Newt on Immigration

Townhall.com ^ | November 29, 2011 | Neal Boortz

[Kaslin]

OK, Republicans. Since you’re so religious and all – it’s time for a little “come to Jesus meetin’”. If you’re not familiar with the term, click on the link. It’s time for a little harsh dressing down.

Do you realize what we have at stake in this election next year? This isn’t just about taxes, pork spending, social security benefits and repairing bridges. This is about saving our Republic. Do you know we’re already past our life expectancy? Economies and societies built on the rule of law, liberty and economic freedom have this troubling tendency to destroy themselves at around the 200 year mark. This happens when people figure out they can use the ballot box to get their hands on someone else’s stuff.

Well guess what, folks? We’re there. We’re past there. We’re on the ropes. We’re old – and durned near on our deathbed.

We have a president who was not raised as an American. Oh, I know. He’s a citizen and all that … but he was not infused during his formative years with how fortunate he was to have been born in this country and what it means to be an American. He lived in Indonesia, for crying out loud, for much of his childhood; that and Hawaii. Well guess what? I lived in Hawaii too, and I can tell you that as a student in Hawaiian schools you weren’t exactly saturated with American culture and history. Hawaiian history? Sure. And that’s understandable. Hawaiians are very proud of their heritage. But U.S. history? Only what the schools absolutely had to include. And that private school, Punahou, that Obama went to in Honolulu? Here’s another “guess what?” My sister taught there; right around the time that Barry was a student. Again – not a place where you’re going to learn what a blessing it is to be an American and a citizen of the greatest nation on earth … ever.

Our president thinks that American greatness comes from government. He believes that free enterprise is inherently evil. He is robbing us of our economic liberty as he institutes a command economy. He believes in using tax policy for income redistribution rather than raising the revenue needed to pay for the basic (Constitutional) functions of government. He said he was going to fundamentally transform the United States of America, and we stupidly didn’t ask him just how he planned to do that. Now we know. And now we know that for our children to have half a chance of improving on the standard of living that we have enjoyed – or even living as well as we have -- this man has to be sent back to a community organizing office behind a dry cleaner on the South Side of Chicago … STAT.

That brings us to Newt Gingrich and this little puddin’ storm over his comments on immigration. Newt suggested that we might not want to be rounding up people who have lived in this country – though illegally – for 25 years or so; during which time they raised families, started businesses, paid taxes and helped drive our economy; and ship them back to Mexico. As soon as those words were out of his mouth Michelle Bachmann – desperate for a way to ignite voters – started screeching about “amnesty.” In no time we had the ObamaMedia falling over itself to parrot the “amnesty” line and call Gingrich out on strikes.

Let the progs and libs play this thing any way they want … but you Replublicans; you GOPers … could you make a special effort and try to get serious here for a minute or two? Think! I’ve done it on occasion, and I can promise it’s not painful.

Do we need to enforce our immigration laws? Absolutely! Does the border with Mexico need to be secured? No doubt. And Gingrich has said he would do just that. But a bit of realism needs to creep into this conversation.

I love analogies, so try this one: You come home from work to find a pipe has broken. Your home is flooded. What is the FIRST thing you do? Do you sit there and argue with people about how you’re going to get all that water out of your home? No. The FIRST thing you do is shut off the water. The same logic applies to our immigration problem. The first thing we do is secure our borders. Gingrich says he will shut them down.

OK … so the flood has stopped. NOW you start to clean up the mess.

Republican voters need to mature a bit on this issue …. Not one of your candidates has actually articulated a plan deport all illegals. Not one. And do you know just why that is? Because every single GOP candidate, including Bachmann, knows full well that there is no way in the world we’re going to round up every illegal in this country and send them south.

Try to imagine what the world will think of us (and it does matter) if we suddenly start looking for people who entered this country illegally 25 years ago; people who then married an American citizen, started a business, raised several children – all citizens – and who is now a vital and integral part of the American economy and his community, not to mention a husband, father and grandfather. So we find these people, and start shipping them back to Mexico. Can you hear the screams from the international community? Try these two words: “Ethnic cleansing.” Oh, I know. In reality we would just be expelling law-breakers … but you try to tell that to people we want to like and admire us that when they see that most of the people on the green busses have brown skin and dark hair.

