates at every level who are sick and tired of giving away the store and the country. God save us from bipartisanship.
via Military Bases: Obama’s New Illegal Alien Dumping Grounds | FrontPage Magazine.

Apr 032014

by Arnold Ahlert — April 3, 2014

One of the primary narratives associated with comprehensive immigration reform has nothing to do with the millions of low-skill workers that would be granted an opportunity to compete against Americans for jobs.

As a letter sent to the president and Congressional leaders signed by more than 100 chief executives of major tech companies and trade associations indicates, there is a shortage of highly-skilled American labor that drives reform as well. Yet as the Atlantic’s Michael S. Teitelbaum reveals, that narrative is a lie.

“A compelling body of research is now available, from many leading academic researchers and from respected research organizations such as the National Bureau of Economic Research, the RAND Corporation, and the Urban Institute,” Teitelbaum explains.CoC_google_immigration

No one has been able to find any evidence indicating current widespread labor market shortages or hiring difficulties in science and engineering occupations that require bachelors degrees or higher…All have concluded that U.S. higher education produces far more science and engineering graduates annually than there are S&E job openings—the only disagreement is whether it is 100 percent or 200 percent more.

He then introduces the 800-pound gorilla of Economics 101, as in the reality that a genuine shortage of high-skill workers would pressure those seeking an ostensible scarcity of talent to offer higher levels of compensation to potential workers. Unfortunately, exactly the opposite is occurring. “Most studies report that real wages in many—but not all—science and engineering occupations have been flat or slow-growing, and unemployment as high or higher than in many comparably-skilled occupations.”

How does this reconcile with the claims of people like Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer? “Because labor markets in science and engineering differ greatly across fields, industries, and time periods, it is easy to cherry-pick specific specialties that really are in short supply, at least in specific years and locations,” Teitelbaum explains. And while he concedes that high-skill occupations have unemployment rates lower than those of the workforce in general, “surprisingly high unemployment rates prevail for recent graduates even in fields with alleged serious ‘shortages’ such as engineering (7.0 percent), computer science (7.8 percent) and information systems (11.7 percent).”

The Economic Policy Institute (ECI) also hammers home reality about the so-called shortage of foreign workers, revealing that in 2011, the number of college-educated “guest workers” under the age of 30 comprised 66 percent of the 166,000 new college-educated Information Technology (IT) job-holders under the age of 30. They further note that this reality is discouraging many Americans students in the science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields from entering IT.

With good reason. Americans colleges already graduate 50 percent more computer science majors than are finding jobs in IT. The ECI further notes that if comprehensive immigration reform and/or the Skill Visa Act promoted by Republicans Darryl Issa (R-CA) and Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) become reality, the conservative estimate of 180,000, “new IT guest workers and STEM green card beneficiaries will be greater than the number of new hires of young IT college graduates in 2011.”


Mayers and Zuckerberg — Two peas in a pod!

At the heart of this sellout is the H-1B visa program. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) does its best to obscure reality, stating that most of those visas are used to fill “entry level” positions. Yet EPI confirms Teitelman’s assessment of flat or slow-growing wages, revealing that such workers are not only competing with recent U.S. graduates, but providing a supply of lower-wage guest workers that can take jobs from older workers as well.

Computerworld, which on April 1 received the latest data regarding H-1B visas from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), explains there is such heavy demand anticipated, all of them will be claimed by the end of this week. They further note that the majority of claimants will be firms “that use visa holders to displace U.S. workers.” ”The offshore outsourcing firms are once again getting the majority of the visas,” said Ron Hira, a public policy professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology in New York. “The program continues to promote the offshoring of high-wage American jobs.”

The top three companies on the list of visa approval in 2013 were Infosys, Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) and Cognizant. Other players include IBM, Microsoft, Amazon, Intel, Google and Oracle. Many of these firms hire IT workers for offshore outsourcing contracts. Domestic workers who are replaced as a result often have to train their replacements as a condition of their severance package. Companies such as Cognizant insist they maintain a robust effort to hire American workers, but they do not disclose data to support that contention. Moreover, in 2013, Infosys agreed to pay $34 million to resolve a claim by the federal government: they had accused the firm of running an unlawful visa scheme. Infosys also refused to release data on its U.S. workforce.

