WSJ

EU Considers New Border Checks

Some Members Seek National Controls to Contain Recent Influx of Migrants.

BRUSSELS—The European Union opened the door to allowing countries to reintroduce national border controls in order to police illegal immigration, in response to growing fears about whether it can handle an influx of North African migrants.

Bringing back border checks would be allowed only under exceptional circumstances, but the measure would nonetheless be a step toward reversing unhindered travel across most of the bloc’s internal borders, one of the EU’s signature achievements.

“I’m worried that borders might be back,” said Thorbjorn Jagland, secretary-general of the Council of Europe, the Continent’s principal official human-rights organization. “This could be a very bad thing for Europe.”

Concerns about immigration are particularly strong in Italy and France, which have borne the brunt of a recent influx of some 25,000 North Africans, mostly Tunisians, who took advantage of the temporary chaos to leave their home countries.

Opponents of cracking down on migrants say that number is just 10% of annual immigration to the EU, and that more than 600,000 Libyans have fled to Egypt and Tunisia.

The politics are influenced by renewed fears of immigrants wearing out social services and taking jobs at a time of tight budgets and high unemployment. When Italy’s Mediterranean island of Lampedusa was overwhelmed by immigrants, the Italian government gave temporary residence permits en masse to all asylum applicants who landed before April 5.

Some 25,000, almost all of them, have since disappeared inside Europe, most heading to France, because they speak the language. As French far-right leader Marine Le Pen is threatening to use the immigration issue to siphon votes from President Nicolas Sarkozy in presidential elections less than a year from now, it is becoming a headline issue.

French authorities admit they already are carrying out some spot checks, amid protests from pro-immigration groups and despite receiving a slap on the wrist from the European Court of Justice in 2010 for doing so.

A few weeks ago, Mr. Sarkozy met with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, and the two sent a letter to European Commission President José Manuel Barroso asking the EU to “examine the possibility of temporarily restoring internal border controls in the event of exceptional difficulties in managing the common external borders, under conditions to be defined.”

The commission, the EU’s executive arm, responded by proposing Wednesday that EU countries be given the right to reinstate border guards in “exceptional circumstances.”

The EU “would benefit from labor immigration in order to help address expected labor shortages,” said Home Affairs Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom. “But migration must at the same time be properly managed—this means ensuring effective border control and the return of irregular migrants.”

The proposal has wide support among EU governments and is likely to pass, say EU officials and representatives of member governments.

In a statement Wednesday, the French government said it was “satisfied” with the commission’s response to Mr. Sarkozy and Mr. Berlusconi’s letter.

.Proponents of more open immigration policies said they were disappointed by the commission’s proposal. “It’s not yet clear what the conditions will be,” said Joanna Parkin, an analyst with the Center for European Policy Studies, a Brussels-based think tank. “But it shows a lack of trust and solidarity among EU countries to manage migration.”

Unhindered travel through seven EU countries was introduced in 1995. The so-called Schengen zone has since expanded to 22 EU nations, plus Norway, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Iceland. The U.K., Ireland, Cyprus, Bulgaria and Romania still maintain border restrictions.

Wednesday’s announcement also included proposals to create a common EU asylum and immigration policy. Mrs. Malmstrom proposed setting up centers outside the EU that would be authorized to grant visas valid for the entire union, and offering trade concessions and visas for skilled workers in countries like Tunisia in exchange for a tougher clampdown by their governments on outward migration. The proposals will be discussed at a meeting of ministers May 12, and at a summit of EU leaders on June 24.

The plan is likely to face its biggest hurdles in the European Parliament, which also must approve it. Juan López Aguilar, a Spanish socialist member of the European Parliament, on Wednesday called the proposal “unacceptable”.

—Stephen Fidler contributed to this article.
Copyright 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

HERE

HUMAN EVENTS

Obama Must Challenge Utah Immigration Law by Rep. Lamar Smith

05/05/2011

Last year, the Obama administration sued Arizona over its law that was designed merely to assist the federal government in the enforcement of immigration laws. To date, however, the administration has been silent on a new Utah law, even though it blatantly undermines federal immigration law.