I’m particularly amused by Bachmann’s (and other’s) claim that letting these people go through a process to gain legal residency status in America would be a “magnet” for more illegal immigration. Earth to Michelle. Our country is a magnet. Our way of life, our freedoms, our opportunities … all a magnet; a magnet much more powerful than giving some long-time illegal (but otherwise law-abiding) residents a break. What is Bachmann’s solution? Are we going to combat illegal immigration by making the United States a country to which nobody wants to emigrate? Seal the borders! Take the same actions to protect our borders that Mexico takes to protect theirs!

There’s a lot of anger on this issue. Understandable anger. We’ve had a succession of politicians and leaders who have steadfastly refused to do anything about what I call the Mexican invasion. And when a state (like Arizona) does try to address the situation, our federal government sides with the Mexican officials to go to court to get the enforcement actions stopped!

If it were not for the 17th Amendment to our Constitution, this story would read completely different .. but that’s another column.

So, Republicans --- instead of insisting that your candidate seek revenge on people who sought freedom and opportunity many, many years ago; try demanding that your candidate promise to do something to stem the tide as soon as he’s sworn in. Shut off the water. Close the borders. Once that’s been done we’ll seek out the illegals that pose a threat to our society and greet them with a clenched fist. Those who contribute to our society and want to join our family? Let’s greet them with an outstretched hand.

[kabar]

Boortz and Gingrich are the ones ignoring reality. We are being colonized by the Third World.

The U.S. adds one international migrant (net) every 36 seconds. Immigrants account for one in 8 U.S. residents, the highest level in more than 90 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13. In a decade, it will be one in 7, the highest it has been in our history. And by 2050, one in 5 residents of the U.S. will be foreign-born.

Currently, 1.6 million legal and illegal immigrants settle in the country each year; 350,000 immigrants leave each year, resulting in a net immigration of 1.25 million. Since 1970, the U.S. population has increased from 203 million to 310 million, i.e., over 100 million. In the next 40 years, the population will increase by 130 million to 440 million. Three-quarters of the increase in our population since 1970 and the projected increase will be the result of immigration. The U.S., the world’s third most populous nation, has the highest annual rate of population growth of any developed country in the world, i.e., 0.977 percent (2010 estimate), principally due to immigration.

87 percent of the 1.2 million legal immigrants entering annually are minorities as defined by the U.S. Government and almost all of the illegal aliens are minorities. By 2019 half of the children 18 and under in the U.S. will be classified as minorities and by 2039, half of the residents of this country will be minorities. Generally, immigrants and minorities vote predominantly for the Democrat Party. Hence, Democrats view immigration as a never-ending source of voters that will make them the permanent majority party.

Since the 1965 Immigration Act, our pro-population growth immigration policies have fueled major demographic changes in a very short period of time. In 1970, non-Hispanic whites comprised 89 percent of the population; today they are 66 percent; and by 2039, they will be 50 percent. The Democrats, under the banner of multiculturalism and diversity, have forged a political coalition that depends on individuals coalescing around racial and ethnic identities rather than the issues. The continuing and increasing flow of minority immigrants, mostly poor and uneducated, provide a natural constituency for the Democrats, which see them as their principal source of political power. Does anyone think that if Hispanics were voting Rep, the Dems would be supporting these huge number of immigrants?

We are importing poverty. Does this country need hundreds of thousands of high school dropouts each year?

[kabar]

November 6 was National Remembrance Day for Americans Killed by Illegal Aliens-- More than 50,000 Americans have been killed by illegal aliens since 9/11.

How about having a little humanity for our fellow citizens, hundreds of thousands of whom have been killed or injured by illegal aliens.

[kabar]

The proponents of amnesty are wont to create the false choice between a blanket amnesty and mass deportation of 12 to 20 million illegal aliens. In reality, we have other choices and alternatives that don’t reward people who have broken our laws with the right to stay and work here and an eventual path to citizenship. The 12 to 20 million illegal aliens did not enter this country overnight and they will not leave overnight. Attrition through enforcement works.

If the only law an illegal has broken in a couple of decades or more was coming here a couple of decades or more ago AND they've been good, established, law abiding, tax paying members of the community ever since, then figure out a way to make them pay for breaking the law decades ago and leave them be.