Food and agricultural producer Cargill is another company outsourcing its IT jobs, sending them to TCS. Cargill’s home base is in Minnesota, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), along with Marco Rubio (R-FL), Chris Coons (D-DE), and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) were developing the Immigration Innovation Act of 2013. The bill aims to initially raise the current H-1B cap of 85,000 visas, comprised of 65,000 H-1Bs, plus an additional 20,000 set aside for advanced degree graduates of American universities, to 115,000.

Marco Rubio - Traitor!

Marco Rubio – Traitor!

It also includes an increase in the cap based on demand, until it reached 300,000 visas every year thereafter, even as it exempts advance degree STEM students from the total. In addition, the bill won’t apply employment-based green card quotas to foreign students earning a master’s or doctorate in STEM fields at a U.S. university, or their spouses and minor children.

The bill passed in the Republican-controlled House on Dec. 5, 2013. It has yet to be taken up by the Democratically-controlled Senate.

Even as this amounts to dream legislation for high-tech companies, they are keeping up the pressure on lawmakers. In March, Goodlatte, who is the House Judiciary Committee Chairman, held a high-dollar fundraiser in Silicon Valley with pro-amnesty forces who ponied between $10,000 and $40,000 apiece for the privilege. Ron Conway, a prolific angel investor and venture capitalist, expressed the kind of arrogance one expects from those who seemingly believe government should be particularly responsive to high rollers. “In this case, because there’s been mixed messages from the Republicans, before I write my check, I wanted some assurances that Bob Goodlatte would be prepared to discuss immigration reform and what the timetable is for immigration reform, because we’re coming down the wire here with the [2014] elections and we need accountability,” he declared.

If genuine accountability is wanted–as opposed to the fulfillment of an agenda–getting the facts right would be a good place to start.

Both Teitelbaum and Michael Anft, senior writer for Johns Hopkins magazine, reveal that stores about a shortage of STEM workers are nothing new. Teitelbaum refers to five “alarm/boom/bust” cycles, each lasting about 10 to 15 years. From just after WWII through 2003, each cycle was initiated by alarms about a worker shortage, followed by policies to increase the supply of STEM workers, followed by the inevitable busts characterized by “mass layoffs, hiring freezes, and funding cuts that inflicted severe damage to careers of both mature professionals and the booming numbers of emerging graduates, while also discouraging new entrants to these fields.”

Anft speaks to the same phenomenon, noting that prior to Americans worrying about the current emergence of China and India as the primary challengers to our status as the world’s preeminent innovator, “there were ruckuses caused by an increase in foreign auto and electronics imports (Japan) in the 1970s and 80s, a fear that someone else (the U.S.S.R.) would win the space race in the 50s and 60s, and the wartime emergency (Nazi Germany) that led to the Manhattan Project in the 40s.”

Hira, who has testified before Congress regarding the issue, notes the hypocrisy of high-tech firms like Microsoft, who advocate for more IT visas, even as they lay off thousands of Americans with comparable skills. Norman S. Matloff, a professor of computer science at the University of California at Davis, is far more direct. “This is all about industry wanting to lower wages,” he contends.

Toward that end, high-tech companies are making contingency plans, in case their current push for comprehensive immigration reform proves unsuccessful. As Silicon Valley attorney John Bautista reveals, some companies with solely domestic operations are exploring the idea of opening offices overseas so they can hire people and bring them back to America on visas that allow for internal transfers of existing employees. ”Before [corporate boards said], ‘We’ve got someone we want to hire, what’s the best way to bring him over?’” he explained. “Now it’s, ‘We have a hiring problem, let’s use the immigration laws to come up with an overall strategy to bring teams of people on board.’”

Part of that overall strategy includes the oldest strategies of all: pumping loads of cash into political campaigns and lobbying efforts. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the computer and Internet industries showered Democrat and Republican candidates for federal office, as well as political committees, with $62 million during the 2012 election cycle. That same year tech companies spent a record-setting $132.5 million on Washington lobbying efforts, running their ten-year total in that regard to over $1 billion.

