Daily Thread: Illegal Alien Freedom Ride Counter Protest

Title: Illegal Alien Freedom Ride Counter Protest Source: Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)

URL Source: http://www.fairus.org/html/activism.html Published: Sep 25, 2003 Author: staff

Beginning Sept. 28th thru Oct. 4th, many of us will be joining groups from across the country to counter the Illegal Immigrants Freedom Ride to DC. We will be using toll free phone numbers (that we pay for) to blitz the Senate, House and the Whitehouse on behalf of the hardworking citizens of the United States....the taxpayers.

Please join us. NUMBERS MATTER! It's our only hope to keep our politicians in line on this issue. We did it once early in the Bush Administration when he first pushed amnesty for illegals. It was a success! But we need you now to counter the Illegal's demand for "rights."

Please give us some time, if only to call your own Senators and Representatives to protest this invasion. And please consider calling as many of them as you can! In coming days I'll be posting links to the current incumbents, as well as a list of key sponsors of Pro-Illegal bills before the House and Senate.

The following are frequently asked questions to be used as talking points. Please print a copy to use in the event you actually get a "human being" to talk to! :0)

In 2001, more than one million immigrants were admitted to the United States. Additionally, about 500,000 entered illegally. This is nearly four times as many immigrants as we were receiving only 30 years ago.

About 20 percent come from Mexico. India, China, and the Philippines each send between five to seven percent. The following countries each send between two and three percent of our immigrants: Vietnam, El Salvador, Cuba, Haiti, Bosnia, Canada, the Dominican Republic, Ukraine, Korea, Russia, and Nicaragua. Together, these top 15 sending countries account for about 60 percent of all immigration to the U.S. The remaining 40 percent is composed of very small shares from a large number of other countries.

Most immigration (almost two-thirds) is sponsored by family members in this country who most often immigrated themselves and are now legal permanent residents or have become U.S. citizens. Smaller shares of admissions (about one-sixth) go to workers (and their families) whom employers say they need to complement the native workforce, and to refugees and asylees (about one-tenth). In addition, about one out of every 25 admissions visas is given away by lottery.

As a sovereign state, the United States has the right and responsibility to regulate the permanent and temporary admissions of non-citizens. This authority is vested in the Congress, which makes the laws that determine the basis on which visas are authorized (although refugee admissions are proposed annually by the President for concurrance by the Congress). The regulations that promulgate those laws are developed and administered by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) a division of the Department of Justice (DOJ). Within the INS, there are the Border Patrol, which monitors the borders against illegal entry; the INS Inspectors, who monitor people entering the U.S. at ports of entry such as airports; INS Investigators, who track down violators of immigration law; and immigration judges (appointed by the Attorney General), who hear cases on violations of immigration law and regulation. Independent from the INS but still within in the DOJ, there is a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) administered by the Executive Office for Immigration Review; the BIA hears appeals of decisions by the immigration judges.

Immigration is much higher now than it has historically been. Through most of our country's history (more than 180 years), we took in fewer than 500,000 immigrants a year; for more than 135 of those years, it was fewer than 300,000 immigrants. In 2001, our country admitted 1,064,318 legal immigrants, as well as an estimated additional 500,000 illegal immigrants. Only seven years in our entire history have had as many immigrants as we received in 2001.

Because so many of today's immigrants are low-skilled, mass immigration brings competition for entry-level jobs, harming American low-skilled workers. Because most of today's immigrants are poor, they are a drain on our fiscal resources and our economy. Because immigrants are being admitted faster they assimilate, mass immigration is causing social strain and strife among different groups. And because immigration is the source of most population growth in the U.S., it strains the environment and our natural resources.

FAIR believes we should strive for a system in which continuing immigration does not add to our population size. That would mean admitting between 200,000 and 300,000 immigrants a year. This would allow us to maximize the positive effects of immigration without overwhelming our environment, schools, social services, and other institutions. It would also contribute to U.S. population stability over the long-term.

