Posted on 04/09/2014 7:20:52 AM PDT by Cheerio
A new report suggests that there is a massive wave of illegal immigration coming to American soon.
For USA Today, Alan Gomez wrote this week that “there is growing consensus that changes in the economies of Latin America and the U.S. are creating the perfect climate for another wave of undocumented immigrants racing north.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Isn’t that a government paid position?
That is true, and has been going rogue for quite some time.
Republicans
English as a Second Language classes
Democrats
We give you a check
You can still speak Spanish or whatever
Free Health care
If you want a job or go to college, you get preference over Whites
Did I mention, We give you a check?
Winner, ding, ding, ding....Democrats
Isn’t that a government paid position?
Effectively, it is. The employer is the 'Rat party, or the employer is the government. But, I repeat myself...
Hey, Wash. DC—what happens when you encourage bad behavior?
That’s right, you get what we’ve got now. Thanks for nothing!
Hey, California ...
Securing our borders only solves part of the problem. 40% of the illegals got here legally and then overstayed their visas. We need a system to track and deport visa overstays. We need to make e-verify mandatory to cut off the job magnet. We need to stop birthright citizenship that allows 300,000 to 400,000 "anchor babies" born annually to illegal aliens to become US citizens. We need to drastically reduce LEGAL immigration.
Heritage research states that, "Over a lifetime, the former unlawful immigrants together would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and services and pay $3.1 trillion in taxes. They would generate a lifetime fiscal deficit (total benefits minus total taxes) of $6.3 trillion.
The number of additional LEGAL immigrants who would join those who were the recipients of amnesty through chain migration, i.e., family reunification, would amount to tens of millions more legal immigrants to join those receiving amnesty over a 20-year period, assuming there are only 12 million illegal aliens.
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 the four million intending immigrants who have followed the rules and obeyed the laws and are waiting their turn overseas to enter the U.S. legally. Many have been waiting for years.
Legalizing 12 million lawbreakers will allow them to compete legally against American workers taking jobs and depressing wages. If we had a true shortage of labor, wages would be going up, not down. 21 million Americans are either unemployed or underemployed.
No one should be under any illusion that legalization will not lead to citizenship. It will. Immigrants vote more than two to one for the Democrats, so we will be adding millions of new Democrat voters regardless of when they obtain citizenship.
In 1986 we had a "one-time" amnesty. The proponents said it would never happen again. The government estimated that 1 million would apply, but the true number turned out to be 2.7 million. The process was rife with fraud with fraudulent document mills located just blocks from the processing center. Now we have 12 to 20 million illegal aliens. When you reward something, you get more of it. Doing the same thing again expecting different results, is the definition of insanity.
I'm glad to hear you put it like that. I've been telling people for a long time that this isn't about "immigrants" or "immigration", it's about traitorous politicians deciding that they'd rather govern citizens of other countries than citizens of America. They are in essence representing Mexico (and other countries) rather than representing the U.S. The only difference is that the Mexican citizens happen to be located on our side of the border at the moment because they illegally invaded. These politicians really are traitors.
Given the current mentality, there is really no logical reason why the rest of Mexico (the few who haven't come here yet) shouldn't be represented by American politicians, be granted American welfare benefits, be given in-state tuition (maybe via Internet courses), and be permitted to vote in U.S. elections. If the only difference is a few miles geographically, and it is somehow "racist" to enforce our border anyway, and as Jeb Bush says, it is an "act of love" to give them what they demand (erm, I mean "need"), then aren't we obligated by the same "logic" to just support all of Mexico, Central America, etc?
Good news... Tax day is just a few days away!!! Shut up and pay your fair share.
Yeah yeah…..
I’ve read all the facts over at CIS, NumbersUSA, etc…..
The fact remains, following Krauthammer’s suggestion neutralizes the issue with the amnesty crowd. Saying you’re willing to do it as well, but only AFTER a secure border is verified positions the presenter in a more credible light than his counterpart.
Don’t get me wrong. I saw the difference in AZ after SB1070. The difference was simply amazing. Attrition works. But this is about controlling the discussion on a national level.