In 2013, the tech sector combined forces with the agricultural sector. They were joined by the Chamber of Commerce, which added another $52.7 million to reform lobbyists’ coffers. ”We’re determined to make 2014 the year that immigration reform is finally enacted,” said Chamber President and CEO Tom Donohue in January.

Zuckerberg Immigration Lobbyist....

Zuckerberg Immigration Lobbyist….

By any means necessary, it seems. Whether they get across the finish line remains to be seen. Likely 2016 GOP presidential candidate Rand Paul (R-KY) is the latest Republican to drink the comprehensive Kool-aid, insisting that his party has to get ”beyond deportation to the rest of the issues,” if they want to compete for Hispanic votes. Those would be the same Hispanic votes that have never accrued to Republicans in more than three decades of elections. Furthermore, alienating both low-skill and high-skill American workers as a tradeoff is a fool’s errand.

Unfortunately, for un- or under-employed Americans, the outright lie that there’s a shortage of high-tech workers apparently takes precedence over their well-being. For Democrats, virtually anything the expands the dependency of Americans has become, rather than a badge of shame, an integral part of their party platform. For Republicans, the sop of accommodating their business allies, and siren song of possibly newfound Hispanic fealty that drives their ambitions. In a better world, the efforts by both parties would be seen as the contempt for the rule of law and the utter lack of concern for Americans they truly represent. In this one, the narrative, no matter how duplicitous and despicable, rules the roost.

via The Tech Industry’s Immigration Lies | FrontPage Magazine.

Feb 182014

by Nonie Darwish — February 10, 2014

President Obama has unilaterally changed the immigration law to allow asylum-seekers and refugees who provided “limited material support” to terrorists, to immigrate to the US.

Jihad - Coming to America

Jihad – Coming to America

This is happening at a time when force is being used in Egypt — and elsewhere in the Middle East — against the Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafis, terrorists and their sympathizers. This is a time when Islamists have few places to go to in the wide-open desert atmosphere of the Middle East, except perhaps to join the mess in Syria and Iraq, or otherwise reform and become ordinary citizens.

Obama could not have picked a worse time to ease immigration requirements for those linked to terror, and who have nowhere else to go and have suddenly found themselves, after the counter-revolution in Egypt, as targets for imprisonment, contempt, or even shooting.

Islamists are now undoubtedly celebrating Obama’s decision to ease the pressure on immigration of terror-linked individuals. Indeed, where else can they go to practice their fanaticism and find newly found respectability and hospitality? To America.

By weakening immigration laws that protect Americans from Islamic terror, Obama is now sending the wrong message both to his own citizens and to the Muslim world. He is basically saying that he does not mind taking in fleeing terrorists and their sympathizers. And he does not seem to care at all about appearances or if he this casts more suspicion on his reputation, despite the constant rumors we all know about, that he is a secret Muslim and that his brother Malik has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.


What is also strange is the US State Department is not welcoming fleeing Christians in the Middle East as they should. Most of the visa applications submitted by the desperate and oppressed Egyptian Christians are denied. It was reported that only about 800 to 900 applications were approved by the US for Christian Egyptian immigrants out of 20,000 applications.

This also comes amidst accusations and rumors in Egypt that President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are aiding terrorists and conspiring with the Muslim Brotherhood. One would think that the US would be happy that the Egyptian government and others are clamping down on radical Muslim groups who are ruining the lives of the ordinary citizens in the Middle East. But instead, the Obama administration changes immigration laws for their “eyes only” to welcome escaping Muslim troublemakers whose activities are now unwelcome in Egypt.

Obama is doing this not only amidst claims that he is supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, but he also appears to the Muslim world as responding positively to the radical Sunni Cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who recently called on the US government to wage jihad for Allah, to help support the “freedom fighters,” meaning terrorists, in Syria, and adding that “Allah willing, your [US] aid will increase.” This is the first time in history that a radical Muslim leader publicly asks America to join in the jihad for the sake of Allah.obama_sharia_compliant

This is also the same administration that revoked the asylum visa already granted to a German Christian family by a Memphis immigration judge. Obama’s Department of Justice is forcing the deportation of a peaceful Christian German family that seeks refuge in the US to home-school their children. It is the same administration that is allowing the illegal immigrant relatives of Obama to live in US public housing and that granted Obama’s Kenyan brother a 501c3 non-profit status within 30 days of his application, while patriotic Tea Party citizens have not received theirs yet after a three and four year wait.