The Utah immigration law creates a guest worker program for illegal immigrants who have lived or worked in the state before May 10, 2011. Illegal immigrants who become guest workers can then obtain “immediate family” permits for their spouses or unmarried children under the age of 21 who are also illegal immigrants.

Unlike the Arizona law, the Utah immigration law is in direct violation of federal law.

Congress has the constitutional authority to determine immigration law, and has not been silent on the employment of illegal immigrants. In fact, current federal law says it’s unlawful for any employer to knowingly hire an illegal immigrant. The law also requires employers to comply with an employment eligibility verification system to help ensure they hire a legal workforce.

The Obama administration’s silence regarding the Utah law stands in stark contrast to its early condemnation of the Arizona law that sought to enforce federal immigration law. If the Obama administration wants a consistent immigration policy, then it needs to take action against the Utah law.

It would not be a stretch to conclude that the only immigration policy that the Obama administration favors is one that allows illegal immigrants to remain in the United States. And it’s not just its silence on the Utah immigration law.

Though President Obama recognizes that jobs are a magnet for illegal immigration, his administration has ignored enforcement of immigration laws at the workplace. Arrests of illegal immigrant workers are down 77% from 2008. The administration’s policy? If they conduct a paperwork audit of a company and find illegal immigrant workers, the workers are not arrested. Instead, they are free to remain in the U.S. and take jobs from American workers someplace else.

Also, even though a number of states and localities are in violation of federal immigration law, the Obama administration has not taken action against any of them.

For example, the Obama administration has not sanctioned sanctuary cities, even though they willfully defy federal law by prohibiting their law enforcement officials from cooperating with the Department of Homeland Security.

The administration also has not taken action against states that give in-state college tuition to illegal immigrants, despite the fact that federal law prohibits this.

The Obama administration’s track record and continued silence on the Utah immigration law reflects its anti-enforcement agenda. It is just one more piece of evidence that this government has no interest in enforcing our immigration laws.

Instead of basing its decisions on its own policy preferences, the Obama administration should fully enforce all immigration laws. When immigration laws are enforced, illegal immigrants leave on their own, and wages go up for Americans and legal workers.

With millions of Americans looking for work, the administration needs to take legal action against Utah for its unconstitutional law that hurts American workers.

——————————————————————————–
Congressman Lamar Smith represents the 21st District of Texas. He is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

HERE——————————————————————————–

The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers

The full report is available in pdf format.

Executive Summary
This report estimates the annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level to be about $113 billion; nearly $29 billion at the federal level and $84 billion at the state and local level. The study also estimates tax collections from illegal alien workers, both those in the above-ground economy and those in the underground economy. Those receipts do not come close to the level of expenditures and, in any case, are misleading as an offset because over time unemployed and underemployed U.S. workers would replace illegal alien workers.

Key Findings

Illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers about $113 billion a year at the federal, state and local level. The bulk of the costs — some $84 billion — are absorbed by state and local governments.
The annual outlay that illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers is an average amount per native-headed household of $1,117. The fiscal impact per household varies considerably because the greatest share of the burden falls on state and local taxpayers whose burden depends on the size of the illegal alien population in that locality
Education for the children of illegal aliens constitutes the single largest cost to taxpayers, at an annual price tag of nearly $52 billion. Nearly all of those costs are absorbed by state and local governments.
At the federal level, about one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. At the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs associated with illegal immigration is recouped through taxes collected from illegal aliens.
Most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. Among those who do, much of the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. Many are also claiming tax credits resulting in payments from the U.S. Treasury.
With many state budgets in deficit, policymakers have an obligation to look for ways to reduce the fiscal burden of illegal migration. California, facing a budget deficit of $14.4 billion in 2010-2011, is hit with an estimated $21.8 billion in annual expenditures on illegal aliens. New York’s $6.8 billion deficit is smaller than its $9.5 billion in yearly illegal alien costs.

The report examines the likely consequences if an amnesty for the illegal alien population were adopted similar to the one adopted in 1986. The report notes that while tax collections from the illegal alien population would likely increase only marginally, the new legal status would make them eligible for receiving Social Security retirement benefits that would further jeopardize the future of the already shaky system. An amnesty would also result in this large population of illegal aliens becoming eligible for numerous social assistance programs available for low-income populations for which they are not now eligible. The overall result would, therefore, be an accentuation of the already enormous fiscal burden.

