Posted on 05/08/2006 12:20:20 PM PDT by Mount Athos
One of the bloggers suggests that 2006 may be the year of the Lou Dobbs voter. The blogger, the Influence Peddler, is no fan. He considers Dobbs a demagogue, but he wonders whether voters are ready for a Dobbsian program of opposing illegal immigration, "throwing the bums out of Washington" and staying wary of international trade.
On immigration, this suggestion may reflect a shift in public opinion after the May 1 marches, away from the belief that the pro-illegals lobby had decisively altered public opinion, toward the realization that the marches may have created a powerful backlash.
Citing Arizona's new anti-smuggling law, the sheriff of Maricopa County (Phoenix) announced that a posse of a hundred deputies and volunteers would begin patrolling the desert. This appears to be an act of official frustration, not one of those cosmetic attempts to placate the right. The Minutemen, denounced as vigilantes by President Bush but greatly respected in the state, are now building a fence on private land along the Mexican border. They are going national too, with chapters popping up in Virginia and elsewhere.
The frustration level in Arizona is so high that a local prosecutor, Andrew Thomas of Maricopa County, organized a national immigration conference and gave a fiery speech on the chaos, crime and cost of the tide of illegals. Last spring, I managed to get lost in one of the rugged canyons of southeast Arizona, and stumbled on two camping areas for illegals, each with about as much debris as you might expect from an airliner crash.
Mercedes Maharis, who lives near that canyon, has just released a documentary on DVD, "Cochise County, USA: Cries From the Border." The eeriest footage is infrared photography of illegals, maybe a hundred or more, swarming across the border at night. The turning point for one woman came when she set up a tepee in her back yard and noticed one morning that a group of illegals was living in it. The withering remarks in the film are not aimed at the illegals, but at Washington for abandoning its constitutional duty to guard the border.
The national news media, which spent most of its energies covering the marches as a heartwarming civil rights effort, is belatedly recognizing that much of America doesn't see it that way. As the Los Angeles Times reports, "Activists who take the toughest stance against illegal immigration have formed too many groups to count, and more seem to crop up every week."
Around 67 percent of Americans have been telling pollsters for years that they want illegal immigration curtailed. Soon the media will notice the populist appeal of this huge constituency facing off against two sets of entrenched elites, the corporate elites of the right, supported by Republican politicians, and the academic elites of the left, supported by Democratic politicians.
Editorialists seem to discuss the illegals mostly in terms of compassion and the impossibility of deporting the 11 million already here. But the core of the problem is that illegal entry is a never-ending process. An amnesty-light compromise in Washington is unlikely to do much more about this than the allegedly tough amnesty-light program of 1986. In a poll last August, about 40 percent of adults surveyed in Mexico said they would like to move to the United States. If so, there would be another 28 million people. Mexico has a high birthrate, a broken political culture and a government determined to dump its poor on the United States. It even publishes a comic book showing illegals how to avoid the U.S. border patrol.
High and continuous immigration is occurring under conditions of bilingualism and multiculturalism, rather than assimilation. In the name of diversity, the academic elites have encouraged immigrants to maintain their birth-country cultures and to adopt a stance of separatism and pugnacious victimization. Political scientist Samuel Huntington argues that this amounts to a deconstruction of American identity that has been "gradually created over three centuries." In his book "Mexifornia," Victor Davis Hanson says California is not quite Mexico, but not quite the United States either.
The political culture of Washington, focused on cheap labor and Latino votes, is nowhere near recognizing what is happening.
Oh that is "oh so" clever...
It would seem, u r, your post..."righteous indignation" and all. Keep up the rhetorical devices, chief...as I see it, it's just rhetoric.
If it makes you feel better, keep on flamin.
The same thing is happening in Kentucky. In the county where I grew up, there were no Mexicans until shortly after I started going to law school (late 90's). There are now three Mexican restaurants, all staffed by people of questionable citizenship, in that small town in the Appalachian mountains. In fact, one of the prosectors in the town was joking how four of them were arrested for public drunkeness/disorderly conduct last year. Their names? John Doe 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Not sure of the number here in Michigan but it has forced me to drop prices to even get jobs anymore and at this rate I to will be out of business in a matter of a year or two.
Time to play hardball with government officials and public employees. Elected officials, and government employees who handle the public purse, are subject to a higher standard of law than ordinary citizens. They serve under stricter rules, and must abide by specific laws:
ESTABLISHED FACT
Every elected and appointed government official, and government employee---in their capacity as fiduciaries of public monies---are required, by law, to be bonded by state bonding insurance carriers. The express purpose of bonding government officials and employees is to protect the public's money. Each state sets their own regulations, and selects a bonding insurance carrier.
Public entities that mandate bonding include: Municipalities, counties, townships (government employees of school districts, licensing agencies, and the like), ambulance districts, volunteer fire departments, community college districts, public universities, transit authorities, landfills, sewage treatment facilities, public works maintenance facilities, airports.
IMPACT
Taxpayers' concerns center on instances when elected and appointed public officials use government agencies fraudulently, misuse tax dollars to allow illegals to get government benefits and school subsidies, voting rights, auto licenses, building permits, welfare, food stamps, health care, and other government benefits, and the like using false documenation. These are examples of fiduciary negligence by a bonded government employee, and would violate the state's bonding regulations, and the carrier's bonding requirements.
SUMMATION
MISUSING THE PUBLIC ASSETS OF GOVERNMENT---ALLOWING ILLEGAL ALIENS TO USE FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTATION TO OBTAIN SCHOOL SUBSIDIES, GOVERNMENT BENEFITS, DRIVERS' LICENSES, VOTING RIGHTS IS FIDUCIARY NEGLIGENCE BY A BONDED GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WHO MISUSE PUBLIC AGENCIES AND PUBLIC FUNDS WOULD INCUR FINES OR IMPRISONMENT UNDER BONDING RULES.
