News behind the news. This picture is me (white spot) standing on the bridge connecting European and North American tectonic plates. It is located in the Reykjanes area of Iceland. By-the-way, this is a color picture.
In 2014, Gimpel’s research concluded with three major findings:
Immigrants, particularly Hispanics and Asians, have policy preferences when it comes to the size and scope of government that are more closely aligned with progressives than with conservatives. As a result, survey data show a two-to-one party identification with Democrats over Republicans.
By increasing income inequality and adding to the low-income population (e.g. immigrants and their minor children account for one-fourth of those in poverty and one-third of the uninsured) immigration likely makes all voters more supportive of redistributive policies championed by Democrats to support disadvantaged populations.
There is evidence that immigration may cause more Republican-oriented voters to move away from areas of high immigrant settlement leaving behind a more lopsided Democrat majority.
The article further reports that five years of chain migration to the U.S. has exceeded one year of all American births, where about 4 million U.S. babies are born every year.
So what does this mean? First of all, we need to address the fact that American school children are not being taught the ideas and principles behind the U.S. Constitution. If we are not teaching American children how our government works and we import millions of people from countries that do not have constitutions, what will our government look like in twenty years? If we are not teaching our children to treasure our freedom and our culture, how can we expect those who have not grown up with that freedom and culture to respect it? How do those coming to America see government? Do they see government as a valid authority or has their past taught them that equal justice under the law is not possible?
We really do need to rethink our immigration policies. We used to allow people to immigrate who were willing to assimilate and contribute to the country. In recent years, we have allowed people to come to America to take advantage of government programs and live at the expense of the Americans who already live here. That has got to stop. We cannot afford to feed, clothe, and provide medical care for everyone in the world. Charity is a wonderful thing, but it needs to be voluntary and begin at home. After we have helped our homeless veterans, children of fallen soldiers, and children of fallen policemen, we can begin to help people from other countries. Until then, we need to live up to our responsibilities at home.
Yesterday The U.K. Daily Mail reported that sixty percent of babies born in London are born to foreign mothers. That means six out of ten will be raised by people who have not been part of British culture. We need to think about what this means to the future of Britain.
The article explains some of the reasons for the high number of babies born to immigrants:
The new statistics on babies born to foreign-born mothers come after earlier figures from the ONS which showed that in some areas of London they account for more than three-quarters of births.
In the East London borough of Newham in 2014 more than three quarters of babies – 77 per cent – were born to mothers who were themselves born outside Britain.
In that year most of the foreign-born mothers who gave birth in the UK were from Poland, followed by Pakistan and India.
The 2014 figures showed immigrant mothers are more likely to be married than those born in Britain. Some 72 per cent of immigrant mothers were married that year, compared with 45 per cent of UK-born mothers. The ONS said this ‘reflects different expectations between cultures’.
The rise in the number of babies with foreign-born mothers has partly come because fertility rates among immigrants are higher than those of British-born women.
Although fertility rates among foreign-born women fell in 2015, an immigrant could expect to have 2.08 children. For UK-born women, the rate was 1.76.
In the early days of the country of America, the population was made up of people who were not born here. Those immigrants formed the culture that eventually became the American culture. The shared values of those immigrants formed the basis of that culture–many had fled religious persecution–their faith was important to them and their freedom was important to them. They had a pioneering spirit that allowed them to journey through hardships for the chance to be free and reap the rewards of their efforts. America continued to take in immigrants, but screened them at Ellis Island to make sure they were willing to work and contribute to America. Originally there was no welfare system–an immigrant either worked hard and was successful or went home. Things have changed in America and in other places. Now immigrants are not necessarily encouraged to assimilate, learn the language, or work hard. The are not encouraged to become part of the culture or to help preserve the culture. When sixty percent of mothers in London are foreign born and may not be part of western culture, where will the country be in twenty years? Will Britain still be part of western civilization?
The Kennedy immigration law abolished the national origins quota system, which had favored immigrants from nations with a similar heritage to our own, and opened up American immigration visas to the entire world.
While about nine in ten of the immigrants who came to the United States during the 19th and 20th century hailed from Europe, the 1965 law inverted that figure. Today about 9 out of every 10 new immigrants brought into the country on green cards come from Latin America, Africa, Asia or the Middle East.
The size of the numbers also grew exponentially as well. According to Pew Research Center, 59 million immigrants entered the United States following the Act’s passage. Including their children, that added 72 million new residents to the U.S. population.
In 1965, according to Pew, the country was 84 percent white, 11 percent black, 4 percent Hispanic and less than 1 percent Asian.
