Comprehensive Amnesty Threat
Overview

Friday, May 29, 2009

With many pro-illegal alien groups pushing the Congress to take up “immigration reform” legislation sometime this year, many of these groups are publishing reports that detail, often falsely, the necessity of a “legalization program.” One such report was published by Immigration Policy Center (IPC), a well known pro-amnesty organization.

Jack Martin, the Director of Special Projects at the Federation for American Immigration Reform, has penned a report, “Amnesty and the Economy: Myths, Lies, and Obfuscation,” which details the fallacies and deliberate falsehoods found within the IPC report.

Often referred to as Comprehensive Immigration Reform, pro-amnesty groups seek to offer legal permanent residence to illegal aliens. Comprehensive Immigration Reform bills were introduced in Congress in both 2006 and 2007.

In 2006, separate versions were passed in the Senate and House, but an agreement was never reached in conference committee. In 2007, a version in the Senate proposed by Senators John McCain and Ted Kennedy with support from Pres. Bush failed to reach a cloture vote. The grassroots effort from NumbersUSA members was a major reason why the amnesty failed.

Often referred to as Comprehensive Immigration Reform, pro-amnesty groups seek to offer legal permanent residence to illegal aliens. Comprehensive Immigration Reform bills were introduced in Congress in both 2006 and 2007.

During the 2008 campaign, Pres. Obama offered support for amnesty, and with an overwhelming majority of supporters in the House and Senate, newer versions of the failed bills are likely to be introduced.

MORE HERE

1986 AMNESTY LAW IS SEEN AS FAILING TO SLOW ALIEN TIDE

N Y Times 1989

”We have found no evidence that the 1986 immigration law has shut off the flow of new undocumented migrants,” said Wayne Cornelius, director of the Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies at the University of California at San Diego. A Decade of Study

New York Times HERE

The most sweeping effort to halt illegal immigration in American history, the 1986 overhaul of immigration law, may have cut the flow of illegal aliens less than expected and may have actually encouraged unlawful entry in several ways.

Two years after it began to take effect, experts around the country are starting to draw conclusions about the law’s effect. As thousands of people continue to enter the country illegally every day, the first arguments are being entered in a debate over whether the legislation has achieved its goals, and whether it ever will.

——–

“I don’t think anyone says that it deterred illegal immigration,” says Cecilia Muñoz, vice president of The National Council of La Raza, the nation’s largest Latino advocacy group. “But it succeeded in legalizing 3 million people”.

CSM HERE

And now, “It’s déjà vu all over again,” Mazzoli says. “These are the same issues that we had 20 years ago.”

NewsMax.com

Sotomayor could buy Obama time on immigration

…”The Latino community — and not just Latinos, but anyone who’s had a set of life experiences like Sotomayor — will always remember Barack Obama for this,” Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., told

Obama, who is set to hold a high-profile meeting on immigration with key lawmakers June 8, recently has seen an increase in his favorability rating among Latinos rise from 67 percent to 81 percent, according to a University of Washington poll, and may experience another increase with his controversial high court pick.

However, Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies writes in the National Review that there’s no way immigration reform is going to happen this year. Recent surveys show more than 75 percent of U.S. citizens are against providing amnesty to illegals.

“It’s just fantasy,” Krikorian opined, noting Obama most likely will dodge the immigration debate until next year. Bolstering Krikorian’s contention is a recent Pew Research Center study that shows only 34 percent of Democrats support reform of immigration laws, down 14 percent from two years ago.
HERE

Washington Times

Sotomayor reversed 60% by high court

With Judge Sonia Sotomayor already facing questions over her 60 percent reversal rate, the Supreme Court could dump another problem into her lap next month if, as many legal analysts predict, the court overturns one of her rulings upholding a race-based employment decision…

HERE

Washington Times

EDITORIAL: A judge too far

With his nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the U.S. Supreme Court, President Obama has abandoned all pretense of being a post-partisan president. While he may like to think of himself as a thoughtful moderate soaring above the issues that divide America, his actions reveal what hides under that hopeful lining.