Methodology
All studies assessing the impact of illegal aliens begin with estimates of the size of that population. We use a population of 13 million broken down by state.

In our cost estimates we also include the minor children of illegal aliens born in the United States. That adds another 3.4 million children to the 1.3 million children who are illegal aliens themselves. We include these U.S. citizen children of illegal aliens because the fiscal outlays for them are a direct result of the illegal migration that led to their U.S. birth. We do so as well in the assumption that if the parents leave voluntarily or involuntarily they will take these children with them. The birth of these children and their subsequent medical care represent a large share of the estimated Medicaid and Child Health Insurance Program expenditures associated with illegal aliens.

We use data collected by the federal and state governments on school expenses, Limited English Proficiency enrollment, school meal programs, university enrollment, and other public assistance programs administered at the federal and state level. Estimates of incarceration expenses are based on data collected in the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program in which state and local detention facilities seek federal compensation for the cost of detention of criminal and deportable aliens. Estimates for other administration of justice expenditures are based on data collected from the states by the U.S. Department of Justice. General government expenditures are estimated for other non-enumerated functions of government at both the federal and local level. An example would be the cost of fire departments or the cost of the legislature.

Medical costs that amount to 10 percent of overall state and local outlays on illegal aliens derive from our estimate of the childbirths to illegal alien mothers covered by Medicaid, the subsequent medical insurance and treatment of those children and an estimate of uncompensated cost of emergency medical treatment received by illegal aliens. The latter expenditure estimate is based on state and local government studies of uncompensated medical care.

The tax collections from illegal aliens assume eight million illegal alien workers, one-half of whom are in the underground economy. Those in the above-ground economy are assumed to have an average family income of $31,200 (60 hr. workweek @ $10/hr.) with two children.

Conclusion
The report notes that today’s debate over what to do about illegal aliens places the country at a crossroads. One choice is pursuing a strategy that discourages future illegal migration and increasingly diminishes the current illegal alien population through denial of job opportunities and deportations. The other choice would repeat the unfortunate decision made in 1986 to adopt an amnesty that invited continued illegal migration.

July 2010, Revised February 2011

The full report is available in pdf format.

Activists urge Deal not to sign immigration bill

by Jon Gillooly

The Marietta Daily Journal

May 04, 2011

MARIETTA — Rich Pellegrino of the Cobb Immigrant Alliance urged Gov. Deal not to sign a controversial new immigration bill during a Glover Park news conference Wednesday morning.

That Deal hasn’t yet signed the bill shows he has doubts about it, Pellegrino said.

“I think he’s definitely having second thoughts and taking a good look at how this is going to make Georgia look,” Pellegrino said.

A spokeswoman for Deal said that is not correct.

“We’re still going through the bill review process, but as of now, the governor still intends to sign HB 87,” spokeswoman Stephanie Mayfield said.

Pellegrino was accompanied by such opponents of the bill as Larry Pellegrini, a policy analyst for the Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights.

The activists argued that the proposed legislation would harm Georgia’s No. 1 industry, agriculture, in that farmers would not be able to find the needed workers to harvest their crops. The bill would also harm the state’s second-largest industry, tourism, in that groups and individuals would boycott the state in opposition to alleged racial profiling, they said.

Pellegrini said Arizona has already lost $140 million from cancelled tourism events as a result of its immigration law.

“We should not be following in Arizona’s footsteps and suffering like they have,” Pellegrini said.

Pellegrino said he was holding the news conference in Marietta because of Cobb Sheriff Neil Warren.

“This is ground zero for the whole immigration battle, because Sheriff Warren was one of the first in the nation to start the 287(g) program, which deputizes his deputies as immigration agents,” Pellegrino said. “They can start the process of deportation at the jail without (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). My objection is the same as Cobb County Police’s objection. The purpose of police is to build trust with everybody in the community. You can’t build trust if you’re seen as a deportation agent when you’re trying to solve crime.”

Warren’s program is ineffective, he said.

“There’s no less undocumented immigrants in Cobb County than there were at the beginning of that. If some leave, others replace them,” Pellegrino said.

The Austell resident blamed the program for causing the county’s budget problems.