In 2015, as a result of Kennedy’s immigration law, the country is now 62 percent white, 12 percent black, 18 percent Hispanic and 6 percent Asian.
Numbers USA notes the range and scope of the reforms in the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act passed:
The 1965 revamp of the entire immigration system. It ended 40 years of low immigration, got rid of solid numerical caps and opened up chain migration into every overpopulated country in the world, exploding annual immigration numbers.
Massive expansion of the refugee programs in the late 1970s, opening up massive loopholes and encouraging a domestic resettlement industry that became a major lobby for more and more overall immigration.
The 1986 blanket amnesty. Kennedy’s skills may have been best seen here where he got legislators on our side to agree to the amnesty in exchange for enforcement rules that he made sure were written in a way that would not work. Within a decade, he would be using the inability to enforce the 1986 rules as an excuse for why we needed more green cards and more amnesties. An example of Kennedy’s great skill was that he persuaded Ronald Reagan to enthusiastically support this bill.
The 1990 immigration act, which increased overall immigration by another 35%. The first Pres. Bush was Kennedy’s co-partner, just as the second Pres. Bush was Kennedy’s eager co-partner in trying to force through another blanket amnesty 2001-2008.
The 1990 act also established the lottery whereby we randomly give away 50,000 green cards a year to people in countries picked because they have the least ties and cultural association with the United States, and which disproportionately are terrorist-sponsoring countries. This was something of a compromise for Kennedy who was able to ensure that during the first few years, much of the lottery winners would be illegal aliens from Ireland — his own ethnic group.
The H-1B visas which have enabled corporations to keep hundreds of thousands of American kids from getting a foothold in the high tech industry.
The total defeat of liberal civil rights champion Barbara Jordan’sblue-ribbon commission recommendations to reduce overall immigration and eliminate chain migration and the lottery in 1996.
In February of this year, Senator Tom Cotton and Senator David Perdue unveiled the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act, which would undo some of the damage done by the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act.
Yesterday Paul Mirengoff at Power Line posted an article about RAISE.
The article at Power Line reports:
Today, President Trump, with the two sponsoring Senators by his side, publicly backed the RAISE Act. Subsequently, at a press briefing, CNN’s Jim Acosta invoked the words on the Statue of Liberty, as he tried to debate White House policy adviser Stephen Miller on the merits of the legislation. Putting it nicely, Scott observed that Acosta was in over his head (Steve was more graphic).
This is the video of Jim Acosta debating White House policy advisor Stephen Miller (when did it become the job of the press to debate the White House policy advisor instead of simply reporting the news?);
The problem with our current immigration system is that it lowers the wages of of workers in jobs that don’t require a lot of training or education.
The Power Line article explains:
As Sen. Cotton has pointed out, wages for Americans with only a high school diploma have declined by two percent since the late 1970s. Wages for those who didn’t finish high school have declined by nearly 20 percent. Wage pressure due to immigration doesn’t explain all of this decrease, but unless the law of supply and demand has been repealed, such wage pressure explains a good deal of it.
The American Dream is at least as fundamental to our national identity as the “nation of immigrants” theme. The collapse of wages described above threatens to create a near permanent underclass for whom the American Dream is always out of reach.
The RAISE Act seeks to vindicate the American Dream while permitting historical levels of immigration. It does so by placing the priority on high-skilled immigrant — immigrants who won’t squeeze the wages of our low-skilled workers, but who instead will spur innovation, create jobs, and make America more competitive.
The article at Power Line concludes:
We can expect Senate Democrats to block the RAISE Act. But before they do so, Democrats should ask themselves how they expect to return to the good graces of the working class if they put the interests of foreigners ahead of the interest of working Americans at the lower end of the economic spectrum. How is this “A Better Deal”?
I was living in Massachusetts when Ted Kennedy died. A friend of mine who is a lawyer commented on how much damage Senator Kennedy had done to America. Because my friend is a conservative, I at first assumed he was referring to what was done to Judge Bork and some of the other ridiculous charges the Senator levied at various Republicans. It wasn’t until later that I began to look at the damage done to America by the 1965 immigration law that Senator Kennedy had pushed through. It is time to begin to undo that damage. Hopefully it is not too late.
One final comment from the article at Numbers USA:
He (a friend of the author of the article) also said that he believes that, despite all the liberal veneer, Kennedy was deeply beholden to the country’s banking titans and other globalist business entities who have so much interest in the free flow of international labor and in keeping the wages of Americans stagnant. (This was given credibility later when Kennedy was lauded for the great work he did to help the high-tech industry of Massachusetts to hire foreign computer programmers.)