“Immigration is a big part of American tradition and national character. We are a nation of immigrants. ”

The fact is, immigration levels today are far higher than traditional levels; in the mid 1950s, our immigration was less than one-third what it is today. Also, the U.S. today is a very different country than in years past. We’re now a fully populated nation of almost 290 million people, not the sparsely settled territory of 150 years ago. Today we’re concerned about limiting sprawl, overcrowding, and environmental stress. Yet, if today’s rate of immigration is continued, it will add nearly 150 million people to our population over the next 80 years. How will that help achieve a single U.S. objective? Will it decrease traffic and other forms of congestion, improve water tables, decrease school overcrowding, cut oil consumption, reduce housing costs? Not one single domestic objective of our nation is being facilitated by today’s mass migration.

“Immigration has been good for us in the past and has made our nation great.”

Immigration in the past did bring benefits--in the past, the U.S. needed large numbers of people to settle the frontiers, cut forests, build railroads, mine gold, and much more. Today’s priorities are preserving our remaining wilderness areas, conserving our natural resources, and ensuring a better quality of life for future generations.

Furthermore, immigration in the past has been quite limited. History shows us that immigration at high levels is not beneficial, which is why the country cut back immigration after the brief Ellis Island period. In the past, we have successfully absorbed and assimilated immigrants because we have periodically halted immigration.

“Throughout our history, people have always attacked immigration and they have always been wrong.”

While people have opposed immigration for a variety of motives over the years, Americans have always had legitimate concerns about immigration and its effects on our population, economy, and society. While we have coped successfully with some of these concerns in the past, that is largely because mass immigration to this country was stopped, not because the concerns were unfounded.

“Immigration is less of a problem today because immigrants comprise a smaller share of our overall population than ever before.”

Quite the opposite is true. When there were fewer people in this country, there was more room and opportunity for immigrants. Now, in a country already stuffed with well over a quarter of a billion people, adding another million through immigration every year is much more of a problem. The more people we have in our country, the fewer immigrants can be added without unwanted consequences.

There are always people who support the right idea for the wrong reasons--but that doesn’t make the idea itself wrong. None of this changes the fact that bringing a million additional people from other countries into this one is disruptive to our economy, our society, and our environment. We condemn racism. But we also condemn the use of terms such as “anti-immigrant,” “racist,” or “xenophobe” as they are used to try to stifle open, honest discussion of how our immigration policy is impacting the country.

“Immigrants are a driving force behind our economy, performing jobs that Americans won’t do.”

There are no jobs Americans won’t do, only conditions and wages that are unacceptable. The employers who have become economically dependent on immigrants for cheap labor use this argument to justify virtual indentured servitude and then try to shame Americans into accepting it. Job competition by waves of new immigrants depresses the wages and salaries of American workers and hits hardest at minority workers and those without high school degrees.

Actually, both are true. But many of those jobs created are jobs in providing services to immigrants. Other jobs that immigrants create are generally low-skilled and mostly go to other other immigrants anyway. This doesn’t really benefit Americans at all; it simply creates distortions in the economy, generally away from the high-skills, high-education, high-wage economy most Americans support. And it doesn’t in any way address the increased burdens on our schools, environment, social services, and natural resources that bringing in so many additional people causes.

“We live in a global economy and must have foreign workers to compete in the world market.”

Very little immigration is of skilled personnel. Besides, it is precisely because of advances in global communications that we do not have to allow people to move to the U.S. to take advantage of their talents and benefit from their contributions.

“Immigrants are a net benefit, because they pay taxes and contribute more to our society than they cost.”

The seminal study of the costs of immigration by the National Academy of Sciences found that the taxes paid by immigrants do not cover the cost of services received by them. A calculation to the contrary works only if you discount the programs used by the immigrants’ children, refugees and asylees, immigrants who aren’t of working age, illegal immigrants working “off the books,” and immigrants from certain countries.

This argument also ignores the impact of sacrificing farmland and forests to roads and housing developments, increasing congestion to the point that people spend more time in traffic than at home with their families, and raising the burden on our already strained water supply and other natural resources.