“You were all at the commission meeting where they were going to close down libraries, where all of a sudden we have found ourselves in a deficit,” Pellegrino said. “It’s not rocket science to know businesses are closing, tax revenues are down when you chase out one group of people. I told the sheriff, he was worried about his budget being cut, I said, ‘It’s your fault. So called unintended consequences.’ Cobb County is an example of what will happen to the rest of Georgia. We’re going downhill. We have an underground crime problem that’s increasing.”

D.A. King, who founded the Dustin Inman Society, an anti-illegal immigration group, watched from the sidelines before rebutting his opponents.

“I’m very embarrassed that any of these people live in Cobb County. I think Rich Pellegrino has fulfilled all the expectations that most reasonable people have for him today,” King said. “The extortion effort aimed at our immigration laws here in Georgia is not fooling anyone. The race-baiting fringe that collected here on the Square today is an embarrassment to Cobb County and an insult to law enforcement in general with their constant accusations and predictions of racial profiling. We’ve had E-Verify in Georgia since 2006 — thank you, Chip Rogers. All we have done is expanded E-Verify to include all employers with more than 10 employees — thank you, Matt Ramsey. I’m very proud to be involved in getting the bill passed.”

Rogers, a Woodstock Republican, is the state Senate majority leader. Ramsey, a Republican state representative from Peachtree City, originated the legislation.
Copyright 2011 The Marietta Daily Journal. All rights reserved.

Read more: The Marietta Daily Journal – Activists urge Deal not to sign immigration bill

Governor Deal to finally sign HB 87 next week? – Ask his office 404 656 1776 – tell them the illegals are already leaving Georgia in fear of enforcement…

National Review Online

Mark Krikorian

April 21, 2011

Hate Campaign’s Anti-Climax

‘We spent $100 million to demonize restrictionists and all we got was a lousy T-shirt.’

On Sunday, the New York Times published a 3,000-word, front-page, above-the-fold piece on the various thoughtcrimes of John Tanton, a retired eye doctor in rural Michigan who was important in creating the modern immigration-reduction movement.

This was the culmination of a three-and-a-half-year Alinskyite project by the pro-amnesty groups to “pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it” — to turn Tanton into a hate figure as a way of demonizing all critics of open immigration. Finally reaching the top of the media food chain should have been the crowning glory of the smear campaign, the formal anathema finally excommunicating the immigration heretics and banishing them from polite society.

But it was a dud.

It had the makings of a real tour de force for the pro-amnesty crowd, especially because it followed their preferred narrative, focusing on the diabolical ophthalmologist rather than on, say, the details of the coordinated hate campaign they’d launched against him. But you can only imagine their disappointment as they read through the piece hungry for red meat, and finding only tofu. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, the hilariously misnamed forerunner to Media Matters, ran an angry blog post the next day criticizing reporter Jason DeParle and the “corporate media” for giving “a pass” to the devilish restrictionist devils.

And they’re right to be disappointed because, once you get past the “when did you stop being a racist?” framing, the article isn’t too bad. The central (and absurd) claim of the hate campaign has always been that Tanton was the “puppeteer” of a racist, anti-immigrant movement that ostensibly had many faces but was really run as a single enterprise, animated by the will (and views) of a single man. Tanton was supposed to be, like Conan Doyle’s Moriarty, the Napoleon of Restrictionism, sitting motionless at the center of a vast web.

No thinking person can read DeParle’s piece and believe any of that. The article describes a restless and energetic man who served as a kind of Johnny Appleseed of immigration reduction. (To be parochial for a moment, seed money was the extent of Tanton’s role at my group, the Center for Immigration Studies; as he’s written at his website, “I also helped raise a grant in 1985 for the [CIS], but I have played no role in the Center’s growth or development.)

DeParle also describes Tanton’s evolution “from apostle of centrist restraint to ally of angry populists and a man who increasingly saw immigration through a racial lens.” That’s an unfortunate development; I think my colleague Jerry Kammer summed up Tanton’s main failing last year in his piece on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s smear campaign: “The small-town doctor from Northern Michigan combines relentless organizational energies with a provincial temperament and a tin ear for the sensitivities of immigration. In an arena that requires the ability to frame issues in a way that broadens consensus, he sometimes speaks with a free-wheeling bluntness that can upset even those who admire him.”