The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act illustrates the damage the ‘Washington swamp’ can do to average Americans.
The repeal of the “wet foot, dry foot” policy is effective immediately. The decision follows months of negotiations focused in part on getting Cuba to agree to take back people who had arrived in the U.S.
“Effective immediately, Cuban nationals who attempt to enter the United States illegally and do not qualify for humanitarian relief will be subject to removal, consistent with U.S. law and enforcement priorities,” Obama said in a statement. “By taking this step, we are treating Cuban migrants the same way we treat migrants from other countries. The Cuban government has agreed to accept the return of Cuban nationals who have been ordered removed, just as it has been accepting the return of migrants interdicted at sea.”
This is from the President who has consistently refused to secure the southern border of America. This is from the President who has been trying for years to make every illegal in America a citizen.
I question the timing of this more than I question the action. I honestly don’t know if this is a good thing or a bad thing, but why is it being done a week before President Obama leaves office? Why is President Obama so willing to take Middle Eastern refugees who do not value democracy and so unwilling to take Cuban refugees who are seeking freedom?
The incoming flood of illegal aliens, including unaccompanied minors, ramped up during the final few months of FY2016 and into the first days of the new fiscal year, and has yet to slow down. While border agents have apprehended another 14,128 unaccompanied kids at the Mexican border between October and November, the administration’s Office of Refugee Resettlement turned loose 12,674 UACs in that same time frame.
There are a number of problems with this other than the obvious concerns about cost and impact on American society. The children are assumed to be between the ages of fifteen and seventeen. There is very rarely any proof of their age. We need to keep in mind that in some Islamic countries children as young as seven or eight are trained for terrorist operations. We also need to consider that most of these children have not had the healthcare or vaccinations that American children receive. We could be importing diseases into our country that we previously eradicated. There are already reports of outbreaks of tuberculosis in areas of the country where these refugees have been settled.
The article further explains:
Data from the federal immigration court system shows that more than a third of these children won’t show up for their court date, including about 90 percent of those children who are ordered removed from the country. Additionally, recently released information from the Department of Health and Human Services shows the administration only conducts home studies for about six percent of the illegal alien children released, failing to follow up on the vast majority who are left to disappear into communities across the country.
This is not a workable immigration system–this is a disaster–for the children involved, for their parents, and for America.
Yesterday Breitbart posted an article about the crimes committed by immigrants legally and illegally entering America with nefarious intentions.
The article reports:
In the month of September alone, a Turkish immigrant allegedly shot and killed five people in a Washington State mall; an Afghan immigrant allegedly planted bombs in New York and New Jersey injuring roughly 30 innocent people; a Somali immigrant allegedly stabbed nine people at a Minnesota mall; a twice-arrested illegal alien with a prior DUI conviction allegedly murdered a Kansas sheriff’s deputy; an illegal alien and convicted child rapist allegedly shot two California corrections officers; an illegal alien with a prior drug arrest, who had been a recipient of Obama’s executive amnesty, allegedly engaged in reckless driving killing a 12-year-old girl; a three-time deported illegal alien allegedly killed two people on what was described as a crime “rampage;” and a Mexican immigrant and Arizona pastor was arrested after it was revealed that he had allegedly molested children for years, many of whom are believed to belong to his church, and for impregnating one of his victims when she was 13 years old.
In football, when you see an extremely long running or pass play, you can usually assume that someone on the defense missed his assignment. I think it is safe to say that somewhere in our immigration process, someone (or someones) has missed his assignment.
Please follow the link above to read the entire article. The people who are in charge of our safety are not doing their job. They are either incompetent or have intentionally closed their eyes to the threat. Either way, they have missed their assignment.
The National ICE Council, the union representing 5,000 federal immigration officers and law enforcement support staff, decided to endorse the GOP nominee after carefully considering the impact a Hillary Clinton presidency would have on their officers. Saying that Clinton has embraced the “unconstitutional executive orders” of President Barack Obama, Chris Crane, president of the National ICE Council, said in a statement that these orders “have forced our officers to violate their oaths to uphold the law and placed every person living in America at risk — including increased risk of terrorism.”
According to the article, this is the first time the National ICE Council has endorsed a candidate in a national election. This is important. We need to listen to these people as they are on the front lines of our fight against domestic terrorism.