“LA RAZA”, “AZTLAN”, MEXICO’S DEMOGRAPHIC “RECONQUISTA” OF U.S. SOUTHWEST PAID BY AMERICAN TAXPAYERS
La Raza and Americans
By Jim Simpson
Published May 31, 2007
A recent proposal in Congress — H.R. 1999, which was cosponsored in April by Reps. Ruben Hinojosa of Texas and Rick Renzi of Arizona — would provide $10 million a year to a radical immigration group, the National Council of La Raza (meaning “the race”). The bill offers funds for “community development and affordable housing projects and programs serving low- and moderate-income households,” for families of “Hispanic origin.”
So giving immigrants the same free medical care, education, food, housing and income support available to all low-income groups is not enough. Now we have to single them out for special treatment, empowering a radical organization in the process. And the bill does not discriminate between legal and illegal immigrants. It is bad enough there are already programs like this. The real dig is that La Raza gets to distribute the money, cementing its position of influence within the immigrant community.
La Raza challenges the “radical” label that Michelle Malkin, U.S. congressmen and others have given it. On its Web site, La Raza makes a forceful argument claiming it opposes illegal immigration, disavows separatist or racist Hispanic movements and only seeks to bring Hispanics into the American mainstream by teaching English, respect for our laws, etc. Sounds truly inspiring, but the organizations and causes it supports tell a different story.
Remember the 1994 California ballot initiative that would have denied social services to illegal immigrants? Proposition 187 was fed up California voters’ answer to the crippling effects of illegal immigration. It passed with 58 percent support. Any rational taxpaying citizen, Hispanic or otherwise, should support it, right? Not La Raza. Along with other groups, La Raza successfully defeated it in court. Here’s the view, as expressed in an address by former La Raza President Raul Yzaguirre at the organization’s 2003 annual conference: Proposition 187 in California and similar proposals elsewhere were ugly efforts to hurt the Latino community.
But we fought back then, and now the Hispanic community is being assaulted once more. This time they don’t want to make you angry, so their tactics are subtle.
La Raza has relied almost entirely on generous American foundation and government grants since its inception in 1968. It received $5.8 million from the feds in 2005, according to its annual report, and now may well get an additional $10 million a year for its trouble. How nice.
It gets better. Have you heard of Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, better known by its acronym MEChA? If you live in California, you have. This group’s Web site states: “We are Chicanos and Chicanas of Aztlan reclaiming the land of out birth,” which according to their revisionist history, includes areas of the Southwestern United States.
In its answer to critics’ charges of support for this radical separatist group, La Raza explains that MEChA is really just a “student organization whose primary objectives are educational” and that their founding charter’s radical goals don’t matter. To make its pathetic case, the group cites, of all things, a passage from a Los Angeles Times article by one Gustavo Arellano that “few [MEChA] members take these dated relics of the 1960s seriously, if they even bothered to read them.”
Jim Simpson, a free-lance writer, served as an economist and budget analyst for the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Hitler annexation of Czechoslovakia under the pretense to protect Germans living in the Sudetenland; Putin annexation of Crimea under the pretense to protect Russians living in Ukraine; will be next the session of U.S. Southwest by the demographic Mexican invasion under the banner of a mythical Aztec Aztlan.
The rest of the history
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/may/30/20070530-094048-2213r/?page=all
Do we really have that many jobs Americans won’t do?
Credible? He is saying that he agrees with the "amnesty crowd" that the lawbreakers should be allowed to stay and work here, but before we do it, we should do something to convince the opponents (those crazy people who believe in the Rule of Law) to agree to legalization by building a wall to prevent future illegal immigration or at least hold it to a trickle. In essence, those who are here should be legalized. From the article.
My proposition is this: A vast number of Americans who oppose legalization and fear new waves of immigration would change their minds if we could radically reduce new -- i.e., future -- illegal immigration.
Of course, no barrier will be foolproof. But it doesn't have to be. It simply has to reduce the river of illegals to a manageable trickle. Once we can do that, everything becomes possible -- most especially, humanizing the situation of our 11 million illegals.
If the government can demonstrate that it can control future immigration, there will be infinitely less resistance to dealing generously with the residual population of past immigration.
A solution requires two acts of national will: the ugly act of putting up a fence and the supremely generous act of absorbing as ultimately full citizens those who broke our laws to come to America.
If you buy on to this BS, then you are being fooled and deceived. Krauthammer is just another amnesty huckster who thinks he can use Orwellian language and other tricks to fool the public. You need more than a wall to stop illegal immigration. And do we stop all interior enforcement while building the wall or after it is built? Why not build a wall, have mandatory e-verify, and enlist state and local law enforcement to help USICS track down and deport the lawbreakers?