All very interesting, but it’s a far cry from the xenophobic puppeteer.

The New York Times article makes clear the falsity of the hate campaign’s charge of “Tanton’s empire of fear and prejudice” (the words are those of the Center for New Community). The immigration-reduction movement, like any other broad movement, is a diverse group of people with a wide variety of sometimes-conflicting political views and concerns, from the “folksy” Roy Beck and others making “serious liberal arguments for lower immigration,” to “angry populists” at the Federation for American Immigration Reform’s annual talk-radio event, where the worst thing DeParle seems to have heard was “calls to use Tomahawk missiles on Tijuana drug lords.” (Is anyone surprised to hear that on talk radio?)

Probably the biggest hole in the Times piece was its failure to parallel Tanton’s story with an account of the origins of the hate campaign against him. In the wake of the spectacular defeat of the Bush-Kennedy-McCain amnesty in the summer of 2007, there was a series of meetings of all the pro-amnesty groups — including the Center for American Progress, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the National Council of La Raza, the National Immigration Forum, and others — where a strategy was formally adopted, and duties parceled out, to leave substantive policy debates aside and focus instead on the supposed racism that drove the many-headed “anti-immigrant” hydra. Tens of millions of dollars were devoted to this project by otherwise respectable foundations, websites were set up (the flagship site was finally discontinued by La Raza last year as a failure, but you can see its last iteration here), and the SPLC was instructed to cook up a phony “hate group” designation for the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

Fleshing out that completely unreported story would have been a good use of the resources of the New York Times and made the article genuinely newsworthy.

Be that as it may, the Times piece clearly marks the end of the smear campaign. I mean, what else is there for them to do — get a story in Newsweek? Having failed to drive immigration skeptics out of polite society, maybe now the grownups on the other side of the debate will put this sordid and disreputable episode behind them and actually engage in a thoughtful debate on substance.

Even after enduring years of their contempt and defamation, I’m willing to talk. Are they?

— Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, an NRO contributor, and author of The New Case Against Immigration, Both Legal and Illegal and How Obama Is Transforming America Through Immigration.

HERE

John Tanton is a retired ophthalmologist in Petoskey, Michigan. An avid environmentalist, he has devoted his life to preserving our nation from the onslaught of unbridled mass immigration. You can read more about John Tanton here.

Dr. Tanton actually was quite effective over the years – which is why the open borders radicals mounted a personal attack campaign against John Tanton. That’s the best they could do, as the open borders subversives have no rational arguments why our borders should be less secure than those of Afghanistan.

You can read the responses of John Tanton to personal criticism – John has a way of putting things clearly in perspective.

In a National Review article, CIS’s Mark Krikorian explains the Hate Campaign’s Anti-Climax quite succinctly.

The bottom line is that the American People aren’t as dumb as the open borders subversives had hoped.

Dave

Do Americans remember the promise of Teddy Kennedy regarding the 1986 amnesty bill?

No other personage in American politics carries as much accountability as this Democrat/Liberal Ted Kennedy for the contemporary wretched state of U.S. immigration chaos. In his words:

“This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forth an amnesty bill like this.”

Over five million foreign nationals suddenly materialized demanding—Mass AMNESTY. This was the first lie to the American people on immigration, as lie upon lie ever since has been piled on top of this original lie that relating to amnesty, border fences and interior enforcement. Our country has been slowly turned into a third world toilet, brought upon us by this original lie Kennedy response to his critics on enactment of the 1965 immigration bill, “The charges I have mentioned are highly emotional, irrational and with little foundation in fact. They are out of line with the obligations of responsible citizenship. They breed hate of our heritage. …” Kennedy promised, “The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.” However Ted Kennedy’s immigration policies have ejected hundreds of thousands of Americans out of the middle class as their occupations have been crippled by wages declining because of the deluge with Kennedy’s preferential treatment to foreign national’s workers, streaming into every niche of our society and because they have directly lost their jobs to illegal border and overseas competitors.
Yesterday, 5:46:55 PM– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate Dave
Well, the sick joke is on us.