The article reports the following statement by Chris Crane, president of the National ICE Council:
“Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has promised the most radical immigration agenda proposal in U.S. history,” Crane added. “Her radical plan would result in the loss of thousands of innocent American lives, mass victimization and death for many attempting to immigrate to the United States, the total gutting of interior enforcement, the handcuffing of ICE officers, and an uncontrollable flood of illegal immigrants across U.S. borders.”
…After noting that only 5 percent of the council’s membership supported Clinton’s presidential bid, Crane lambasted the Democratic presidential nominee for catering to the special interest groups and “open-borders radicals” all in the name of “cheap labor, greed and votes.”
To be fair, the establishment Republicans are no better than the Democrats on open borders. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a major contributor to Republican candidates. Those candidates do not want to close our borders because many of the Chamber of Commerce members want cheap labor. If the Republican Party truly opposed open borders, those borders would be closed by now, regardless of who was President. There are some Republicans who have fought for real borders, but they are not in the majority.
The article at Lifezette concludes:
“America has been lied to about every aspect of immigration in the United States,” Crane concluded. “We can fix our broken immigration system, and we can do it in a way that honors America’s legacy as a land of immigrants, but Donald Trump is the only candidate who is willing to put politics aside so that we can achieve that goal.”
Tonight I had the privilege of hearing two very knowledgeable speakers on the subject of immigration in America–Jim Robb, Vice President of Operations at Numbers USA and Ron Woodard, Director of NC Listen. It was a very informative evening, but I left with a realization that at some point in the near future, America was going to have to balance the interests of Americans with the desire to help immigrants. Right now we are not balancing those two things–our current immigration and refugee programs (or lack of them) are hurting Americans and need to be reevaluated.
There is something seriously wrong with this picture.So what is going on? There are two groups who are happy with the current situation–for very different reasons. Democratic politicians want to create a permanent dependent class that will continue to elect Democrats in order to get government handouts. It was President Lyndon B. Johnson who stated as he worked to pass his expansive ‘Great Society‘ program, “”I’ll have those n—–s voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” The other group is the Chamber of Commerce. This group has put the idea of cheap labor above the welfare of Americans. Businessmen who support excessive immigration in order to pay workers less (both legal and illegal immigrants) in order to make a bigger profit are not ethical and do not have the best interests of American workers in mind. I think both the Democratic Party and the Chamber of Commerce have lost their way.
Sane immigration policy is possible. It begins with closing the borders to all but legal immigrants who have passed thorough background checks, tracking people who have overstayed their visas (a group that would include the 911 hijackers), and deporting anyone who is arrested, caught driving under the influence, or commits any illegal act. Sane immigration would also include the U.S. Government determining who immigrates to the United States–not the United Nations. Right now the United Nations totally controls the American refugee program. We need to reclaim our sovereignty and our country’s borders.
Here are a few relevant statements from the article concerning the media reaction to Donald Trump’s recent statements about immigration:
As with practically all of Trump’s policy statements, the over-the-top commentary came swiftly. Over at the Washington Post an opinionator opined (and I’m only slightly paraphrasing) that Trump’s ideas were crazier than crazy. I knew it wouldn’t take long before somebody called them un-American, and MSNBC nicely obliged; a commentator commented that “this is the single most un-American thing I have ever heard in my life.”
If all those pundits had bothered to do just a couple of minutes of googling before reacting, they would have discovered that immigrant vetting, and even extreme immigrant vetting, has a very long tradition in American history. Since before the founding even, U.S. policies about whom the country chooses to welcome and reject have changed in response to changing conditions. As early as 1645, the Massachusetts Bay Colony prohibited the entry of poor or indigent persons. By the early 20th century, the country was filtering out people who had “undesirable” traits, such as epileptics, alcoholics and polygamists. Today, the naturalization oath demands that immigrants renounce allegiance to any foreign state. Even our Favorite Founding Father du jour, Alexander Hamilton (himself an immigrant), thought it was important to scrutinize whoever came to the United States.
During America’s colonial years, immigrants were required to provide surety as a guarantee that they would place a financial or other burden on the current citizens of the country.
The article further states:
And in 1740, Delaware enacted legislation to “Prevent Poor and Impotent Persons being Imported.” Many of these colonial-era restrictions remained in place until 1875, when the Supreme Court invalidated state-imposed head taxes on immigrants to fund the financial burden of caring for poor entrants, and made immigration the sole purview of the federal government. But that wasn’t the end of immigrant filters. Congress responded by creating the vetting system that—although modified many times—remains in place today. In 1875, Congress prohibited the entry of prostitutes and convicts. In 1882, Congress suspended the immigration of Chinese laborers, and added idiots, lunatics and persons likely to become public charges to the list for good measure.