Presidents usually nominate judges that espouse their philosophy. So what does this nomination tell us about Mr. Obama’s true colors?

Even the liberal establishment worries that Judge Sotomayor tilts too far to the left. New Republic essayist Jeffrey Rosen reports that fellow liberals who have watched or worked with her closely “expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and… [they have said] she is ‘not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench.’ ”

A suspiciously high number of her decisions have been overruled by higher courts. Wendy Long of the Judicial Confirmation Network said that record shows “she is far more of a liberal activist than even the current liberal activist Supreme Court.”

There will be much to say in days to come about Judge Sotomayor’s manifest lack of appropriate judicial restraint and about other problems in her record. For now, though, three red flags beg for attention.

Speaking at Duke University Law School in 2005, Judge Sotomayor said the “Court of Appeals is where policy is made.”

MORE HERE

Marietta Daily Journal
May 27, 2009
D.A. King
columnist

D.A. King: Open-borders agenda ignored by media

Kudos and sincere gratitude to this newspaper for the in-depth and professional coverage – from both the news department and the editorial page – of the recent Vicente Fox/Robert Pastor infomercial for open borders at Kennesaw State University on May 12.

Repeated thanks to KSU for giving willing Americans the opportunity to see and hear these characters for themselves.

Fox is the former president of Mexico and Pastor has proposed a “North American Parliament” and is often described as the father of the “North American Union.”

The money quote of the day came from Fox, who said, “My dream is that we will not have a border.” It should serve as a constant and brilliant reminder of the radical goal of the well-funded un-American crazies here who relentlessly strive to portray millions of illegal alien wage thieves as merely victims of geography. Not to mention the inherent dangers of surrendering our own right to loudly demand vigilant security on those borders.

In addition to peddling the creation of a North American community similar to the European Union, nearly every speaker at the four-hour event pushed for a repeat of the illegal alien amnesty of 1986. It should be noted that tacitly allowing millions of illegals into our nation and then legalizing them later amounts to nothing less than an official open-borders policy in slow motion.

Mexican citizen and former Hispanic liaison for the failed McCain presidential campaign Juan Hernandez was one of those speakers. His comments on the amnesty of 1986 were that it was the right thing to do, we should do it again and that we should repeat the cycle in about “20 or 25 years.”

MDJ readers are among the few who got the entire story on the day’s discussion or the open-borders plan.

The Associated Press, which covered the Fox visit, somehow overlooked the borderless continent sales pitch and reported that Fox was “encouraged that the Obama administration accepts some U.S. responsibility for drug violence ravaging Mexico…”

The readers here can make up their own minds on what counts as news suppression, but don’t be at all surprised at the fact that most average Americans are clueless on the subject and have for years been intentionally shielded from the scheme.

Big names in talk radio have also blacked-out the issue.

In an effort to marginalize apparently too-aware listeners on his daily nationwide radio broadcast, conservative radio host Sean Hannity reportedly plays the theme song from the old “Twilight Zone” TV series to dismiss any caller with the temerity to encourage conversation about the North American Community agenda.

Broadcasting from Atlanta, nationally syndicated “Talkmaster” and self-proclaimed “high priest of the painful truth,” Neal Boortz, will alternate between haughtily maligning any caller to his radio show who brings up the topic to confessing that he finds “the whole thing boring” when presented with unwanted, verifiable evidence of the little reported plan to merge the economies regulations and infrastructures of the U.S; socialist Canada and that paradise to our south, Mexico.

Before she was cut off in the first five seconds, a recent female caller to the Boortz show who offered information on “the North American Union” was loudly criticized with “you have drunk the Kool-Aid!” from Boortz, who is failing his listeners – and his countrymen – with his hesitation to allow on-air discussion on “pooling sovereignty.”

A Libertarian, Boortz says he opposes the unrestricted immigration policy advocated by the Libertarian Party.

Long-time regular listeners may be wondering if Boortz has failed to do his show prep or perhaps does not oppose an even more nationally suicidal doctrine advocated by the post-American political, academic and media elite he is quite willing to attack on other issues.