In the years previous to 1965 United States was well serviced by the immigration laws of 1924 which had shaped an unwavering middle class social order. Then along came the Democratic social manipulators as Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts who ideology entirely wrecked American populace with “Hart-Seller” Act of 1965. The Hart-Cellar Act abolished the national origins quota system that had controlled US immigration policy since the 1920s, replacing it with a preference system that focused on immigrants’ skills and family relationships with citizens or residents in this nation. It was tantamount to opening the floodgates to unskilled labor from Mexico, Central and South America; its inception was a policy of wide open borders that has attracted to this country a wide variety of criminals, which includes drug cartels and their human transporters. A day doesn’t go by without a television channel reporting another pedestrian killed by an illegal alien drunk while driving. Our courts a crammed solid with cases of criminal aliens killing, or the latest innovations of home invasions, kidnappings and Americans becoming the pray of heinous crimes committed by foreign nationals.These crime incidents are constantly rising, thats why every police precinct, needs to operate a fingerprinting and processing center according to the Secure Communities, 287 (G) laws.We are also need to ensure that E-Verify is installed as a mandated policy across America, that can displace illegal nationals stealing jobs from US workers.
Yesterday, 5:46:36 PM– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate Dave
In 1965, the American people were guaranteed that immigration would never exceed its then low level of 250,000 annually. Currently, it is at an all-time high of over a million a year and still rising. Six stealth amnesties have been overlooked by the public, with intentional results, such as larger numbers of unemployment of legitimate workers, being replaced by unscrupulous business owners whose only concern is higher profits. Because of importunate congressional mismanagement immigrants and their descendants will fuel a massive increase in the population of the United States for the foreseeable future, creating irreversible overpopulation growth, with large monetary rewards for criminal companies. American workers must exact a criminal penalty on these companies; not the lower management, but the penthouse people, who must see the inside of a jail cell. If illegal Immigration continues unabated, without relating to the change in American labor markets, conditions in the inner cities, or the mounting expenses to state and local taxpayers will be inexcusable Ted Kennedy’s function in creating this situation has been enormous to US taxpayers and the State of our communities. Neighborhoods are crammed with the impoverished of foreign lands, confusing our own language, bringing dangerous religions and tearing the fabric of the real American culture apart.

Another program enacted at the order of the late Senator Kennedy was a Seasonal Agricultural Worker (SAW) amnesty. This was another option to the temporary-worker program SAW, promoted by California Growers. The SAW amnesty was projected by a New York newspaper to have fraud rates as high as 70 per cent, and the number of people who took advantage of the amnesty was estimated to be at least three times the number that was qualified given the size of America’s agricultural labor force. All they needed to be eligible for the amnesty was a document saying they had worked for the specified number of days in harvesting crops, and those documents were simple to forge. An (INS) Immigration and Naturalization (prior to a merger and becoming (ICE) Immigration and Customs service) study found that after ten years in the United States, the average amnestied illegal alien had only a seventh grade education and an annual salary of less than $9,000 a year. Unlike immigrants who are sponsored and guaranteed they will not become a burden on the welfare state. When Washington enacts an amnesty, it makes the American public monetarily obligated for those amnestied. So According to a report from the (CIS) Center for Immigration Studies, the entire net cost of the 1986 IRCA amnesty (the direct and indirect costs of services and benefits to the ex-illegal aliens, minus their tax contributions) after ten years comes to over $78 billion.

Yesterday, 5:46:12 PM– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate Dave
HAVE YOU ANY IDEA THE COST TODAY, IF PRESIDENT OBAMA FORCES THROUGH ANOTHER MASS AMNESTY?

You do not have to calculate to hard that current and previous governments, have been stealing hundreds of billions of dollars each year, to support this illegal immigrant occupation in education and health care and other financial programs. While $40 billion dollars a year of these illegal immigrant hires are transferred out the country to foreign banks.

