Posted on 05/01/2006 11:34:36 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
It was billed as "A Day Without Immigrants."
According to its propagandists, official and media, the purpose of the May Day walkout from schools and jobs and boycott of shops and stores was to show how much immigrants contribute and how they deserve appreciation and respect, and not to be treated like criminals.
But if this was all it was about, there would have been no need to go on strike. Americans have always welcomed immigrants. They are better treated here than anywhere on earth. While most Americans believe we now need a timeout to assimilate the 36 million here and their children -- like the moratorium we had in the Roosevelt-Truman-Eisenhower-Kennedy years -- no one urges any denial of rights to legal immigrants.
What, then, was May Day really all about?
May Day was a strike against America. It was a show of force, a demonstration of raw street power to force the government of the United States into granting to 12 million illegal aliens, who have broken our laws and broken into our country, not only the full benefits of U.S. citizenship, but full citizenship.
It was brazen act of extortion to coerce Congress to grant amnesty now, and not to enforce our immigration laws or secure the Mexican border -- or to be ready for big trouble in the streets.
Congress cannot capitulate. The response of any Congress that calls itself American to such extortion should be a direct one:
"We are not intimidated. There is going to be no amnesty. The border fence goes up this summer. Those are our non-negotiable answers to your non-negotiable demands. Demonstrate all you want. We're not capitulating."
The message that would go out to the world would be electric: Congress will have said, first, that the United States will not be cowed by strikes or boycotts by law-breakers. Second, America intends to re-establish control of her border. Third, the invasion route from Mexico is going to be closed, forever.
Fourth, those who come to America henceforth will be those we invite in. And, as guests, they will behave as guests -- or they will be going back home. As for businesses that cannot get along without illegal foreign labor, if some of their CEOs are prosecuted and put to work in Arizona building that security fence, they will rapidly rediscover how to make a buck without colluding in an invasion of their country for commercial purposes.
We are at a turning point in American history. In July of 1954, President Eisenhower, discovering that illegal aliens were pouring into the Southern United States at a rate of a million a year, put in motion Operation Wetback, which halted the invasion and sent back scores of thousands of illegals to Mexico. Many more returned voluntarily.
Thirty years later, Ronald Reagan declared an amnesty for 3 million illegal aliens, conditioned on sanctions on U.S. businesses that did not cease to hire them. Following that amnesty, the flood began. Now we have 12 million illegals here.
Between 2000 and 2005, 4.5 million were caught at the border. Four million are believed to have gotten in. No one knows exactly how many. Even Bush concedes that, among the illegals, one in 12 has a criminal record. If we have 12 million illegals here now, that means the U.S. government, in dereliction of its duty, has let into this nation in the last 20 years 1 million criminals -- like Beltway sniper John Lee Malvo -- to prey on American citizens.
While almost half of all Mexicans, in a national poll, indicated a desire to move to the United States, the rest of the Third World has gotten the message. One in every 10 citizens of Central America and the Caribbean countries has already arrived. During the War on Terror, the number of those coming into the United States illegally from countries "other than Mexico" (OTM) has tripled.
These OTMs are coming from as far away as China and Iraq.
Fifteen years ago, when this writer ran in the California GOP primary against the first President Bush, calling for a border fence along the crucial 70 miles where illegals were massing and coming in by the thousands every day, there were 3 million to 4 million illegals here.
Nothing was done. There are now 12 million. If these 12 million are amnestied and the border fence is not built along all 2,000 miles, the next amnesty will be for 20 million or 30 million.
During the "Generals' Revolt," when half a dozen senior officers called for the firing of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, President Bush saw a challenge to his authority and had to throw it back. If Congress does not throw back this challenge, if Congress now capitulates to this extortion, America should start shopping for a new Congress in November -- an American Congress.
Even a blind pig finds an ear of corn once in a while. This one jumped in his mouth!
That Mexican poll Pat mentioned is the same one that showed one quarter of Mexico's population is already in the US. Half of the remaining population were packing to go north -- Mexico's middle class. Pat also said one in three of various other Latin American countries were already here, too.
There was a newspaper article about 3 years ago, a large number of Costa Ricans decided to walk to the US. Sick and tired of hurricanes, poverty, and lousy lives, they said nothing would stop them. Well, they arrived about a year ago and said they weren't leaving. (They were in New York.)
They walked here. Open borders means everyone gets in and nobody has to leave, an untenable situation. Fox has already announced that the US should 'invest in rebuilding Mexico's infrastructure so Mexicans will come home'. That would be on their terms, on our dime. Extortion, pure and simple, and we'll cave. (You'd think common sense would kick in sometime in DC, but no.)
