Illegal immigration 'a dagger aimed at our hearts'

The Globe Gazette ^ | 8/20/2005 | Linda Kane

[4.1O dana super trac pak]

ALBERT LEA, Minn. — Illegal immigration is a dagger aimed at the heart of Americans, according to U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., a leader in the fight against illegal immigration.

Republican Congressmen Gil Gutknecht from Minnesota and Tancredo, chairman of the 70-member House Immigration Reform Caucus, spoke to 100 people at a luncheon Tuesday in Albert Lea.

"Please think about national security," Tancredo said. "People are coming across our borders to do very bad things to us."

The topic was based on immigration, whether legal or illegal.

"It has nothing to do with race, ethnicity or country of origin" but everything to do with the problems that stem from it, Tancredo said.

Those include economic, employment and labor issues as well as crime rates, to name a few, he said.

He said illegal immigration wouldn't be such a big problem if the federal government would enforce the law.

"We have national security problems," he said. Not securing America's borders is the most shameful act on the part of the federal government, Tancredo said.

"This issue of massive immigration is a dagger pointing at our heart," he said.

Tancredo said momentum is growing to combat immigration issues, but a "great wall of opposition" remains.

"I want you to ask your local elected officials — I don't care if it's the county commissioners or the governor — ‘What are you going to do about this issue,' " Tancredo said.

A woman in the audience asked Tancredo if he planned to run for president.

"We need you," she said.

Tancredo said he would if the issue doesn't gain attention at the presidential level.

Gutknecht told the crowd that immigration is an issue that deserves national attention, and he provided many statistics and facts about immigration.

His family emigrated from Germany, Gutknecht said, and he fully supports legal immigration. However, "We cannot encourage individuals to break our laws and enter the country illegally.

"Border protection is important to our national security and economy. For more than two centuries, Americans have fought to protect our sovereignty and secure our borders. Sadly, today our borders are a sieve, allowing illegal immigrants to pour into the country," he added.

Gutknecht offered what he called a snapshot of a typical illegal alien: 32 years old with an average education of seven years, an hourly wage of $5.45 and an annual individual income of $8,982.

Other facts he presented:

-- 42 percent of births to immigrants are to illegal alien mothers. In 2005, births to illegal aliens will account for one in 10 births in the United States.

-- Illegal aliens are eligible for emergency Medicaid services and other medical services.

-- More than 29 percent of federal prisoners are aliens.

-- 55 percent of hired farm workers are unauthorized to work in the U.S.

-- In Minnesota, the cost to educate children of illegal aliens was more than $276 million.

"Facts are stubborn things," Gutknecht said.

Ken Dalager traveled to Albert Lea with at least 10 others from Austin concerned about illegal immigration.

"The people that go to the trouble of getting citizenship, I don't think they're much trouble," Dalager said. "The others slip in undercover and just kind of do things how they want to do them."

Conversations grew heated before the congressmen started speaking, however, as people debated the issue during dinner conversation.

"A simple way to stop illegal immigration is to find the companies that hire them," an Austin woman said.

Everybody is an immigrant, Dalager said. His family migrated from Norway, but years ago policies were different, he said.

"My cousin went to country school and the school board went to her house and said she had better talk English before they sent her to school," he said. "Today they're bending over backwards. You've got to hire two teachers," one that speaks English and one that speaks Spanish.

Paul Westrum of Albert Lea believes in "a common- sense approach to our immigration policy."

He was invited to Tuesday's luncheon by Gutknecht.

"If we don't do something about this immigration issue, we're going to lose our country as we know it," said Westrum, who has researched immigration issues for nearly a decade.

[Itzlzha]

And those people who "immigrated" and went through Ellis Island are what?
Non-immigrant immigrants?

Uh oh...looks like another job for...

The FreeRepublic "OBL Sock-Puppet" Brigade Ping List!

Gee Dane...and what is the difference between immigrants coming thru Ellis Island in a CONTROLLED manner, to be screened for eligibility, criminal background/record, and DANGEROUS Communicable diseases; versus your supposed "toilet-cleaners" making a "Run for the Border"...unchecked, and then ILLEGALLY and FRAUDULENTLY obtaining Social Security I.D.( I.o.w. STEALING ID's!!!) and ILLEGALLY obtaining Jobs...

Is there a difference?

And isn't it a little early to be on the hard stuff?

[Spiff]

Yeah really, those people who came through Ellis Island were worthless(rolling eyes).

I think he meant that uncontrolled immigration is a sure way to destroy this country. And it is.

We have not had any sort of sensible, sane, or controlled immigation policy since Sen. Ted Kennedy's Immigration Reform Act of 1965. (Go here to read more.) It is the legacy of that act that you continually defend. Immigration reformers want our border secured and illegal immigration stopped. We also want a return to more sensible immigration policies that puts Americans first.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

IMHO we need a new word for "immigration" when it comes to what we've see over the past one or two decades.

My guess is that they are not coming to be Americans. They are "bringing their stomachs here and leaving their hearts in the home country."