Screening immigrants is not un-American–taking in thousands of people who may not respect our culture or our laws is un-American. We have a right and responsibility to all Americans to protect the laws and sovereignty of America.
Please follow the link above to read the entire article. If more people know America’s immigration history, the press would not be getting away with telling the lies it is telling.
Kaine, who on Wednesday is expected to win the nomination as the Democratic vice presidential candidate here, was one of several co-sponsors of S. 169, the so-called I-Squared Act, that would have boosted visas for high-tech workers from 65,000 to 300,000 a year.
The visas have become controversial because many big firms who apply for the visas are replacing higher-wage American workers with cheaper foreign help.
There is a rule that states that American companies cannot replace American workers with cheaper foreign workers, but that rule exempts jobs where the employee is paid $60,000 per year or more. Obviously, jobs in information technology routinely pay more than that, so American workers can easily be replaced.
The article concludes:
Kaine cheered immigration reform as a plan to help companies like those in high-tech rich Northern Virginia find workers. In a 2013 trip to Oracle, he said, “Immigration is fundamentally a talent issue. How do we attract and train the most talented people in the world to come to Virginia and help grow our economy?” He added: “I am encouraged by the bipartisan proposal laid out by a group of senators that recognizes the need for a comprehensive solution to an immigration system that hasn’t been seriously reformed in more than 25 years.”
We do need immigration reform. We need to make it easier and cheaper for skilled workers to come to America. We also need to make it illegal for new immigrants to immediately go on welfare and food stamps program. We need to encourage people to assimilate and become part of America and the American dream. I am not convinced we are doing that right now.
I don’t want anyone to go hungry or be homeless, but why are we taking money away from Americans who have worked for it and giving it to people who are here illegally? It is time to reevaluate how we are spending tax money.
— The greater consumption of welfare dollars by immigrants can be explained in large part by their lower level of education and larger number of children compared to natives. Over 24 percent of immigrant households are headed by a high school dropout, compared to just 8 percent of native households. In addition, 13 percent of immigrant households have three or more children, vs. just 6 percent of native households.
We need to take a serious look at our immigration policies. We also need to take a good look at efforts we are making to educate the people who are already here–legally or illegally. We can’t send everyone back home, but we can secure the border and make an effort to help those people here–legally and illegally, immigrant or natural citizen–get off of our welfare rolls. We can no longer afford to have an entire segment of our population depending on hard-working taxpayers for their support–it is time everyone finds a way to contribute to our economy–not just take from it.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: “Is she planning on expanding Obamacare as people know it, ACA, to include people who are not fully documented? Because when you get ill, your illness will not ask you if you are a permanent resident or not.”
CLINTON: “It’s such an important question. Thank you for supporting my mom. My mom has very strong feelings that we must push as quickly as possible for comprehensiveimmigration reform, and this is a real difference between her’s and Senator Sanders’ record, she supported comprehensive immigration reform at every possible chance and she was one of the original supporters and sponsors of the DREAM Act. She does not believe that while we are working towards comprehensive immigration reform we should make people wait, like the families you are talking about. Which is why she thinks it’s so important to extend the Affordable Care Act to people who are living and working here, regardless of immigration status, regardless of citizenship status. While we’re pushing for comprehensive immigration reform and reminding Republicans who are currently running for president that a couple of years ago they actually supported comprehensive immigration reform – something they seem to have forgotten during this election cycle – that we do whatever we can to solve challenges in the education system and the health system and elsewhere.”
Okay. Let’s back up a little. Emergency rooms are not allowed to turn away people who need medical attention–regardless of whether or not they can pay for it and regardless of their legal status. To open up national health care to everyone who is here whether they are here legally or not is to commit financial suicide. This is not just about healthcare–this is about the financial survival of America. If this is done, America will lose the middle class. The middle class will be expected to bear the additional debt and tax burden that this will entail. Upward mobility in America will be a distant dream of the past. Eventually it will not only hurt the people who come here seeking a better life–they won’t find one; it will hurt the people who live here now. If you are planning to vote for Hillary, you might also plan to apologize to your children and grandchildren in the future as you explain why you didn’t do something to prevent the bankruptcy of America.
Just a note. While I was working the polls Tuesday, a woman came up to me and said that she thought ‘the rich’ should pay for new roads and bridges and new college buildings. I wonder if she realizes that because ‘the rich’ have tax accountants and people who help them legally avoid taxes, the burden will fall on the middle class. Ultimately, she will be paying for these things. Class warfare is a useful political tool, but it is not an honest one.