Reverse discrimination is being practiced in the open by the Obama administration against Christians, whites and other patriotic citizens like Dinesh D’Souza and the Tea Party.

To the savvy analyst of Muslim culture, Obama’s immigration policy is clearly supporting the Islamic jihad agenda and helping to transplant jihadists’ activities in a new unsuspecting land. It is aiding the spread of the “Religion of Peace” propaganda in our public schools and making the questioning of Muslims taboo even for our homeland security. This administration is creating a new generation of Americans that is being indoctrinated at a similar level of indoctrination that is occurring to Arab kids in the Islamic Middle East. All the while, the Islamists to claim their supposed victim-hood as an excuse for their belligerence and dominance. And they use and abuse US fears of being called racist or Islamophobic every time an American objects to Islam as oppressive. This way they can build mosques everywhere, including on the ruins of 9/11, while churches are being destroyed in the Middle East.

One can’t help but marvel at how easy America has capitulated after only one major terror attack.Jihad_yes_we_can

The reckless and dire situation regarding Islamic immigration and penetration — and putting certain foreign interests ahead of American citizens — has really gotten out of hand. Most sane-minded Americans are frozen, defeated and helpless. America, with Obama’s blessings, is slipping away and surrendering to the Islamic invasion. And if anyone objects, they are called the “R” word: Racist.

In whose best interest is Obama working for? Not even the liberals should celebrate this. While pacifying the radical left with the failed Obamacare and other environment and energy projects, the president keeps them busy defending him against the big bad Republicans. What need does the US meet when it welcomes in those who had some connections with terror groups? Who is America pandering to or targeting to give asylum to? Why gamble with the safety, security and peace of American citizens to that extent?

If this situation continues, the American people will wake up one day with Muslim-only zones across the US, women and gays harassed and persecuted in every US city that will be prone Chechnya-style terrorism and calls for a separatist movement. This is the history of Islam repeating itself wherever it goes.

It is time for a Tahrir ‘freedom’ square movement in America against the progressives who put Obama in office.

via Jihad Migrating to Red States — With Obama’s Blessing | FrontPage Magazine.

Feb 152014

Written By : Joe Guzzardi — January 19, 2014

The Congressional Black Caucus doesn’t share Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream for African-Americans. Fifty-one years ago, King outlined his hopes: that black as well and white men would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. King despaired that blacks were exiled in their own American land and too often denied advancement opportunities.

The CBC has a different objective that would be extremely disappointing to Dr. King. One of the most powerful congressional caucuses has thrown its imposing weight behind comprehensive immigration reform, legislation that would expand the labor pool and thereby hurt unemployed black and Hispanic Americans more than any other demographic.

The CBC’s website is a study in contradictions. On its homepage, CBC Chair Marcia L. Fudge (D-OH) wrote that its 41-year old mission has been to eliminate the ongoing social and economic injustices that blacks have suffered.


Marcia Fudge – Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus

Fudge, writing on the CBC’s behalf, also stated unequivocally that it “unanimously supports” reform and “in particular,” amnesty for millions of illegal aliens living in the U.S. today. Fudge’s message seems clear: unemployed illegal immigrants who are black, Hispanic or Asian have the CBC’s support. But native-born black, Hispanic or Asian-Americans do not.

America’s leaders have lost sight of King’s dream. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 20 percent of African-Americans are unemployed or underemployed; 17 percent of Hispanic-Americans can’t find work. Americans of all races haven’t seen a real wage increase in 40 years.

King would see such widespread unemployment as a travesty of justice. As King said in one of his last sermons, “If a man doesn’t have a job or an income, he has neither life nor liberty nor the possibility for the pursuit of happiness. He merely exists.”