They stay and stay? So? Countries like India and Mexico have recognized their non-resident citizens for many years. Like their embassies are home country soil, wherever their non-resident butt sits is also home country soil. They lobby Washington and state governments as citizens lobby them. They meddle in local, state and national matters, public and private, as citizens have the responsibility to do. But it's for them not America.

Free migration is an internationalist goal. Remittances are critical to developing countries. It's the partner of free tradin' transfers of technology, wealth, and jobs to developing countries. Another internationalist goal. The Davos World. Both of our Parties cheer.

When BJ starts his "global initiative" next month to push harder for the Davos World I think it will become much clearer. It ain't immigration.

[hosepipe]

[ He said illegal immigration wouldn't be such a big problem if the federal government would enforce the law. ]

And that pretty much says it all.. The fedgov't is not only NOT enforcing the law. It is pressuring the agencys involved to NOT SUPPORT LAW.. from the President on down.. The illegal alien issue is being allowed/done... ON PURPOSE..

Its not as much of a legal issue as a globalist treason issue.. Both partys support the illegal aliens.. Quite remarkable really.. WHAT other issue are both the democrats and the republicans UNITED OVER.. Hands OFF the illegals is only one.. (R's)Spending like democrats while democrats are grouseing about deficit spending is another..

What does "I'm a Unite'er not a Divider", mean anyway..
The unity of BOTH parties.?.. Wake me when the political "ACID" wears off..

"Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you."-Pericles (430 B.C.)

[EternalVigilance]

"I heard on the radio today, (WRKO, Boston, w/Hugh Hewitt), that the Minutemen have literally halved the number of illegal immigrants wherever they patrol."


http://www.jimgilchrist.com

[janetgreen]

I like that fence. On another thread someone stated that it would cost 680 million to build a fence. That's a drop in the bucket compared to the 10 BILLION it costs us every year here in good ol' California to support illegal aliens. Sounds like it might be worth it.

[Burlem]

This will put your britches in a knot:

Mexican Presidential Race Kicks Off ... in Los Angeles

The leading contenders for the presidency of Mexico plan to launch their 2006 campaigns this fall – in Los Angeles.

Last month Mexicans living in other countries were given the right to vote by mail, beginning with next year’s presidential election, and the candidates are seeking to woo support from Mexican immigrants in the U.S.But they will have to begin their campaigning in the U.S. early because Mexican laws bar campaign appearances outside the country after candidates are selected this fall.

There are an estimated 10 million adult Mexicans living in the U.S., and about a third are eligible to vote in the Mexican election, according to the Los Angeles Times.

The leading contender for president is Andres Manual Lopez Obrador, the former mayor of Mexico City. His campaign lieutenant first spoke of a visit to Southern California in July during the inaugural of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

If Obrador visits . . .

To read the rest of this article Click Here.

---

[kellynla]

that's a picture of the wall in Israel...
and you know who paid for that one...
yep, you and I...
you would think that if we have money to pay for border security in Israel, N. Korea, Afghanistan & Iraq that the geniuses in DC could come up with the funds to build a fence in the good ol' US of A...

[Das Outsider]

Like I've said before, these immigration threads are like entering the looking glass sometimes(akin to DU).

Yes, we've heard the Alice in Borderland schtick before. What's the DU like, Dane? I've never been.

[johnb838]

This problem has grown by immense proportions under Booosh. It has caused me to loose respect for him. Why? Why is he doing this to us? No one knows. People have guesses, no one knows why.

It brings into question for me the other policies he is imposing: Iraq, the Middle East, the larger WOT. Why is the ineffectual Mineta STILL at Transportation?

I had to vote for Booosh over the communist Kerry, but I'm not happy at all with what I'm getting.

[devane617]

"...I'm not happy at all with what I'm getting..."

Well said! All the BushBots are in full retreat, or have converted to the same belief you and I have. Normally, a "lame-duck" President will try to help the ones that elected him, however Boy George is helping his rich buddies with cheap labor over the objections of the vast majority of the country.

[johnb838]

Joan Baez the Communist, hanging at Camp Casey over the weekend said "You can't stop flowing water". I beg to differ. Did man learn to stop flowing water BEFORE we learned to make fire or after? Before we discovered the wheel? We know how to make dams better than about anything else Humans do.

We can't listen to the naysayers and communists. I like the idea of building two walls one mile apart and concentrating our forces in between. I also like the idea of using those prefabricated concrete highway sound barriers so we could put them up fast. Hell, just a highway's width apart. Shoot, put a road in between so the troops could get up and down real quick.

This country built the Panama Canal. The communists are right -- THEY couldn't build a wall to keep out the dreck, but WE sure could.

[swampfox98]

Our Merger with Mexico World Net Daily ^ | July 20, 2005 | Joseph Farah Posted on 07/20/2005 12:07:28 PM EDT by wesley_windam-price

One of the most frequently asked questions I hear is this: Why does the federal government refuse to accept its responsibility to enforce immigration laws and border security?

Now the answer is becoming clear.

And it's not pretty.