On January 8th, Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-TX), along with Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC) and other Members of the Homeland Security Committee, held a press conference about the arrest of two Iraqi refugees. The video of the press conference is posted at YouTube.
This is the press conference:
This is the story as reported on News 25 in Texas:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
It’s time for the members of Congress to live up to their oath.
Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) declined to go into detail about the determination, which the Obama administration has not announced publicly.
Yet the disclosure could add ammunition to critics of the White House’s refugee plans who have warned that the program is vulnerable to infiltration by adherents of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
“ISIS members in Syria have attempted to exploit it to get into the United States,” McCaul said during a speech at the National Defense University on Monday.
“The U.S. government has information to indicate that individuals tied to terrorist groups in Syria have already attempted to gain access to our country through the U. S. refugee program.”
McCaul would not say specifically who informed him and other lawmakers about the revelation, only describing the sources as “elements of the intelligence community.”
The people who desire to destroy America are not stupid. They range from those who want to set up a world-wide Islamic caliphate that includes America to those who simply want to end America’s role as a beacon of freedom. It should not be a surprise to any thinking person that our porous borders and lax immigration policies can be exploited by both of these groups. I suggest that we do everything we can to settle the Syrian refugees in countries near their country so that they can return home to rebuild their country when the civil war ends. If they want to come to America, it should be on the condition that they assimilate.
Meanwhile, I think we need to suspend the flow of refugees until we have a better idea of who they are.
Yesterday The New York Times posted a story about efforts to help new immigrants become citizens quickly so that they can register to vote. I think the idea of new immigrants registering to vote is a wonderful idea if they have some understanding of how American works. In the past, American Presidents have paused immigration in order to allow new immigrants to assimilate. At the present time, we have a very large number of immigrants, some of which are not at all interested in assimilation.
The article reports:
The influence of the Latino voting bloc has added impetus to the drive. According to Latino Decisions, a polling and research firm, 80 percent of naturalized Latino citizens voted for President Obama in 2012. In New York State, there are approximately 915,000 legal permanent residents, more than 317,400 of whom are Latino, according to the Center for Migration Studies.
Do you think that if these immigrants were voting Republican the Democrats would be so anxious to have them here?
To illustrate my point about assimilation:
In the end, though, only 38 of the day’s applicants were able to move forward (with the process of becoming an American citizen), Mr. Frugone said. Most of the others were not proficient enough in English to pass the citizenship exam, which requires an applicant to answer basic questions orally, write a sentence and pass a civics test.
Some older immigrants who have not learned English wait for the precise moment when they have lived in the United States for 20 years and are older than 50; at that point, they can take the test in their own language.
Jose Miguel Toledo Madera, 53, a resident of Washington Heights in Manhattan, said he had been too busy working as a custodian to learn English. After six hours at the Unite Here citizenship drive, he finally finished his application by taking photos.
The article further states:
“I want to vote so that we can have a better situation in the country for all the immigrants, for all the people we actually need in this country,” Dinelsa Quezada Martinez, 70, said in Spanish in the organization’s offices. “I want a president that’s really going to worry and take care of our country and all the people in this country.
Note to Ms. Martinez: It is not the President’s job to take care of the people in this country–it is the President’s job not to interfere with the success of the people in this country. Dear lady, your attitude is part of the problem.
Those in charge of ensuring our security don’t think that the refugees can be properly vetted.
Most are not from the minority groups ISIS targets for persecution.
Some have ISIS sympathies.According to the article: Some 16 to 23 percent of the estimated 3 million Syrian refugees who have fled the country are Christians. Even though ISIS has specifically targeted religious minorities (notably Christians and Yazidis) for persecution, less than 3 percent of the Syrian refugees admitted to the United States so far are Christian, and 96 percent are Muslim.
It costs more money to resettle refugees in the U.S. than in countries that neighbor Syria.
The wealthy Arab-Islamic countries surrounding Syria aren’t taking refugees because of security concerns.
The article concludes:
Critics of President Obama’s plan for resettling Syrian refugees in the U.S. are labeled xenophobic bigots by those seeking warm fuzzy feelings and accolades for doing the supposed “right thing.” It’s time for the president to stop demonizing his opponents, take a look at the facts, realize that they run counter to his narrative, and change course before we’re placed in a dangerous situation similar to the one Europe now faces.
It is time to mix common sense with compassion, something the Obama Administration seems reluctant to do.