Some influential blacks have made the connection between more immigration and fewer American jobs. Frank L. Morris, the former Congressional Black Caucus Forum executive -director, appealed to the CBC and President Obama to reduce immigration and enforce existing laws rather than compound the damage that ill-conceived and unenforced immigration policies have inflicted on Americans in general and black and Hispanics in particular.

Willard Fair, Urban League of Greater Miami president, offered this example of how cheap immigrant labor hurts blacks. Asked Fair: “If there’s a young black man who’s good with his hands and wants to become a carpenter which is more likely to help him achieve that goal-amnesty and more immigration, or enforcement and less immigration?”


Illegal Immigrants take Black American Jobs

If the CBC doesn’t understand the consequences to unemployed Americans of a huge amnesty, Coretta Scott King does. In 1991, five years after the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act passed, Senator Orrin Hatch introduced legislation that would repeal employer sanctions against those who hired aliens. The sanctions were a primary reason the legislation passed.

King interceded. She wrote to Hatch to remind him of “devastating consequences” removing sanctions would have on unemployed and semi-skilled workers, the majority of whom are African-American and Hispanic.

The immigration bill Congress is considering would authorize 11 million illegal immigrants to work and add more than another 20 million work-authorized legal immigrants within the first decade. King would take a dim view of the congressional push for more immigration. Because King understood that the greatest social injustice is not having a job, he would urge Congress to promote less immigration which would tighten labor markets and, for black and Hispanic Americans, in particular, create higher wages.

via Huge Immigration Bill Would Destroy King’s Dream for Black and Hispanic Americans | Right Wing News.

Jan 302014

by Sara Carter –Jan. 30, 2014

Ted Cruz Has a Stern Message to Republicans Currently Pushing For Immigration Reform

Ted Cruz

In this Dec. 17, 2013 file photo, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas speaks with reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is hoping fellow Republican House leaders take heed and not push this year for immigration reform measures with mid-term elections so closely at hand.

But that’s not what’s happening.

Republicans, along with leadership, are meeting at a three day retreat along Maryland’s eastern shore Thursday, and the top piece of business is immigration. Republican House Speaker John Boehner, from Ohio and Rep. Paul Ryan, of Wisconsin, among others, are trying to advance immigration legislation prior to heading into the midterm election campaign.

The senator said in a statement emailed to TheBlaze that “amnesty is wrong in any circumstance.”

Republicans need to focus on winning against Obama’s failed policies and not push for immigration legislation that is already presenting numerous legal obstacles and will demoralize voters, many of whom are opposed to amnesty, he added.

“The biggest thing we could do to mess that up would be if the House passed an amnesty bill…”

“Right now, Republican leadership in both chambers is aggressively urging Members to stand down on virtually every front: on the continuing resolution, on the budget, on the farm bill, on the debt ceiling,” Cruz said. “They may or may not be right, but their argument is that we should focus exclusively on Obamacare and on jobs. In that context, why on earth would the House dive into immigration right now? It makes no sense, unless you’re Harry Reid. Republicans are poised for an historic election this fall–a conservative tidal wave much like 2010. The biggest thing we could do to mess that up would be if the House passed an amnesty bill–or any bill perceived as an amnesty bill–that demoralized voters going into November.”



Pro Amnesty — Gang of Eight

Republican leadership outlined in their immigration reform plan support for giving probationary legal status to most of the 11 million illegal immigrants, according to Rep. Ryan’s interview on MSNBC Wednesday.
The proposal, say opponents, is that a probationary status will be difficult to revoke if someone illegal is working legally in the country and has a family.

Cruz said he recognizes that the current immigration system is broken. He said, however, Republicans should wait until next year, contending it would make more sense “so that we are negotiating a responsible solution with a Republican Senate majority rather than with Chuck Schumer.”

“Anyone pushing an amnesty bill right now should go ahead and put a ‘Harry Reid for Majority Leader’ bumper sticker on their car, because that will be the likely effect if Republicans refuse to listen to the American people and foolishly change the subject from Obamacare to amnesty,” he said.

via Ted Cruz Has a Stern Message to Republicans Currently Pushing for Immigration Reform |