Prior to Kennedy’s 1986 bill, L.B. Johnson had signed his own immigration policy into law, with most immigrants to the United States coming from Europe; 70 percent coming from the United Kingdom, Ireland and Germany. European immigrants easily assimilated, as they were culturally and economically analogous to America’s population. Immigrants were educated with higher skill rates. Nowadays poorly educated, non-skilled illegal migrants and immigrants arrive and are supported by taxpayer-funded entitlements and social services, ensuing in increased use of emergency rooms, increased welfare rolls, increased registration in free public schools for their children and increased cost of law enforcement and unparalleled increase in prison occupancy. As most illegal aliens are hired on a under-the-table cash payment, so they avoid taxes and therefore middle-class taxpayers pay even more to cover the increased use of public services. As taxes increase and wages decline, America’s working middle class is being exploited by the IRS.

Ted Kennedy who is not here today lied and is joined by others, that includes The White House, and other open borders pushers. What really is amnesty is called “comprehensive immigration reform” and treasonous. It is unmerited support for illegal aliens, open borders policy, and free citizenship (small fine) to millions who have no allegiance to sovereign country and to our civilization. The 1986 bill has overall been a washout and mockery, because the downright intention not fulfills the requirements of big business intervention. If you as a patriotic Americans want to stop the President Obama and his minions in both parties, passing another volatile Amnesty? Then you must join tens of millions of honest legal birthright citizens, naturalized citizens and legal residents in the TEA PARTY. The call is already going out across the world, which they can procure an AMNESTY and take advantage of the US welfare and social service system. ONLY AMERICANS CAN STOP THE OBAMA GOVERNMENT , BY BOMBARDING YOUR STATE AND FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES TO HALT IT. INFORMATION. From Outside Dial:Senate—202-224–3121/House—202-225–3121

EDITORIAL: May Day malaise

Job-seeking Americans aren’t buying amnesty for illegals

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Washington Times
May 3, 2011

ASSOCIATED PRESS

(PHOTO) Protesters march during a rally after a federal immigration raid of the Agriprocessors plant in Postville, Iowa, in May. The Rubashkin family, which runs the kosher slaughterhouse, deny accusations they knowingly hired illegal immigrants.

May 1 brought marches and rallies to commemorate International Workers’ Day to nearly every corner of the globe. Yet even the left was unable to muster much enthusiasm for a socialist holiday that in the United States has morphed into an excuse to demand amnesty for those living and working in the country illegally. That’s a message that few are buying when jobs are already in short supply.

In Los Angeles, the epicenter for the pro-amnesty push, only a few thousand people showed up for the city’s May Day rally for celebrating the millions who hopped over the border in violation of the law, according to the Los Angeles Times. By contrast, around 60,000 marched a year ago when controversy was fresh over Arizona’s new anti-immigration law. A gathering in New York on Sunday saw about a thousand rallying for more jobs and fewer deportations, reported the Associated Press.

Originally a celebration of spring, May Day was appropriated by the socialist movement in the 19th century. It has essentially become a second Labor Day where leftists seek a free pass for the multitudes who have snuck into this country. Big Labor’s interest is obvious. The bosses want to boost union membership which has been in a freefall since its peak in the 1950s. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that 771,000 tore up their membership cards in 2008. Unions lost another 612,000 members in 2010, a drop in work force share from 12.3 percent to 11.9 percent.

Labor bosses have done the math and concluded that the millions of illegal workers in the United States represent their only hope for pulling out of the membership nosedive. Members mean money – dues for union coffers and higher salaries for bosses. Similarly, supportive politicians see illegals as a source for campaign donations and new votes.

Immigration-rights advocates had hoped congressional passage of the DREAM Act – which grants conditional permanent residency to certain deportable, illegal students – would establish a beachhead for amnesty. Since the bill’s narrow defeat in December, the union-immigrant alliance has resorted to increasingly strident demands that President Obama take matters into his own hands. “The president can announce a policy of allowing DREAM Act-eligible young people to stay in America until Congress passes comprehensive immigration legislation,” wrote AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka in a Hill newspaper Op-Ed Thursday.

Liberal Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois, speaking before a Chicago church coregation last month, called on the president to go even further. He urged Mr. Obama to go behind the back of Congress and grant blanket amnesty for all illegal immigrants through executive order.

It is characteristic of the left to promote the interests of favored subcultures over those of law-abiding working families. With 13.5 million Americans currently unemployed, a May Day message that would lead to even more competition for scarce jobs no longer resonates in Los Angeles, New York or anywhere in between.

© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

HERE