Breitbart.com posted an article today stating that 680,000 green cards have been given to immigrants from Muslim countries in the last five years. I understand that not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists seem to be Muslims. This is an alarming number, whether it is simply Muslims or all immigrants.
The article reports:
The data, released by Senator Sen. Jeff Sessions adds that these, “refugees have instant access to federal welfare and entitlements, along with local benefits and education services; these costs are not offset.”
…According to the U.S. Census Bureau, one-quarter of the U.S. population, over 41 million, is now either foreign-born or has foreign-born parents. Data from Pew Polling shows that 83% percent of the American public oppose increasing the baseline for immigration and believe that it should either be frozen or reduced.
I welcome anyone who comes to America to pursue the American dream and become an American. I question the wisdom of taking in the number of people we are currently taking in. The fact that one-quarter of the population is either foreign-born or has foreign-born parents is a problem for our country. We need to give people a chance to assimilate when they arrive. We are in danger of being overrun by people who don’t understand the dream of America. I would love to know how many legal and illegal immigrants are on our welfare rolls. This is not the American dream, and people who come here should be prevented from collecting welfare for a period of time after they arrive. We cannot be the world’s safety net. We are going bankrupt and need time to regroup and get our finances together before we start trying to support the world.
This is a graph taken from a Power Line article posted yesterday:
As you can see by the small print, the numbers came from the Pew Research Center, and the chart was produced by the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest.
The article reports:
We are on a course that will radically transform the United States of America, a course that we have never voted for. Can this radical transformation be averted? Not as long as our politicians talk only about illegal immigration, which is a small part of the issue. Existing laws will make the U.S., already the world’s third most populous country, much more like China and India, and much less like Switzerland and Japan. Isn’t it obvious that this is not the direction in which we should be going?
We need legal immigration, but we need to make sure we are bringing in people who want to assimilate–not people who want to change our laws to create the conditions they are fleeing. America is an idea. It is up to us to protect that idea.
Last year Bono made a speech at Georgetown University that expressed what America is. He did a better job of explaining America than most Americans. This is the speech (from YouTube):
The Washington Times posted an article yesterday about the Obama Administration’s failure to rescind the work permits issued to illegal aliens in violation of a court order. In May I wrote an article about the fact that the Obama Administration had continued to grant work permits to illegal aliens after a judge had issued an injunction against the permits in February halting the President’s amnesty program. There were about 2,000 applications for work permits approved, and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has not been able to get the three-year permits back. Previously two-year permits had been issued.
The article reports:
But Judge Hanen was shocked to learn that USCIS issued the 2,000 three-year amnesties even after he’d issued his injunction.
“I expect you to resolve the 2,000; I’m shocked that you haven’t,” Judge Hanen (Judge Andrew S. Hanen) told the Justice Department at a hearing last week, according to the San Antonio Express-News. “If they’re not resolved by July 31, I’m going to have to figure out what action to take.”
Homeland Security says it’s changed the duration of the work permits from three years to two years in its computer systems, but getting the cards returned from the illegal immigrants themselves is tougher.
The office of Texas Attorney GeneralKen Paxton, who is leading the lawsuit challenging the amnesty and who won the February injunction against the policy, didn’t respond to a request for comment on the outstanding permits.
If I remember correctly, one of the reasons the Judge issued the injunction was that he said that once amnesty was granted, it would be very difficult to undo what had been done. What has happened with the 2,000 work permits that were illegally issued illustrates his point. We are supposed to be a nation of laws–not a nation of men. It would be nice if the Obama Administration would remember that.
On Friday, the Dallas Morning News posted an article about Sherin Thawer, 45, an Irving, Texas, immigration lawyer, who was arrested on federal fraud charges for allegedly forging visa applications for illegal immigrants she represented.
The article reports:
The seven-count indictment, issued earlier this week and unsealed on Friday, charges Thawer with one count of conspiracy to commit fraud in connection with immigration documents; one count of mail fraud; one count of transfer or use of the means of identification of another person; and four counts of aggravated identity theft.
From around March 2012 to September 2014, Thawer submitted forged law enforcement certification forms to get U-Visas for the immigrants she represented, authorities said.
What in the world was this woman thinking? When she was admitted to the bar, there were certain standards that she was expected to uphold. It is really sad that she chose to violate the law instead of enforce it.
Last night President Obama gave a speech outlining his executive action on immigration. Analyses of the speech are all over the internet. I chose My Way News as my reference point for this article. USA Today has the text of the speech.
There are three things to keep in mind about the President’s immigration order:
1. It is unconstitutional, but he knew that. The video of the President making the case against executive amnesty is poster here. However, making this speech shortly after a thumping in the mid-term election elevates the President to some degree of relevancy.