One of the women interviewed on TV today said, "We can get $5 a day in our home country, but $5 an HOUR here. Why should we stay there?"
Ummm, because you said it's your HOME country?
Like we just hand out $5 bills on the street once an hour, every hour on the hour. Do they hand them out once a day in Mexico, for doing nothing?
The correct idea is to kick out those Republicans that support "amnesty for illegals" and open borders. If that results in the Democrats getting control of the House for a term or two, then so be it. The NEXT batch of Republicans will know better than to support that crap.
You are right. "Of course, the fact is that immigration is DOWN under Bush." My theory is that Bush has been so effective at getting thing done that people (unconsciously) demand that he do whatever else they dream up, pronto. I'll concede that buchanon and Tancredo have been talking about immigration a long time, but we have not had a national election that focused on this issue.
Deport 'em.
"Would you ever even consider giving amnesty to the inmates of your local state prison simply so that they are no longer a burden on society?" No, but I see no reason why those dudes shouldn't pick lettuce or pack meat.
I went through that 90's downsizing, too, and that Jack in the Box job was temporary. I was part of a group of 450 managers that the labor department in Omaha put together to coach us into finding appropriate employment. Eventually, some decided that the thing to do was to start businesses. I partnered with an unemployed brother and hired 40. A woman I had hired as a secretary for $6.50 ( 100 apps) after she took a telco buyout eventually retrained at a bank. By 95 the unemployment rate was down to 2% and there were no applicants for secretarial jobs at all.
Yes, he did.
Let us never cease to remind people (who we know or suspect will be voting in November) that it's the Dems who are pandering and giving full support and ecouragement of these marches all across the US.
Barack Obama-Mama ought to be run out of his office on a rail - but in socialist-illegal-and-dead-people-voting Illinois, he won't. Makes you wonder why Hillary didn't run for the sentae in Arkansas, huh? Oh, puke, now I've got them both in my brain now. Time for a purge...
So why not bring in the workers they need legally?
Because legal workers are more expensive.
Classicly, full employment is 3.5% unemployment. In todays world, most consider full employment to be higher than 3.5%.
Then you have chosen not to see. There have been many posts chastising Prez. Reagan for this act. He was not perfect but certainly much better than most other presidents. HOWEVER the issue today is what do we do TODAY not what was done in the past.
Daily our Federal government ignores one of it's few Constitutional mandates and does not protect the borders. Try to ignore some of the other laws imposed on the average citizen and see if the Feds take no action. Seems like only legal citizens have to obey the law (assuming they are not in the ruling class otherwise anything goes).
NEW BUZZ WORD "BLENDED FAMILIES"
Those with US citizen children and illegal parents.
FAMILIES DO NOT GET DIVIDED.
The whole family gets deported and the US citizen may return when adult.
DON'T FORGET
Hardship visas are available if you have been in the USA for TEN YEARS. This rolling amnesty has been around for decades. It only changed in 96 when the time went from six years to 10 years.
Watch for the new talking points now that the May 1 commie day protest has busted into absolute failure.
Are you saying that illegal immigration is down under Bush? Please source that claim.
I think that we should just drop the amnesty issue and what to do about those already in the country until the border is controlled.
Around here they are giving ranchers and farmers radios so they can call the BP if they see illegals. I don't get up early in the am but I do walk in the desert and there are veritable highways through the dirt. They walk through the middle of our fields and they leave their backpacks and water bottles strewn across the whole landscape.
The coyote business is booming and I understand that the illegals have to pay upwards of $2000 to get a ride. The have cell phones and pamphlets with instructions on how to make the journey and what to do when they get here.
If I remember correctly, Bush Sr wanted a fence, they built a prototype on a section of the El Paso border but then the libs screamed and it was stopped.
Are they expensive because employers are required to pay the payroll taxes that are mandated when someone employs an American as opposed to EVADING a lot of the same taxes when they employ illegals?
Are they expensive because most traditional American companies have historically offered health benefits for workers as opposed to the current situation where employers don't need to offer a health plan because they now know their illegal workers can go down to the county hospital and taxpayers get socked with the bill?
Are those American workers expensive because they need to be paid a decent wage due to the high cost of living and that many dutifully PAY their taxes as opposed to paying illegals substandard wages because employers know that many of the employee living expenses are helped with taxpayer $ ?
Gee........have you detected a pattern here?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.