These law-abiding illegals have broken multiple laws besides entering this country illegally flaunting our laws. The lawbreakers have probably committed ID theft, worked illegally, tax evasion, drving without a license, used invalid or stolen SSNs, etc. They are really felons and should be treated as such.

Candidates who respond that we should deport “criminal” illegal aliens and that “undocumented workers who play by the rules” should have their status regularized in some way by the federal government, i.e., pay a fine, learn English, and get to the back of the line on a earned path to citizenship are supporters of amnesty. Trying to create two classes of illegal aliens is a distinction without a difference, except if you are intent on treating them differently, i.e., providing one group with an amnesty.

[bgill]

He’s a citizen and all that

Really?

[zeestephen]

---

“This is about saving our Republic.”

---

In that case, what is Newt’s policy on LEGAL immigration?

America has admitted 10 million new immigrant citizens in the last eleven years.

80% of them vote for the Democratic Party.

Does Newt support 800,000 new Democrats arriving each year?

[bgill]

Newt is very wrong on this. The longer illegals are squatting here, the more compounded are their crimes. One year here illegally equals one crime but 25 years here amounts to 25 years of criminal activity.

[GBA]

They are really felons and should be treated as such.

Agreed. But, they have been officially encouraged to come here and have been rewarded for being here thanks to pseudo-legal creations like sanctuary cities and even federal loan programs to give illegal aliens home loans.

There are, within the variety of illegals, a percentage that has shown through how they have lived their lives here that they are worthy enough to stay.

Do NOT grant them amnesty and reward them with full citizenship.

Instead, perhaps they should be treated the same and have a similar limited set of rights and privileges as convicted felons who have served their sentences, once they have earned it by coming forward and going through the immigration process.

They are they only ones who get to stay. Make them pay for the privilege and don't make it easy. Boot the rest, enforce the border and reform the immigration process.

[kabar]

Agreed. But, they have been officially encouraged to come here and have been rewarded for being here thanks to pseudo-legal creations like sanctuary cities and even federal loan programs to give illegal aliens home loans.

Give me a break. Now we must legalize them because we weren't enforcing our laws?

Do NOT grant them amnesty and reward them with full citizenship.

It has nothning to do with citizenship. Being allowed to stay and work here, the objective of their crime, IS amnesty. McCain and Obama claim their plans are not an amnesty.

Any legislation that legalizes the status of those who broke our laws by entering our country illegally and allows them to stay is amnesty. We must not only prevent the Democrats and some moderate Republicans from hijacking the meaning of the word amnesty, but the public must be made aware about the true impact of an amnesty.

Definition: Amnesty, from the same Greek root as "amnesia," forgives past crimes and removes them from the record for future purposes. In the context of immigration, amnesty is commonly defined as granting legal status to a group of individuals unlawfully present in a country. It overlooks the alien's illegal entry and ongoing illegal presence and creates a new legal status that allows the recipient to live and work in the country.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986: The textbook example of an amnesty. The 1986 law's path to citizenship was not automatic. The legislation stipulated several requirements to receive amnesty, including payment of application fees, acquisition of English-language skills, understanding of American civics, a medical exam, and registration for military service. Individuals convicted of a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible. No one disputes that this act provided amnesty. Supporters said it would be a “one-time” amnesty. It was estimated that one million would apply, but the true number turned out to be 2.7 million.

Instead, perhaps they should be treated the same and have a similar limited set of rights and privileges as convicted felons who have served their sentences, once they have earned it by coming forward and going through the immigration process.

Candidates who respond that we should deport “criminal” illegal aliens and that “undocumented workers who play by the rules” should have their status regularized in some way by the federal government, i.e., pay a fine, learn English, and get to the back of the line on a earned path to citizenship are supporters of amnesty. Trying to create two classes of illegal aliens is a distinction without a difference, except if you are intent on treating them differently, i.e., providing one group with an amnesty.

They are they only ones who get to stay. Make them pay for the privilege and don't make it easy. Boot the rest, enforce the border and reform the immigration process.

Boot the rest? How do you do that? And if you can do it, then let's boot them all out. We need enforcement without amnesty. Why do we need to legalize the status of the illegals already here? What's the urgency?

[GBA]

Emotionally, I agree with you, but my practical side sees an endless variety of Elian Gonzalez sorts of raid pics being shown on all the sympathetic MSM stations and papers that likely would also be a part of such a policy.