2. The President said, “This deal does not apply to anyone who has come to this country recently. It does not apply to anyone who might come to America illegally in the future. It does not grant citizenship, or the right to stay here permanently, or offer the same benefits that citizens receive – only Congress can do that.” (What happens to the people who came here four years and eleven months ago since five years is the cutoff date?) Some time in the next year or so, Congress will say, “These people are paying taxes and are not allowed to vote. That is taxation without representation. We can’t have that. We have to let them vote.” This will create millions of new Democrat voters.
3. Hugh Hewitt on Salem Radio last night made a very astute observation. The Iranian nuclear talks are about to conclude. It is very possible that President Obama will make a deal with Iran that allows Iran to make nuclear weapons. What you heard last night was to distract the American people from what is going on in Iran.
The speech last night was all about politics. Its purpose (among other things) was to goad the Republicans into doing something really stupid (that trick has worked occasionally in the past). Note that the pundits are saying in panic, “Don’t shut down the government by defunding anything.” That convinces me that defunding may be the way to go.
At any rate, get out the popcorn, the show has only begun.
Tonight I had the privilege of hearing Jim Robb of NumbersUSA speak at Stanly Hall in New Bern about immigration in America. NumbersUSA promotes moderate immigration levels. One of the comments Mr. Robb made about immigration in America today was, “Nineteenth Century Immigration Policy is incompatible with the Twenty-first Century Welfare State. I had never looked at immigration that way, but he is right.
When talking about President Obama’s declared move toward amnesty for five million people here illegally, Mr. Robb mentioned that Congress had three possible (if not probable) ways to stop amnesty. The most obvious way would be to simply defund the government agencies that would handle the amnesty. The second way to stop amnesty would be to impeach President Obama for violating the Constitution, but that is highly unlikely. The third way to stop amnesty would be to take the issue to the Supreme Court as a violation of the Constitution, but the Supreme Court would probably not be interested in hearing the issue unless Congress had already acted by defunding the measure.
Mr. Robb explained that there are a few problems that would be caused by amnesty. Under amnesty the average time to get a work VISA is six minutes. There is no time for proper background checks or screening. The new workers would be taking jobs in airports, companies that control electric grids, nuclear security, etc. without being properly screened. There would be a national security risk and a risk of endangering Americans. Other problems would be the increase in students our schools would have to educate, the increased drain on healthcare facilities, and the increased drain on social welfare programs.
Mr. Robb explained that there is another problem with providing six million green cards to new workers in America–we already have twenty million legal Americans who can’t find full-time jobs.
The NumbersUSA website explains, “NumbersUSA favors an immigration policy that includes spouses, minor children, fair share of refugees, people with extraordinary skills and gives preferential treatment to American workers and those that come here legally.” That makes sense.
After the program, I was taking with a legal immigrant who had come to America as a child in 1949. The immigrant reminded me that during that time immigrants who came to America had sponsors, were expected to find work, and expected to receive no government aid of any kind. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case.
NumbersUSA is working to keep immigration at a manageable level. As an organization, they have built up the connections in Washington to represent the majority of Americans who do not favor amnesty for people who are here illegally. When you move someone who is here illegally to the front of the line, you deny the rights of someone who is pursuing immigration in the correct way. That is not something we want to do.
America is a country that was built by immigrants. People came here from Europe and other places to celebrate freedom, escape religious persecution, or simply to begin again. The Catholics fled the potato famine, the Jews fled the pogroms, and others came to buy land to farm and support a family.
Well, not all of today’s immigrants have the same sort of ambition. National Review reported today that 42 percent of new Medicaid recipients are immigrants.
The article reports:
Federal law bans the admission of immigrants who are likely to be significant beneficiaries of welfare, technically a “public charge,” but that definition doesn’t consider in-kind welfare programs like Medicaid: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services defines being a public charge as “the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.” The USCIS union president has recently complained that President Obama is not enforcing public-charge laws.
Illegal immigrants are ineligible for Medicaid currently and are technically ineligible for the Medicaid expansion or any other direct Obamacare benefits, but fraud in the program is rarely investigated and recipient-level eligiblity is rarely investigated.
The article also reminds us that Medicaid has been expanded so that people with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty line are eligible. This greatly increased the cost of the program.
I am not opposed to immigration, but I question the wisdom of an immigration policy that allows people to come here and be a burden on the federal government. Our federal deficit is out of control, why are we passing laws that make it worse?