This one is.

The terrible truth is that the crime of illegal immigration, America’s intentionally unsecured borders and the fact that many with great influence would trade Ben Franklin’s Republic for the free flow of people and an improved quarterly profit report are all elements of the same wealth redistribution issue.

It does require a certain amount of courage, curiosity and research to articulate that dangerous fact.

As Boortz boasts: “Somebody’s gotta say it.”

Kudos as well to Cobb resident John Litland and Ronnie Hall of Ball Ground, who gave up their own business on May 12 to utilize their right of free speech and assembly to politely protest Fox and Robert Pastor and their mission at KSU. They showed what “great Americans” really look like.

While it is still allowed.

D.A. King of Marietta is president of the Georgia-based Dustin Inman Society, which advocates for secure American borders. On the Web: www.TheDustinInmanSociety.org

KGTV — San Diego

Deported at least 10 times, rapist going to prison

A 30-year-old Mexican national who sexually assaulted three women in Poway and at Miramar Lake was sentenced Wednesday to more than 21 years in state prison. — Carlos Ceron Salazar pleaded guilty Feb. 10 to two counts each of assault with intent to commit rape and rape by a foreign object..

HERE

My column in Sunday’s Macon Telegraph (HERE)

Open borders and amnesty – again: A solution to illegal immigration?

“A Republic, if you can keep it”

— Benjamin Franklin, in response to a question on what form of American government had been created by the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

“My dream is that we will not have a border”

— former Mexican President Vicente Fox at Georgia’s Kennesaw State University promoting the agenda of expanding NAFTA to include the free flow of people, May 12.

Although it went unreported by The Associated Press, along with Robert Pastor, author of a 2001 book entitled “Toward a North American Community,” former Mexican President Vicente Fox unabashedly advanced his “new vision for North American Prosperity” at a recent KSU event.Readers who have not yet heard that they should adopt a “North American identity” may be quite surprised to learn of the former El Presidente’s proposals that we officially eliminate American borders and wave the white flag of surrender over the nation we were entrusted to pass on.

Oh, and the U.S. must repeat the 1986 legalization program for the millions of currently illegal aliens who didn’t wait for the officially borderless continent, insists the man who was president as millions of his countrymen fled the corruption and grinding poverty of Mexico for “El Norte.”

More than 10 percent of Mexican- born people now live in the USA.

A little background:

As he has countless times, in a 2000 interview on ABC’s “This Week,” then Mexican President-elect Vicente Fox hopefully predicted that by 2010 people would move freely across the border between Mexico and the United States.

El Presidente’s cure for illegal immigration from Mexico? Eliminate our immigration laws.

End that old-fashioned American sovereignty and eventually “integrate” the nations of the Americas. Defined: Defended borders are selfish and Americans live far too well.

“Is the dream of prosperity just for Americans or can it be shared with the rest of us?” Fox asks while he relentlessly pushes for the expansion of the 1994 NAFTA agreement to include people.

At the sparsely attended KSU event this month, Fox promised, that without borders, “the dreams of our founding fathers will be fulfilled with freedom and better distribution of the wealth.”

This longtime American is not the first to note that Leon Trotsky and Karl Marx were not our founding fathers.

In his autobiographical 2007 book: “Revolution of Hope,” Fox boasts that “I proposed a NAFTA Plus plan to President Bush and Canada’s Prime Minister Jean Chretien to move us toward a single continental economic union, modeled on the European example.”

For Americans who take Franklin’s challenge to heart, it would be alarming enough if Fox were a singular voice in the privileged and oh-so enlightened “Post American” ruling class.

He isn’t.

After Fox and George W. Bush were sworn in, the Atlanta Journal Constitution newspaper ran an editorial accurately noting that “though neither Fox nor President Bush expects to dissolve the 2,000-mile border overnight, the Mexican leader clearly prefers sooner rather than later.”