I'm looking for ways to secure the border and encourage their self deportation and forcing them out if necessary.

But, I am certain many who fit the long term residency category aren't going to leave unless forced, and how that will be used against you, such as the predictable raid videos and pics on the nightly news.

I'm also anticipating the legal challenges that come from such things as granting them a mortgage and then kicking them out.

You'd better have some exceptions in your policy, because you won't have the political or public will and support to make it happen or continue it unless you do.

[kabar]

Emotionally, I agree with you, but my practical side sees an endless variety of Elian Gonzalez sorts of raid pics being shown on all the sympathetic MSM stations and papers that likely would also be a part of such a policy.

I don't want your emotions but your reason. Conferring rights and privileges upon illegal aliens has a corrosive effect on the Rule of Law, the very foundation of our Republic. It is also a slap in the face to legal immigrants who have followed the rules and obeyed the laws. There are millions of immigrants waiting their turn overseas to enter the U.S. legally and approximately 40 million immigrants living in the U.S., most of whom followed the law. There are about 4 million intending immigrants waiting overseas for their turn to enter this country. They have completed all the paperwork, including background checks and physcials. Some have been waiting for many years. So we legalize the lawbreakers who are already living here?

If you want to consider emotion, How about the 50,000 Americans have been killed by illegal aliens since 9/11? Nov 6 is Rememberence Day. And this does not include the hundreds of thousands who have been injured. Illegal aliens cost this country well over $100 billion annually.

I'm looking for ways to secure the border and encourage their self deportation and forcing them out if necessary.

Securing the border only solves part of the problem. 40% of the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens came here legally and overstayed their visas. We have 720,000 foreign students in this country on student visas and over 50 million people come here annually on tourist/business visas.

But, I am certain many who fit the long term residency category aren't going to leave unless forced, and how that will be used against you, such as the predictable raid videos and pics on the nightly news.

We deport over 400,000 a year now. Obama is claiming credit for it. Why are you so concerned about the PR when the majority of the American people are against amnesty? And in a recent Rassmussen poll, 50% of likely voters considered the Reps best on the issue of immigration compared to 36% for Dems? Public opinion is on our side.

You'd better have some exceptions in your policy, because you won't have the political or public will and support to make it happen or continue it unless you do.

We have compromised too much. We don't enforce our immigration laws. We allow states and cities to declare themselves sanctuaries for illegals without any response from the Feds who are busy suing states like AZ, AL, and SC for enforcing federal law. 60% of all green cards are change of status cases for people already here. We have 8 million illegal aliens in the workforce (7 million in non-agricultural jobs) while 25 million Americans are looking for full time employment. Despite the economic downturn, the U.S. continues to bring in 125,000 new, legal foreign workers a month. This includes new permanent residents (Green Cards) and long-term temporary visas and others who are authorized to take a job. When are we going to make an "exception" for the American people?

[GBA]

You're good at cutting and pasting my contribution to the conversation, but not so good at reading it.

The only exception I am for is the one I stated and I gave you my reasons and why. So, I offered both emotional agreement and a reasoned exception to make the plan practical and sellable in the world we live in.

As to the rest of your posts explaining the nature and extent of the illegal immigration problem, we are in agreement and I've never expressed or held a different opinion on illegal immigration during my time on Earth.

If anything, you forgot to mention the threat to national security an open border presents, especially now when we are actively fighting on several fronts against islamic whackjobs.

[Darth Reardon]

If you can’t understand that, I don’t know what to tell you.

If you can't understand sarcasm...

[Gaffer]

Understood....I reread your post and could then see the sarcasm - but it was so close to a real bleeding heart it was difficult to tell...sorry..

[Dante3]

Gingrich's stand on illegal aliens is outrageous. Our biggest problem is the invasions of hordes of illegals. His comments provide a clue to his hidden anti-USA agenda. Why support foreign lawbreakers who demand special perks?

The other day Clinton made positive comments about Gingrich. Appears the Dems want him to be the GOP candidate because of his baggage and low likability score. While MSM is trashing Cain over allegations of affairs, they have remained silent on Gingrich's - he actually left a wife for the mistress.