A country isn’t a big box that you stuff as many people in as possible. It’s a society supported by an environment, and the question isn’t how many people can physically fit in it, but how many people the society wants and the environment can support. Many of the “wide open spaces ” in the U.S. are inhospitable deserts or mountains, or are already used as farmland to raise food to support the population living on the coasts and to export to feed people in other countries.

“Immigrants catch up quickly economically and soon blend into American society.”

There is increasing evidence of groups of immigrants who are trapped in depressed inner cities, and their children similarly find themselves unable to escape poverty. Today more than 21 million people in our country say that they speak English less than very well. Besides, the hub of the problem is not the rate at which immigrants are assimilating, it’s the rate at which we are admitting them. As long as we have mass immigration, the bulk of unassimilated people in our culture will grow, causing social tension and conflict.

The distinction between legal and illegal immigrants is increasingly blurred by programs such as the amnesty in 1986 that gave legal status to nearly three million illegal residents and provisions that allow illegal immigrants to become legal residents if they marry someone legally here, i.e., Section 245(i). There is little difference between the societal effects from illegal immigrants and from those who were amnestied (and the same is true to a large extent for family members sponsored by former illegal aliens).

“We have a humanitarian obligation to take in struggling people from other countries.”

We can’t solve the world’s problems by importing a tiny fraction of the millions who would like to come here. Instead, we should solve problems where people live and help them turn their countries into places that people aren’t driven to leave. But although the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees says that foreign aid and assistance is best utilized when the resources are spent on alleviating problems at their source, the U.S. channels a large share of its refugee resources on the transportation, language training, cultural adaptation, and assistance grants to refugees resettled in the United States that could benefit many more refugees if expended on temporary shelter and sustenance at refugee facilities near the refugees’ homeland and in the refugees’ eventual return to their homes.

It should be noted, however, that the United States admits as refugees many persons who are not true refugees under the United Nations’ standard, e.g. people from Cuba who do not qualify for asylum in this country.

Here are some talking points and facts when you make your calls etc.

Federal Immigration and Nationality Act
Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)

Encouraging and Harboring Illegal Aliens

It is a violation of law for any person to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection in any place, including any building or means of transportation, any alien who is in the United States in violation of law. HARBORING MEANS ANY CONDUCT THAT TENDS TO SUBSTANTIALLY FACILITATE AN ALIEN TO REMAIN IN THE U.S. ILLEGALLY. The sheltering need not be clandestine, and harboring covers aliens arrested outdoors, as well as in a building. This provision includes harboring an alien who entered the U.S. legally but has since lost his legal status.

Money sent from Mexican workers in the United States to their families back home has reached a record $12 billion in 2003, Mexican President Vicente Fox said Wednesday.

Families of 9/11 victims are taking to the airwaves. They
want to stop immigration until our borders are safe and secure. Peter Gadiel lost his son in 911.

Encourage Federal Action Against Illegal Aliens
Participating in National "Freedom Ride" - Given that participants may be comprised of significant numbers of illegal aliens, it would be logical to expect
federal immigration enforcement authorities' actions to
identify, detain and begin proceedings for deportation
of any such aliens. However, experience suggests it
would be wrong to expect any reaction that might be
termed "anti-immigrant."

You can encourage federal immigration enforcement
authorities to do their job by calling your senators and
representative as well as the Department of Homeland
Security to demand that enforcement authorities identify
and arrest any illegal aliens in this group.

Freepers and Freedom Lovers, you can check this thread daily, we will always be adding new ideas and info!

Patriots;Freepers please take note on Victoria's talking point, it is excellent!

"Where were they when my civil rights were violated when my driver's license was pulled without due process?", "Where was my cut rate tuition when I went to college?", "Where's my job that I've been looking for the last 2 years?"

They really get uncomfortable when you ask how to become an illegal alien so you can get free stuff.

Please all add to this list of SELLOUTS to contact!!!

Craig and Crapo, Idaho´s U.S. senators, declined comment.