Joining other American editorial pages — including the Wall Street Journal’s — the AJC went on to accurately announce that “Mexican President Vicente Fox envisions a North American economic alliance that will make the border between the United States and Mexico as unrestricted as the one between Tennessee and Georgia.” And then endorsed the concept by recommending that “the ultimate goal of any White House policy ought to be a North American economic and political alliance similar in scope and ambition to the European Union.”

Fox is “El Presidente” no more and George W. Bush failed in his repeated attempts to legalize the illegal aliens who escaped American Border Patrol Agents.

The open borders amnesty agenda however, lives on. Under enormous pressure from Mexico and a coalition of big business and the radical ethnic lobby — and against huge resistance from the American people — President Obama is reportedly ready to push his own legalization legislation soon.

Not to mention discarding the rule of law on open borders and legalization, we should all be asking how large a population we want in what is now the United States, and remember that under the current interpretation of our Constitution, most people born on our soil are awarded the title, rights and benefits of an “American citizen.”

Open borders and amnesty threaten to make the term — American — and the founder’s struggle — meaningless.

D.A. King of Marietta is president of the Georgia-based Dustin Inman Society, which is opposed to open borders. On the Web: www.TheDustinInmanSociety.org

www.NumbersUSA.com

Key Democrat says national health care can NOT include illegal aliens — But amnesty would lock in the illegal health cost

By Roy Beck, Thursday, May 21, 2009, 6:19 PM

A key Democratic Senator in the health care overhaul says illegal aliens can’t be covered under whatever emerges. Open-borders advocates are howling. Here’s the big question for national Democratic leaders: If they recognize that national health insurance for illegal aliens is too expensive, can they see that an amnesty essentially locks in the cost by qualifying 12-20 million illegal aliens for the health care — plus millions of their relatives who will follow?

We’re not going to cover undocumented aliens, undocumented workers.

— Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., on Thursday, May 21, 2009

A story by Jim Landers of the Dallas Morning News quoted Baucus who is the Senate Finance Committee chairman. He said that health care reforms that aim to insure every American won’t provide insurance for illegal immigrants and may not address the cost to state and local governments for providing medical care to this large group of the uninsured.

Baucus recognizes that illegal immigrants comprise 15-22% of the estimated 47 million U.S. residents without health insurance.

It is the growth among the uninsured that is helping drive the political effort to change the health care system. Previous studies have shown that illegal aliens account for nearly all of the growth in the uninsured in recent years.

So, what to do with them in the national health care solution is a big elephant in the room.

Leaders of various open-borders groups cried out that the health care reform has to provide full medical coverage to all illegal aliens. While illegal aliens get all kinds of free medical care already, primarily through emergency rooms and the like, including them in national health insurance would cost the equivalent of a bank bailout.

One of the reasons open-borders advocates would rather push an amnesty through Congress before health care legislation is that the publicized cost of the amnesty would be far less if national health coverage isn’t included.

But it will be important to remind leaders that granting amnesty to 12-20 million illegal aliens would add incredible costs if they are guaranteed a high level of health care under a new national medical system.

I think Sen. Baucus understands. Baucus was one of 14 Democratic Senators who voted against the giant amnesty in 2007, defying his Party leaders.

Interestingly, Sen. Baucus emphasized on Thursday that any talk of giving this kind of health benefits to illegal aliens would be politically explosive.

The national health solution debate will be explosive enough by itself. Imagine adding illegal aliens to it.

Baucus’ comment, though, is yet another confirmation that the constant resistance of ordinary Americans to amnesties and rewards for illegal immigration are having a positive effect on Congress. Grassroots opposition is just what the doctor ordered.

ROY BECK is Founder & CEO of NumbersUSA

Views and opinions expressed in blogs on this website are those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect official policies of NumbersUSA HERE

KFYI — Phoenix

Taxpayer-funded Arizona school accepting Mexico residents

Arizona taxpayers probably have paid at least $300,000 to educate nonresident students from Mexico attending a public charter school in Douglas, the state’s schools chief said Thursday. — State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne and Attorney General Terry Goddard separately called on the Arizona Legislature to close a statutory loophole…

HERE