Koch: Call them what they are: Illegal aliens

The push is on for providing amnesty to the estimated 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country. The supporters of this effort include President Barack Obama, former president George W. Bush, Senator John McCain, Majority Leader Harry Reid and New York Senator Chuck Schumer. Senator Schumer is now chairman of the immigration subcommittee previously chaired by the late Senator Ted Kennedy, a major amnesty proponent.

Amnesty supporters see themselves as taking the high road and claim that amnesty opponents are opposed to immigration, when nothing could be further from the truth. Many amnesty opponents actually support expanding legal immigration. Currently, the U.S. has the highest legal immigration in the world. Every year, we allow 750,000 immigrants to enter the country legally and make them eligible for citizenship within five years. Two hundred and fifty thousand aslyees are also permitted to enter annually. Those legal immigrants have the right to work and earn a living; the asylees are eligible to work six months after applying to work. If we need more immigrants, as many think we do to expand the workforce of our graying population, then we can easily increase the number of legal immigrants.

If we give the current illegals amnesty, you can be sure that 20 or so years from now, there will be a clamor for another amnesty bill as the illegals will continue to pour in. For example, the Simpson-Mazzoli bill, adopted by Congress in 1986, was hailed as the last amnesty bill we would need because the borders of the U.S., then a sieve, would be better protected. However, our borders continued to be porous, and the number of illegals burgeoned, and here we are again with the illegals and their supporters seeking amnesty once more for ever larger numbers.

No country in the world has open borders that foreigners can enter at will, certainly not Mexico. Arizona has an estimated 500,000 illegal aliens living in the state and in 2009, the border patrol agents arrested 241,000 illegal aliens, which is why that state enacted controversial legislation out of frustration. Arizona's citizens are outraged by the presence of many criminals among the people crossing their border - remember there is an ongoing drug war in Mexico with thousands of Mexicans being killed and wounded south of the border by other Mexicans. Arizona does not want that war to spill over into Arizona. Arizona citizens are also distressed with the demands made by illegals upon medical and educational services.

Regrettably, the Arizona legislation went too far, allowing local police to ask individuals "reasonably suspected" to be illegal immigrants for identifying papers. This conjures up images of Nazis engaging in Jew catching in Germany. On the other hand, it would be sound and defensible policy to have the local police examine at the workplace the identity papers of all employees to ascertain whether they are legally allowed to work and, most important, ascertain if employers had intentionally violated current U.S. laws requiring employers to check the immigration status of hired workers. Those employers who intentionally violate the law should be pursued criminally and, if convicted, go to prison. Regrettably, this is not what is happening. If that policy were strictly enforced, illegal aliens would go home, since they are here primarily to get a job and send money home to their families. Recently, I saw an estimate that a million illegals had returned home because of our recession and unemployment in the U.S. which is now at 9.7 percent.

Amnesty supporters refuse to use the term illegal aliens, preferring instead undocumented aliens. They should call them what they are: illegal. Amnesty proponents also should acknowledge that an open border policy is indefensible and irrational and has not been adopted by any other country.

If open borders were such a good idea, why don't we try on a limited scale simply expanding the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) among Mexico, Canada and the U.S. and allow anyone living in those three countries access to jobs in any of them? Would Canada consent to that? Would Mexico? I doubt it.

A week ago, Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Great Britain had to apologize to a woman voter for referring to her as "bigoted" when she voiced her objections to millions of Europeans in the European Union lawfully flooding into Great Britain and taking jobs. I don't know whether she is bigoted in her attitude toward other Europeans, but she doesn't have to be a bigot to object to the English having to compete for jobs and services such as healthcare and education with immigrants from other countries.

Mark McKinnon, who was a senior adviser to John McCain and President George W. Bush, was quoted in The New York Times of April 28th, as stating, "Immigration is the most explosive issue I've seen in my political career." According to The Times, Mr. McKinnon "...also supported giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship." But, in his view, "an election year is the worst time to move good public policy on this issue."

During the Bush presidency, amnesty proponents were twice defeated when they tried to shove their self-defined "good policy" down the throats of the voters. Amnesty advocates believed, as they do now, that they know what is best for us, but the American public stood up and said "no." In an election year, the voters can throw the bums out, and that is why Congress fears to bring the issue up before the November elections.