[kabar]

Your "exception" seems to be based on unfriendly coverage by the media. Poll after poll indicate that the American people are against amnesty. Deportation is not seen as a bad thing. As someone who has worked on the issue for five years as part of a grassroots organization that lobbies on the Hill and in Richmond, including testifying before legislators, the other side is constantly trying to use emotion and sympathy to win the argument. Even folks like Perry and Gingrich have taken up the same tactic with "having a heart" and being humane. You are buying into that crap with your "exceptions."

As to the rest of your posts explaining the nature and extent of the illegal immigration problem, we are in agreement and I've never expressed or held a different opinion on illegal immigration during my time on Earth.

We may agree on the problem but not the solution. The idea that we must compromise with the other side by having a partial amnesty is the kind of logic that gave us the 1986 amnesty, which even Ed Meese calls a major mistake. It was supposed to end the illegal alien problem and be a one time event. Never again would we have an amnesty. Ted Kennedy among others promised that would be the case. The USG estimated that one million would apply and the true number turned out to be 2.7 million. Fraud was rife and there was a flood of illegals getting into the country to take advantage of the amnesty. You had to be in the US for five years to qualify, which is how the fraud came into play. Literally within blocks of the processing centers, fraudulent documents were being issued.

If anything, you forgot to mention the threat to national security an open border presents, especially now when we are actively fighting on several fronts against islamic whackjobs.

The two main threats to our national security posed by immigration relate to terrorism and drugs. First, tens of thousands of persons from countries that support international terrorism have come across our southern border undetected since 9/11. Testifying before Congress in March 2006, FBI Director Robert Mueller said that his agency busted a smuggling ring organized by the terrorist group Hezbollah that had operatives cross the Mexican border to carry out possible terrorist attacks inside the U.S. “This was an occasion in which Hezbollah operatives were assisting others with some association with Hezbollah in coming to the United States,” Mueller told a House Appropriations subcommittee during a hearing on the FBI's budget. Hezbollah was responsible for the October 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, which killed 243 U.S. troops. A total of 20 foreign-born terrorists were involved in 9/11, 19 of whom took part in the attack that resulted in nearly 3,000 deaths. The terrorists had entered the country on tourist or student visas. Four of them, however, had overstayed their visas and become illegal aliens and the others should not have been granted visas for various immigration control reasons.

Second, Michael Hayden, the outgoing head of the CIA stated in January 2009 that the threat of a narco state in Mexico is one of the gravest dangers to American security, on a par with a nuclear-armed Iran. An assessment by the United States Joint Forces Command, published in February 2009, concluded that the two countries most at risk of becoming failed states were Pakistan and Mexico. The descent of Mexico into a failed narco state, marked by increased violence and brutality, which has already spilled over into the U.S., has enormous implications for immigration, legal and illegal. With over 11 million Mexican-born residents in the U.S. plus their U.S.-born relatives, there are strong familial ties to Mexico, which would attract Mexicans fleeing a disintegrating state seeking asylum and safety in the U.S. And the pressure on our porous, unsecured southern border would increase dramatically.

Currently, the Border Patrol apprehends more than half a million people annually trying to enter the U.S. illegally from Mexico and hundreds of thousands more illegal aliens are successful in gaining entry. There is no way the U.S. could stop a tidal wave of Mexicans seeking asylum in this country and it would be even more difficult to remove them.

There has been a confluence of interests between drugs, illegal immigration, and terrorism. The systems for moving terrorists illegally across the border have become increasingly sophisticated, with Mexican drug kingpins now playing a major facilitating role using the same routes and methods to bring in illegal aliens and drugs. In view of the carnage that the 19 terrorists created on 9/11, the virtual certainty that our government has allowed substantial numbers of terrorists and their supporters to enter our country illegally is an outrage.

Comments from folks like you, supposed conservatives on a conservative website, are disturbing. If the Left and the MSM have fooled you into believing that offering a few concessions (again) will somehow solve the problem or even win Latino votes, you are sadly mistaken. Newt Gingrich voted for the 1986 amnesty. He is in the pocket of the Chamber of Commerce that wants to continue the inexhaustible flow of cheap, expendible labor flowing, including large guest worker programs. It is bankrupting this country and changing the demographics so the Dems are becoming the permanent majority party. The current demographics of Californian will be what the US will look like in 2050.