16th Legislative District Democrats

Howard Dean, 2004 Presidential Candidate

Dennis Kucinich, 2004 Presidential Candidate

(California)
Rep. Bob Filner, (D-California)
Rep. Maxine Waters, (D-California)

Rep. Hilda Solis, Congresswoman
Rep. Linda Sanchez, Congresswoman

Rep. Bennie Thompson, (D-Mississippi)

Rep. Erik Fleming, Mississippi House of Representatives

Rep. Jim Evans, Mississippi House of Representatives

Rep. David Green, Mississippi House of Representatives

Rep. Joseph Crowley (New York)
Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-New York)
Rep. Gary L. Ackerman (New York)
Rep. Nydia Velazquez (New York)

Rep. Nita M. Lowey U.S. House of Representatives, District 18

Sen. Major R. Owens U.S. Congress District 11
Rep. Charles B Rangel, (D-New York)
Rep. Gregory W. Meeks (New York)

Rep. Anastasia Williams Rhode Island House of Representatives
Rep. Leon Tejada Rhode Island House of Representatives
Rep. Arthur Handy Rhode Island House of Representatives
Rep. Paul Moura Rhode Island House of Representatives

Rep. Jim McDermott, (Washington)

Mayor Greg Nickels, Seattle Mayor

Rep. Adam Smith (Washington)
Rep. Phyllis Gutierrez Kenney, Washington House of Representatives 46th district
Rep. Eric Pettigrew, Washington House of Representatives 37th district

Kolbe, Flake, and McCain

On July 10, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) introduced his
guestworker amnesty bill, S. 1387, the Border Security and Immigration Reform Act of 2003

Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

A white supremacist organized the Chicago rally. And he posted for all to leave their tshirts etc. at home. They did not! They wore swastika's and hate shirts and had hateful posters. When I asked him about this very pointedly, he told me so what and aren't the Mexicans racist? Man, then I queried him about had he heard of FR and his reply was I would not bother joining because they are Jews! He said more but it's not fit for posting. So they haven't stopped and the Feds are still taking their photos!

Please add to this lists of those on our side, so we can ally with them this week also:

Senate Immigration Subcommittee hearing generally sympathetic

Rep. Virgil Goode

Mike Spence-CA Rep. Assembly pettions against license!

Senator Dennis Hollingsworth of the Republican Legislative Caucus

Tancredo - Support Tancredo Amendment to Cut Off Federal
Funding for Illegal Alien Sanctuary States and Localities

U.S. Rep. Jim Marshall, D-Ga

Michael Bilirakis (R-FL)
Barbara Cubin (R-WY)
Nathan Deal (R-GA)
John Duncan (R-TN)
Virgil Goode (R-VA)
Sam Johnson (R-TX)
Steve King (R-IA)
Charlie Norwood (R-GA)
Immigration Reform Caucus Member Charlie Norwood (R-GA)

Representatives Allen Boyd (R-FL), Melissa Hart (R-PA), Nathan Deal (R-GA) original cosponsors H.R. 2671

Demand an explanation from all of them why federal permits for use of public property have been granted to what are purported to be violators of federal immigration law.

Peter Gadiel -lost Jamie son 911

Senator Charles Grassley

Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus

A form letter:

Tell Congress to Get Control of Immigration

As your constituent, I am writing to ask you to make immigration control a top priority. I am concerned with the fact that Congress still has not implemented the immigration policy reforms needed to make sure that the tragedy of 9-11 does not happen again.

Current immigration levels are so high that immigration officials are unable to thoroughly screen immigrants before allowing them into the country—as 9-11 tragically underscored. Just as one would shut off the main water valve before attempting to fix a leaky pipe, the U.S. needs to turn off the flow while we repair a dysfunctional policy. A time-out from today’s high immigration levels would allow us to concentrate on stopping the massive illegal immigration problem and regaining control of our borders.
Please cosponsor H.R. 946, the Mass Immigration Reduction Act of 2003, which would enact a five-year moratorium on many categories of immigration so that we can implement reforms crucial to national security.

Please also support the CLEAR Act, H.R. 2671, which would protect homeland security by giving state and local law enforcement agencies the authority and resources needed to detain criminal and illegal aliens within the course of their regular duties.