I predict the Schumer legislation supported by President Obama and a whole host of prominent public officials and the media will fail. I also believe it is outrageous to threaten understandably frustrated, but misguided, Arizona with boycotts because we disagree with the protective procedures it has adopted. Let's leave the legality of those procedures to the courts. We are one country and should not be boycotting one another. Persuasion should be our tool of choice, not punishment.

Ted Kennedy: 1986 Amnesty
In 1986 Senator Kennedy said, ‘This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this.’

Just another Lying Democrat.

Indeed although I would say politicians in general because the GOP is not much better on this. Reagan went along with the 86 amnesty also claiming it would be the last.

Some choice quotes from the 65 immigration act

Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA)

"Out of deference to the critics, I want to comment on … what the bill will not do. First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same … Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset … Contrary to the charges in some quarters, S.500 will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Africa and Asia. In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think. Thirdly, the bill will not permit the entry of subversive persons, criminals, illiterates, or those with contagious disease or serious mental illness. As I noted a moment ago, no immigrant visa will be issued to a person who is likely to become a public charge … the charges I have mentioned are highly emotional, irrational, and with little foundation in fact. They are out of line with the obligations of responsible citizenship. They breed hate of our heritage."(Senate Part 1, Book 1, pp. 1-3)

Senator Robert F. Kennedy (D-NY)

"In fact, the distribution of limited quota immigration can have no significant effect on the ethnic balance of the United States. … Total quota immigration is now 156,782; under the proposed bill, it would rise to 164,482. Even if all these immigrants came from Italy, for example, the net effect would be to increase the number of Italo-Americans by one-tenth of 1 percent of our population this year, and less as our population increases. Americans of Italian extraction now constitute about 4 percent of our population; at this rate, considering our own natural increase, it would take until the year 2000 to increase that proportion to 6 percent. Of course, S.500 would make no such radical change. Immigration from any single country would be limited to 10 percent of the total-16,500-with the possible exception of the two countries now sending more than that number, Great Britain and Germany. But the extreme case should set to rest any fears that this bill will change the ethnic, political, or economic makeup of the United States. … [w]e bar immigration by those individuals who would compete for jobs for which the supply of labor is adequate for the demand … we bar immigration by individuals who have demonstrated that they do not hold such allegiance [to our fundamental precepts of political freedom and democratic government]. … If it is true that those from northern Europe, as individuals, can make greater contributions to this country than can others, then this legislation will bring them here. If the legislation does not bring them here, then the assumptions on which defenders of the present system rely are wholly false. … [S.500] will facilitate the entry of skilled specialists … the level of immigration now proposed is far less than that thought 'assimilable' by the most restrictionist Congress [1924] in our history. … As far as the quota system, it [S.500] increases it about 9,000 and as far as a practical matter, it increases it about 50,000. It is not a large number."(Senate Part 1, Book 2, pp.216-218, 226, 242)

Senator Philip Hart (D-MI)

"… the notion was created that somehow or another, 190 million [the population of the U.S. in 1965] is going to be swallowed up. None of us would want that, this bill does not seek to do it and the bill could not do it."(Senate Part 1, Book 1, p.29)

Senator Hiram Fong (R-HI)

"… the people who have built up America, Anglo-Saxons, and the northern peoples of Europe, are not discriminated against in this bill. … the people from that part of the world [the Asia-Pacific Triangle] probably will never reach 1 percent of the [U.S.] population. … Our cultural pattern will never be changed as far as America is concerned.… It will become more cosmopolitan but still there is that fundamental adherence to European culture. … We feel those people [from northern Europe] who have been preferred in former immigration bills would still be treated fairly. … one of the reasons why the United States was attacked, on December 7, 1941, was because of these exclusionary laws [the 1924 Immigration Act] which had fomented so much bad feeling between the peoples of Japan and the United States."(Senate Part 1, Book 1, pp.72, 119, 120, 144)

Senator Hugh Scott (R-PA)

"I do not think it [S.500] amounts to a serious increase in the number of persons admitted … I have read the statements of the Malthusian pessimists, and they may be right, of course, but I doubt if this bill will really be the cause of crowding the present Americans out of the 50 states … I do not believe an increase of 66,000 opens the door wide."(Senate Part 1, Book 1, p.136)

Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach

"This bill is not designed to increase or accelerate the number of newcomers permitted to come to America. this bill would retain all the present security and health safeguards of the present law. the overall effect of this bill on employment would, first of all, be negligible, and second, that such effect as might be felt would not be harmful, but beneficial. The actual net increase in total immigration under this bill would be about 60,000. Those immigrants who seek employment are estimated at a maximum of 24,000. Our present labor force, however, is 77 million. Statistically or practically, we are talking about an infinitesimal amount; 24,000 is about three one-hundredths of 1 percent of 77 million a good part of even these 24,000 additional workers would not even be competitors for jobs held or needed by Americans. I would expect very little change in the immigration from the Western Hemisphere."(Senate Part 1, Book 1, pp.8, 13-14, 31)

Secretary of State Dean Rusk

"…the maximum allotment of numbers in any one fiscal year could not exceed the sum of all immigration quotas in effect on the date of enactment of the bill, roughly 166,000. Immigration now comes in limited volume and includes a relatively high proportion of older people and persons of high skill and training. The significance of immigration for the United States now depends less on the number than on the quality of the immigrants Under present circumstances our country has a rare opportunity to draw migrants of high intelligence and ability from abroad. I think the average immigration from the Western Hemisphere over the past 5 years has been about 125,000 a year. We do not anticipate a large increase in those nonquota applications The opportunities here in the United States, the opportunities which attract immigration, are the more sophisticated opportunities, for the educated, for the trained, for the industrial worker, for the technician, for those who can enter into a more sophisticated part in our life than they could if they came in without skills and without any training "(Senate Part 1, Book 1, pp. 48, 50, 52)

Secretary of Labor W. Willard Wirtz

"[S.500] would promote the admission of individuals with qualifications and occupations needed in the United States without disturbing the domestic employment situation."(Senate Part 1, Book 1, p. 84)

Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare Anthony J. Cerebrezze

"With the exception of the provisions relating to epilepsy and certain mental conditions this legislation does not alter the qualitative standards for immigration which prevent the entry of those whom we can, in justice and in logic, exclude. It preserves our national security and our domestic welfare; it continues to exclude subversives; it retains the provisions of existing law which makes aliens who become public charges deportable."(Senate Part 12, Book 2, p. 334)

Senator Claiborne Pell (R-RI)

"[S.500] sets the limit of how many people we think are desirable to keep the mix I may be wrong. Maybe there will be a huge surge from India or a huge surge from Africa, but I would tend to doubt it."(Senate Part 2, Book 1, pp. 561,563)

Senator Harrison A. Williams (D-NJ)

"S.500 does not open the gates to all aliens applying for immigration. Any bar to true assimilation is ours, not theirs [the immigrants]. It is how we welcome to our country, not how much they [the immigrants] want to be welcomed."(Senate Part 2, Book 1, pp. 567, 569)

Senator Thomas H. Kuchel (R-CA)

"Under the proposed bill, the total number of immigrants remains approximately the same "(Senate Part 2, Book 1, p. 576)

Senator E. L. (Bob) Bartlett (D-AK)

"The bill does not seek to increase to any great extent the annual number of new immigrants we admit."(Senate Part 2, Book 3, p. 851)

Senator Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI)

"…while the national origins rule will be eliminated in establishing quotas for foreign countries, this does not mean that the bill would permit a floodtide of new immigrants into this country. As a matter of fact, the total number of potential immigrants would not be changed very much."(Senate Part 2, Book 3, p. 853)

Senator Eugene J. McCarthy (D-MN)

"The proposed legislation would not greatly increase the number of immigrants "(Senate Part 2, Book 3, 854)

Senator Pat McNamara (D-MI)

"Total quota numbers available will be only slightly increased."(Senate Part 2, Book 3, p. 855)

Senator Frank E. Moss (D-UT)

"I emphasize that this bill would not attempt to make any drastic changes in our overall immigration numbers."(Senate Part 2, Book 3, p. 856)

Senator William Proxmire (D-WI)

"S.500 does not let down the bars completely It would not substantially increase the total number of immigrants to be admitted to the United States. It would not reduce the security safeguards for keeping out political undesirable. It would not diminish the requirements designed to keep out persons likely to become public charges."(Senate Part 2, Book 3, p. 857)

Nicholas S. Limperis, National Chairman, AHEPA [Greek-American organization] Immigration Legislative Committee