[presidio9]

I’m particularly amused by Bachmann’s (and other’s) claim that letting these people go through a process to gain legal residency status in America would be a “magnet” for more illegal immigration. Earth to Michelle. Our country is a magnet. Our way of life, our freedoms, our opportunities … all a magnet; a magnet much more powerful than giving some long-time illegal (but otherwise law-abiding) residents a break. What is Bachmann’s solution? Are we going to combat illegal immigration by making the United States a country to which nobody wants to emigrate? Seal the borders! Take the same actions to protect our borders that Mexico takes to protect theirs!

This needs to be repeated, in case anyone missed it.

[presidio9]

Poll after poll indicate that the American people [say]Deportation is not seen as a bad thing.

Challenge.

[GBA]

Comments from folks like you, supposed conservatives on a conservative website, are disturbing. If the Left and the MSM have fooled you into believing that offering a few concessions (again) will somehow solve the problem or even win Latino votes, you are sadly mistaken.

I don't give a rat's ass about winning the Latino vote if to do so means giving amnesty to the however many millions who are here illegally.

I also am not interested in winning the approval of the MSM, since there is nothing I can do to make that happen other than to join them. Fat chance. They should join with me!

You have chosen to take the single exception I and others have to mass deportation and construed it as something that I, at least, am not saying. If you choose to be disturbed by that one exception and kick me out of your wing of the conservative club, so be it. It's your choice. Welcome to a diverse society where even conservatives can disagree.

As background, I moved here from Arizona where I saw, from many angles and perspectives, the immigration problem up close and personal. I then watched the Fed, through its unwillingness to follow its Constitutional mandate to secure the border, force Arizona to solve the problem for them only to have the Fed sue.

You have no idea the seething rage I have for illegals and for the politicians and the unofficial official policies that have created this problem and the danger it is to our nation.

My exception, which I believe is in keeping with our nation's innate humanity, has little to do with media coverage. If your no exceptions plan is attempted, I am merely telling you what is coming as a result.

But, if you see my one exception and the reasons I believe it is needed as meaning I'm for blanket amnesty, we're not speaking the same language. Which is odd, since we appear to be in about 98% agreement with each other on this issue and how it should be solved.

None the less, I'm happy to have given you the opportunity to use my posts to help explain to any and all the illegal immigration issue and the consequences from such insanity.

[kabar]

Immigration poll results

[kabar]

I don't give a rat's ass about winning the Latino vote if to do so means giving amnesty to the however many millions who are here illegally.

We wouldn't win it anyway.

Latino Voting in 2010

Immigration, Political Realignment, and the Demise of Republican Political Prospects

If you choose to be disturbed by that one exception and kick me out of your wing of the conservative club, so be it. It's your choice. Welcome to a diverse society where even conservatives can disagree.

Please elaborate on your "one exception." Be specific.

As background, I moved here from Arizona where I saw, from many angles and perspectives, the immigration problem up close and personal. I then watched the Fed, through its unwillingness to follow its Constitutional mandate to secure the border, force Arizona to solve the problem for them only to have the Fed sue.

I have a second home in Scottsdale. I am well aware of the problems in AZ. SCOTUS upheld this year the AZ e-verify law. And parts of AZ 1070 were upheld by the federal district courts, including the section dealing with sanctuary cities. Kris Kobach, co-author of the law and someone we work with, believes that SCOTUS will uphold AZ 1070 along with the Alabama law, which he also authored.

My exception, which I believe is in keeping with our nation's innate humanity, has little to do with media coverage. If your no exceptions plan is attempted, I am merely telling you what is coming as a result.

Your humanity is misdirected. The real victims of illegal immigration are Americans, 50,000 of whom have been killed by them since 9/11. Our schools are being overrun by the children of illegal immigrants; hospital ERs have become free medical clinics for them; one-third of our federal prisons are filled with them; and the rule of law has been eroded. When you reward something, you get more of it. Using the euphemism of "humanity" to disguise amnesty is part of the Orwellian use of language that has characterized the fight we are in. Emotion and the use of children are weapons.

None the less, I'm happy to have given you the opportunity to use my posts to help explain to any and all the illegal immigration issue and the consequences from such insanity.

Illegal immigration, as bad at is, pales in comparison to our legal immigration policies that are destroying this nation each and every day. Milton Friedman said, “You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.” We have both.