The shadow government – the elitists – do indeed have a plan. And it is a plan that does not include any vestige of U.S. sovereignty or constitutional government. It is a plan for merger – a European Union-style government for North America and eventually the rest of the Americas and the world.

It's all spelled out in the latest reports by the Council on Foreign Relations. There's a five-year plan for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" with a common "outer security perimeter."

Though there has been no national debate on merger with the corruption and socialism of our neighbors to the north and south, there is a roadmap. And unless the American people rise up in righteous indignation against this plan, the roadmap to merger will become the inevitable, guiding force in setting U.S. policy.

In many ways, it already has.

The goal of this merger couldn't be clearer – "a common economic space ... for all people in the region, a space in which trade, capital and people flow freely."

The CFR's strategy calls specifically for "a more open border for the movement of goods and people." It calls for laying "the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America." It calls for us to "harmonize visa and asylum regulations." It calls for us to "harmonize entry screening."

More open? How could it be any more open? How could the flow of people be any freer? Criminals, terrorists, drug dealers and other undesirables cross into the U.S. on a daily basis – unchecked, unmolested, unscreened. How could we have any less enforcement?

Well, imagine Mexico as the 51st state. That's a picture of what the CFR has in mind with regard to the flow of human traffic back and forth between the two countries.

By the way, even though you didn't hear any national debate about this plan, your president has already committed you, your children and your grandchildren to this policy, according to the CFR.

In "Building a North American Community," the shadow government's 59-page manifesto for merger, we are informed President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin "committed their governments" to this goal March 23 when they met in Texas.

You might remember that little get-together. It was there that Bush characterized the the Minuteman organization of heroic citizen border monitors as "vigilantes."

Last month, a follow-up meeting was held in Canada, suggesting this plan be put on the fast track. The U.S. representative, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, explained at that time that "we want to facilitate the flow of traffic across our borders."

Silly me. I thought the objective of Homeland Security was to protect the American people from terrorist attacks! But the real goal is making it easier for Mexicans and Canadians and anyone else using those territories to enter our country undetected and unmolested.

The CFR plan also calls for massive redistribution of wealth – more of your hard-earned money flowing to Mexico and Canada to make this panacea possible. It also calls for the implementation of "the Social Security Totalization Agreement" so that illegal aliens will be certain to bankrupt the system Bush claims to be trying to save.

It is a stunning betrayal of the will of the American people, the Constitution of the United States, the Declaration of Independence and all of our notions of limited government, self-government, freedom, sovereignty, the rule of law and justice.

I don't know how else to say it: It is an open conspiracy to commit treason. End of article.

************************

I'd like to tell those who say the CFR is not relevant in today's world, that Bush has already signed on to the above.

[johnb838]

If we were not being overrun with illegals we could probably be more lenient with legals. It is so utterly unfair.

[hedgetrimmer]

It has been reliably demonstrated, if it costs the lawbreakers(employers and illegals) in fines and penalties, more money than they can make by breaking the law, they will stop.

[William Terrell]

The money sent to Mexico (using the numbers from your friend in post 73) is $17 billion.

How does he know?

There are 13 million illegals plus many more legals sending back money. So $1000 / person is not an unreasonable estimate for the average.

If the total as of 2004 is $17 billion. This is an estimate from the Bank of Mexico. Who knows? $100 a year?

If they make a $100 a day, that's $2000 a month. They live 20 or more to a house, get free social and medical services. $1000 a year is an unreasonable estimate.

A hardworking illegal around here can make 20k a year tax free. Where does the other 19k end up?

How do you know?

The numbers don't add up anyway. Your question assumes the illegal sends only $1000/yr home. Calculated from "estimate" from the Bank of Mexico, which may have some interests in hooding the true amount of cash coming into Mexico.

A hardworking illegal around here can make 20k a year tax free. Where does the other 19k end up?

If they have $19k left over, that may help to offset hundreds of billions cost of social and medical services, including the cost of incarceration, $9 billion costs of which California by itself bears.

And, of course, no offset is possible for the Balkanization of our language, culture and politics.

[Map Kernow]

immigration has turned from immigration into an existing polity into colonization.

Excellent succinct point. Wish I had thought of it first. :)

[palmer]

Calculated from "estimate" from the Bank of Mexico, which may have some interests in hooding the true amount of cash coming into Mexico.

And your estimate is? I put up the number from skeeter's post because he's on your side. This BBC article says $30B to all latin countries so $17B to Mexico is not out of line. The article also says half of Latino adults send $100 to $200 a month suggesting an average of $100 or $150 for all Latino adults. That's 1200 to 1800 a year leaving 18k left over to spend here. As I point out over and over, CA's $9B is a result of socialism by the government and the elite beneficiaries like hospital administrators. Fix that problem and the illegals will have fewer reasons to show up.

In any case CA's 9B in costs are nothing compared to the $40B added to the economy before any ripple effect.

[janetgreen]

I'd like to tell those who say the CFR is not relevant in today's world, that Bush has already signed on to the above.

BTTT

I find it strange (and frightening) that many people don't want to talk about this outrage that the President has forced upon us without even mentioning it. Can that many people be in denial?