"This bill emphasizes not primarily increased immigration but equality of opportunity for all people to reach this Promised Land."(Senate Part 2, Book 1, p. 381)

Joseph A. L. Errigo, acting chairman

Sons of Italy National Committee

"S.500 does not repeal the McCarran-Walter Act [immigration act of 1952]. It merely amends it. The overall picture outside of the amendment provided by S.500 will remain more or less the same."(Senate Part 2, Book 1, p. 416)

Mike M. Masaoka, Washington representative

Japanese American Citizens League

"…the 1924 exclusion act against just the Japanese contributed to the downfall of the democratic liberal elements in Japan and allowed the militarists, the jingoists, the imperialists to take over and lead Japan on the dreadful path of World War II. none of us should take for granted that S.500 is the ultimate in immigration law let us recognize even this law cannot wipe out the widespread favoritism for Europeans, which has existed in our law."(Senate Part 2, Book 2, pp. 628, 629) "Let's make no mistake about this. This legislation is in the national interests of the United States and not necessarily for other countries "(HR Book 1, p. 222)

Jack Wong Sing, Director,

West Coast District, National Chinese Welfare Council "Let it not be said that Chinese immigration would be opened. Under the pending proposals, any increase in volume of immigration of the Chinese would still be limited "(Senate Part 2, Book 2, p. 727)

James B. Carey, President

International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (IUE) and Secy-Treas. of the AFL-CIO Industrial Union Dept.

"S.500 will do little or nothing to add to unemployment. We estimate that by the fifth year of operation only about 24,000 quota immigrants will have joined the labor force each year. At that time, we will have a labor force of 86 million. The newcomers will constitute three-thousandths of 1 percent of that group of workers we can expect that a good number of these immigrants will bring badly needed skills to this country."(Senate Part 2, Book 1, p. 470)

Secretary of State Dean Rusk

"This bill [HR 2580] itself draws some distinctions in favor of, gives preferences to certain types of people in terms of talent and training It is not one which others have objected to. We haven't had any indication of disagreement on that from abroad, from any government, certainly We are dealing here with a level of immigration that is fully within our ability to absorb, and our needs as a Nation to receive. we do not get the impression that 3 billion people are all at the starting line, waiting to take off to come to this country, juste as soon as the bill is passed."(HR Book 1, pp. 97, 105, 105)

Representative Spark M. Matsunaga (D-HI)

"The administration bill is a revolutionary one, but it is not as revolutionary as some have claimed or believe it to be. It would change the basis for allotting immigrant visas but it does not provide for an overwhelming increase in immigration as some people seem to fear. It provides for a quota increase of less than 8,000. Actual immigration, counting nonquota and quota immigrants, would be increased around 50,000 or roughly 17 percent over current average annual immigration of around 300,000. This is certainly not a throwing open of the floodgates."(HR Book 1, p. 200)

Representative Richard S. Schweiker (R-PA)

"The administration bill favors nations of Latin America and North America. It favors nations of northern Europe."(HR Book 1, p. 204)

Representative John D. Dingell (D-MI)

"The new bill makes no change whatsoever in the safeguards of our present immigration laws which prohibit the admission of Communists, other subversives, security risks, narcotic addicts, and persons with criminal record. It provides controls to protect our domestic labor market."(HR Book 2, p. 407)

Representative Richard L. Ottinger (D-NY)

"This bill emphasizes needed skills whereas existing legislation virtually ignores them."(HR Book 2, p. 417)

Representative Patsy T. Mink (D-HI)

"…this bill is but a step in the right direction. It is estimated that in the total 5-year period 679,663 of the 828,805 persons entering the United States will come from Europe "(HR Book 2, p. 420)

Source of the above Senate quotes Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization, Committee of the Judiciary, United States Senate, Eight-Ninth Congress, First Session, on S.500 to Amend the Immigration and Naturalization Act, and For Other Purposes. Part 1 February/March; Part 2 March/June/July/August 1965 Congressional Information Service, Inc.

Source of House of Representative (HR) quotes Hearing Before Subcommittee No. 1, Committee of the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Eight-Ninth Congress, First Session on H.R. 2580 "To Amend the Immigration and Naturalization Act and For Other Purposes," March/April/May/June 1965. Congressional Information Service, Inc.

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.