FOLLOW-UP (what to look for)
Now, if a bonded government employee OR ELECTED OFFICIAL had previous financial problems---perhaps a bankruptcy or a job loss for financial improprieties, etc, that would preclude bonding---and if they failed to reveal the info to bonding agents, that would subject them to legal penalties for filing false applications.
Public officials with past financial problems who do not qualify for bonding would have to be tossed out of office.
If it is determined a public official failed to apply for bond coverage, he/she has broken the law, and is subject to an actionable offense.
Now, say government funds were stolen and the public official had failed to get bond coverage; the state would have no way to recover that money other than restitution through a criminal prosecution.
Public officials who lied on bonding applications might be subjected to fines or imprisonment.
Exactly, also report this person to the web sites that track illegal employers. Its not about mexico, its about illegal felony invasion
But yet he continues to encourage illegal immigration. He supports NAFTA, He also supports the idea of one border around Mexico, US & Canada.
He has, in the latest DHS appropriation bill (a little research will point to this), increased funding to the border patrol. And has started the process, years back, to break the US up into military districts (much as we do the world)...may be the start of border militarization, which so many on FR advocate...
Only after much outcry from the public and the Senate reappropriating certain War funds. This after last year only appropriating enough funds for 210 agents . He Promised 10,000 new agents @ 2,000 a year. We have yet to get there but he has found funds for a guest worker program.
He has also by edict, (if not decree), ordered that current work laws be enforced...local businesses etc. shouldn't be employee illegals in the first place, however, being realistic a transitory measure is being advocated that allows illegals currently with a job, etc., to apply for work permits etc. (some are calling this amnesty, but that's not what it is)
He can edict all he wants without real teeth talk is cheep. The 86 bill was suppose to solve this problem and here we sit today. As for your definition of Amnesty. We can just agree to disagree because ANY bill that rewards lawbreakers with citizenship is Amnesty anyway you slice it. Look this is not just a GW Bush issue but he has been in charge for 6 years now. If he would just stand up and say to the American people I hear you and we will carry out your will and act accordingly this would all be solved but he hasn't done that and now it is too little too late. Instead he call American citizens like the Minutemen who are trying to do something vigilantes and produces reelection videos in Spanish. You are right in that it has been going on for sometime. But just like anything else it has finally come to a boil. Some people have been screaming about this issue for years. Tancredo for one, Many other people including myself since 911 and more recently Lou Dobbs (Thank God).
As opposed to what you posted? A whole row of strawmen?
If it makes you feel better, keep on flamin.
Hey, you set the tone for the thread early on, don't complain about the heat now.
It all sounds great until you look at the numbers. We only have 10,000 border patrol agents and spend about $4 billion annually now. These increases are pathetic. The NYPD has over 35,000 personnel. We spent $11-18 billion a year enforcing the no-fly zones in Iiraq. You can double the border agents to 20,000 and it still won't be enough. Plus we need more personnel to enforce our visa laws domestically. Many illegals are coming in legally on visas and then just overstaying them and not going home.
When you have a water pipe break in the basement, the first thing you do is shut the water off. Then, you can figure out how to handle the water damage. My litmus test for politicians and others who want comprehensive immigration reform is their committment to secure our sourthern border thru a combination of physial barriers [fences], technical means, and an increased number of border patrol agents. The big sticking point for many is the building of fences, which is offensive to the insincere advocates who compare it to the Berlin Wall. Unless we are willing to "shut the water off," everything else is a sham, which just legalizes the illegal.
this has been around for 30 years
NO IT HASN"T !
W/1986 Amnesty the whole famdamnily wasn't allowed US citizenship.
Application's had to be made.
Since '86 our brown brothers to the south have noticed there are no consequences to being here illegally..... & with their dependents to boot
30 years ago it was just the illegal worker - not his dozen dependents soaking up all the services they can...
and resenting us in the process
You can bet that if we have a dirty bomb go off in an American city or a biological attack, the borders will be closed like the barn door after the horse got out.
The SSA informs employers if they have a SS#/name mismatch
9 MILLION/yr !
but won't give this data to ICE !!
How serious are they ?..or are we just protecting the Tysons, ADMs & Hormels of this country
In another 20 years we will look around and see another estimate that there are 30 million illegals who need to be legalized because their numbers are so great that we can't deport them. We are like the frog who is being gradually boiled alive and doesn't realize it until it is too late.
Unless we secure our borders, we are not serious.
Fence, wall, trigger happy armed militia, sharks, and flying robots. Yep, sounds like a good idea.
"Sort of like NOLA where they are paying illegals $12 an hour to do "jobs American's won't do." /sarc
Average pay around here is about $9.50 an hour. People trip all over each other to get a job that pays $12.00/hour, even with no benefits.
If a contractor can pay someone $12 an hour and NOT have to pay FICA, unemployment insurance, workers comp, etc. then he's paying a LOT less than he would have to pay for an "off the books" illegal.
"When you have a water pipe break in the basement, the first thing you do is shut the water off. Then, you can figure out how to handle the water damage. My litmus test for politicians and others who want comprehensive immigration reform is their committment to secure our sourthern border thru a combination of physial barriers [fences], technical means, and an increased number of border patrol agents. The big sticking point for many is the building of fences, which is offensive to the insincere advocates who compare it to the Berlin Wall. Unless we are willing to "shut the water off," everything else is a sham, which just legalizes the illegal."
Well said!! Well said indeed.
9 million w/ unmatching SS#'s
40% of workers in Los Angeles county - working for cash
Assume: 1/2 of illegals are here w/ (pregnant) wife & minimum 2-3 other ninos.
The # gets BIG, and FAST !
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.