I have heard Kraut the a$$hole speak about immigration on a number of occasions. He is an Establishment Rep who wants to flood this country with immigrants and guest workers.
Why not indeed. This of course WOULD be happening in states like AZ.
Look. A wall is pivotal. Even in the incredibly high unlikely event mass deportations occur. Continued enforcement of laws and policies is doubtful, attitudes change with current financial and political climate.
And there's something else. That wall would be proof the feds are actively controlling immigration. Do not underestimate the impact that would have of court verdicts involving Illegal Alien "rights".
Mandatory e-Verify in AZ is a fact, It was upheld by SCOTUS. And it has been working.
Look. A wall is pivotal. Even in the incredibly high unlikely event mass deportations occur. Continued enforcement of laws and policies is doubtful, attitudes change with current financial and political climate.
A physical barrier is just a force multiplier. Yes, we need physical barriers to reduce the manpower necessary to control our borders along with other detection devices, In some places, it might not be as necessary as others. My point is that a wall only solves part of the problem. It's construction should not be used by the amnesty supporters to pave the way for legalization.
No one is suggesting we have mass deportations any more than there should be a blanket amnesty. These are false choices. Attrition thru enforcement is the way forward. There should be no urgency to deport or legalize the lawbreakers. We are being stampeded by the other side.
And there's something else. That wall would be proof the feds are actively controlling immigration. Do not underestimate the impact that would have of court verdicts involving Illegal Alien "rights".
I am not against constructing a wall or other physical barriers. It is just part of the solution. Mexico is our third largest trading partner. There are huge amounts of goods and services going both ways. There have been 4 million Border Crossing Cards (BCC) issued to Mexicans allowing them to cross into the US for up to 72 hours, staying within 25 miles of the border (65 miles for Tucson AZ). We need to control the borders, not shut them down.
I have a friend who used to be a DOJ immigration lawyer. The saying was, "It is not over until the immigrant wins." Once the lawbreaker gets here, it is very difficult to deport them. And even after they are ordered deported, they don't leave. There are an estimated 800,000 absconders in the US who have been ordered to deport voluntarily by the courts, but they just ignore the rulings. We must be prepared to remove these people physically. Court orders are not enough.
What do you think the chances are of getting one built without a promise to address those that are still here?
"Once the lawbreaker gets here, it is very difficult to deport them. And even after they are ordered deported, they don't leave."
Which demonstrates just how important one is.
Actually, the Secure Fence Act was passed in 2006 with even Obama and Hillary signing on just before the midterms. Later, Kay Bailey Hutchison helped to neuter it.
So you are saying that in order to secure the border, we must legalize those already here? Yes, it is the Dem tactic to hold our security hostage to amnesty, which is why we should not link the two. If the Reps ever gain control over the WH (doubtful) then something could be done. Obama won't do it nor will Hillary. Even with a fence, according to the CBO, illegal immigration will only be cut in half.
Which demonstrates just how important one is.
Why do you keep beating this dead horse? How many times do I have to state that I am in favor of securing the border with physical barriers and other means? We need it, but it is not a panacea. And if the cost of building a wall is amnesty, then it is a bad bargain. An amnesty will cost $6.3 trillion, enable tens of millions of legal immigrants to be sponsored by those legalized lawbreakers via chain migration, i.e., family reunification, and make the Dems the permanent majority party.
The overwhelming majority of Americans want our border secured. It is up to the Stupid Party to make the case to the public that it should be done now and without any linkage to other issues. Obama seems to have been able to do that with the raising of the debt limit. He destroyed the Reps who wanted to link it to other items.
Which proves my point that a 'Fence first, amnesty later' position, takes the issue away from the dems politically. And you are quite right, it did not get built.
But you didn't answer the question. Again I ask. What do you think the chances are of getting one built without a promise to address those that remain here after?
"So you are saying that in order to secure the border, we must legalize those already here?"
Not at all. But I'm not starry eyed enough to believe that many, perhaps upwards to 7-8 million wont benefit from some kind of legalization after the border is secure. But whatever the number is, it will pale in cost and comparison to what successive amnesties will tally up to. My hunch is there will be a whole lot of traffic headed south once a wall started going up. Just like they left AZ.
"…according to the CBO, illegal immigration will only be cut in half.
Love to see what kind of BS numbers they were fed to come up with that fraction.
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.