I am also counting on you to oppose any efforts to grant amnesty to illegal aliens or otherwise reward them, including guestworker amnesties and student amnesties.

I look forward to your response and hope to see you taking action on this important issue in the near future.

More than 30 million immigrants have settled in the United States since 1970. Now our cities, schools, health care systems, labor markets, and environment all need a break. We cannot provide high quality education, health care, and retirement security for our own people if we continue to bring in endless numbers of poor, unskilled immigrants.

Current immigration levels are so high that immigration officials are unable to thoroughly screen
immigrants before allowing them into the country-as
September 11, 2001 tragically underscored. Just as one
would shut off the main water valve before attempting
to fix a leaky pipe, the U.S. needs to turn off the
flow while we repair a dysfunctional policy.

Stopping most forms of immigration temporarily would allow us time to devise an immigration policy that truly meets national needs. It would also allow us to concentrate on stopping the massive illegal immigration problem and regaining control of our borders.

These cards are used almost exclusively by illegal
aliens. Legal residents can obtain driver's licenses
and other U.S.-issued ID, while visitors from Mexico
can use a passport to identify themselves. U.S. immigration authorities have said the Matricula
Consular is virtually worthless as an identity
document. The documents people use to apply for these
cards are easily counterfeited. In fact, people have
been apprehended in possession of numerous cards with
multiple identities.

Honoring these cards puts the state in a position of
aiding people who may be violation of federal
immigration laws.

Currently, the Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (BICE) has only 2,000 interior enforcement
agents dedicated to enforcing immigration law and
locating some 400,000 illegal aliens with standing
deportation orders. Of those, 80,000 are criminal aliens
and 15,000 are of national security interest. The
federal government does not have the resources or
manpower to track these and other illegal aliens down
and deport them.

The federal government does not have the resources or
manpower to track down and deport the 8 to 11 million
illegal aliens currently living in the U.S. Of these,
400,000 have standing deportation orders, 80,000 are
criminal aliens, and 15,000 may pose a national
security risk.

From an Article on WND by our very own Freeper Kyle Williams!

Bush's bum strategy
Posted: September 27, 2003

"What about domestic policy," you ask. Well, from what I see, President Bush's work on his domestic agenda has been at least a few bars under a success. Sure, the tax cut was awesome and … ? The fact is that he's gotten beat up on the home front.

Back to the new tone of Washington: This has been the factor that has held the president back in policy setting – unless, of course, he really set out to be so liberal from the beginning. It's simple; he wanted to gain friends and respect in D.C., but that didn't work out.

President Bush isn't stupid, so he knows whether his strategy is working – and the new tone has never worked. It looks like all he's doing is avoiding controversy whenever possible to gain political capital.

Thus, I'm beginning to wonder what all his political capital had been saved for – maybe it's just going to rot away. Either this next year is going to be a year that Bush will take strong stands (and such controversy isn't likely in an election year) or he's going to float along and waste his position of authority and possibly go down in the books as a one-term, moderate president – like his dad.

President Bush is no longer unbeatable and the chances of him losing are growing. According to an NCB-Wall Street Journal poll, President Bush's approval ratings have dipped to the lowest his administration has ever seen: 49 percent.

Moreover, according to the latest polling from Newsweek, 43 percent of registered voters say they'd vote for Clark or lean toward Clark, compared to 47 percent who'd vote for Bush or lean toward Bush.

Excluding the tax cut, Bush has all but ignored his conservative base with his new tone with the liberals in D.C. – and it might have worked, but it didn't. He sucked up to the liberal leadership, and they stabbed him in the back.

President Bush has been able to try out his new tone in Washington in the second half of this year, and the success has been less than grand. While it may seem logical to avoid controversy, he has alienated the base that elected him – conservatives. With conservatives unhappy and his so-called "friends" bashing him daily, Bush and his political geniuses need to figure something out.

What they need to figure out is this: A line has been drawn. He either must return to a conservative base or commit to a liberal base.

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.