This is a “mind-boggling concept,” exploded Lou Dobbs. It must cause Americans to think our political and academic elites have “gone utterly mad.” What had detonated the mild-mannered CNN anchor?

Dr. Robert Pastor, vice chair of the Council on Foreign Relations Task Force on North America, had just appeared before a panel of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations — to call for erasing all U.S. borders and a merger of the United States, Mexico and Canada in a North American union stretching from Prudhoe Bay to Guatemala.

Under the Pastor-CFR plan, the illegal alien invasion would be solved by eliminating America’s borders and legalizing the invasion. We would no longer defend the Rio Grande.

“What we need to do,” Pastor instructed, “is forge a new North American Community. … Instead of stopping North Americans on the borders, we ought to provide them with a secure, biometric Border Pass that would ease transit across the border like an E-Z pass permits our cars to speed through tolls.”

The Pastor-CFR project, for “economic integration” of Mexamerica, is on the drawing board.

The above is from Buchanan’s recent column on TownHall.com

Ever ask yourself why the President refuses to secure American borders?

Here is another question: if the un-American globalist Robert Pastor has already testified in a U.S. Senate Committee advocating for the disolution of American soverignty…why does the whole matter seem to be such a mystery to so many people I speak with in our federal government?

You can read the PJB’s entire column here, and mine from the AJC here.

In November, we all have a voice. Our elected officials have said nothing about this matter, it is time they were encouraged to pick a side.

Please let us know here when anyone holding federal office tells you that they need time to investigate the issue. We will post a list of those elected officials here.

Time is up.
U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss
U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson
U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston, 1
U.S. Rep. Sanford Bishop, 2
U.S. Rep. Jim Marshall, 3
U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney, 4 **
U.S. Rep. John Lewis, 5
U.S. Rep. Tom Price, 6
U.S. Rep. John Linder, 7
U.S. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, 8
U.S. Rep. Charlie Norwood, 9
U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal, 10
U.S. Rep. Phil Gingrey, 11
U.S. Rep. John Barrow, 12
U.S. Rep. David Scott, 13

Beyond borders blog. Give it a look.

I came across this blog while looking for something else on the wonderous internet.

This blogger has made as good a case as anyone why illegal imigration should not be a partisan issue. It is well worth the short read time.

If you want, you can send it to Sam Zamarippa…banker to the same illegals he has enabled for years.

Right Democrat: a blog for conservative and moderate Democrats.

“The purpose of this site is to give a voice to long overlooked mainstream Democrats. For too long, the views of Democrats who are populist on economic issues and traditionalist on social issues have been ignored by the Democratic Party. Our goal is to rebuild the moderate-conservative wing of the Democratic Party and create a new Democratic majority based on concern for working families, common sense and mainstream values”.

From Right Democrat:
Saturday, April 01, 2006
Illegal immigration and the cheap labor lobby

Democrats must stand on the side of American workers in dealing with the issue of border security and immigration control. The reality is that illegal immigration hurts workers near the bottom of the wage scale – many of whom happen to be Hispanic or African-American. If the Democratic Party and organized labor will not take a stand on behalf of wage earners, who will ? Too many Democratic leaders like Howard Dean have joined the cheap labor lobby along with big business Republicans like George W. Bush and John McCain. Of course, many misguided progressives, Cato Institute types and the big business sponsored media will attempt to portray critics of illegal immigration as xenophobic and racist. Unable to win on merits on the issue, the apologists for illegal immigration feel that they must resort to smear tactics. The lack of border security and immigration enforcement is a economic and national matter – not a racial or ethnic issue.

Reuben Navarrette pointed out in the San Diego Union-Tribune last year that the great Mexican-American labor leader Cesar Chavez (who founded the United Farm Workers) detested illegal immigration. Navarrette wrote :”Despite the fact that Chavez is these days revered among Mexican-American activists, the labor leader in his day was no more tolerant of illegal immigration than the Arizona Minutemen are now. Worried that the hiring of illegal immigrants drove down wages, Chavez – according to numerous historical accounts – instructed union members to call the Immigration and Naturalization Service to report the presence of illegal immigrants in the fields and demand that the agency deport them. UFW officials were even known to picket INS offices to demand a crackdown on illegal immigrants.”

Many of us who are old enough to recall watching the 1976 Democratic Convention remember a inspiring and eloquent speech given by the late Barbara Jordan, the first African-American member of Congress from Texas. http://tinyurl.com/hkd2x Not long before her death in 1996, Representative Jordan chaired the Commission on Immigration Reform. Jordan was quoted in 1995 before the committee as stating “Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave.” As we consider what to do about the problem of illegal immigration, let’s not forget the wisdom of two great Americans who made a positive difference for working Americans – Cesar Chavez and Barbara Jordan.

“The right is right on immigration reform”

Brian and Laurel Hines are progressive bloggers. They look like nice people who would fit in well at Sierra Club picnic. I happened across their latest posting about illegal immigration which makes a strong case that “the right is right on immigration reform.” While I object to illegal immigration on the basis of economic and national security reasons rather than environmental concerns, the posting makes a strong and well-reasoned progressive case against illegal immigration. Here is the post from Hines Sight http://hinessight.blogs.com

“Strange political days have dawned when I turn on my car radio, hear arch-conservative Michael Savage ranting about how awful it would be to give amnesty to twelve million illegal aliens, and say to myself, Right on, Michael!”

“Like I’ve said before, the right is right on immigration reform. And by “right,” I mean the rightest of the right. Not the Arlen Specter sort of Senate moderates, but the fire breathing House Republicans like Dana Rohrabacher who said people should be able to ‘smell the foul odor that’s coming out of the U.S. Senate.”

“It is indeed foul when Democrats abandon their historic concern for middle class working people and align themselves with business interests eager to continue paying sweatshop wages to illegal aliens rather than hire Americans at whatever salary an illegal-less workforce would demand.”

“When George Bush and Howard Dean are on the same page, you know that someone powerful is running the political printing press. And that is: corporations.

Having already outsourced millions of middle class jobs overseas in a quest to fatten their bottom line, corporations are dead set on continuing to insource a limitless supply of foreign workers willing to work for less than American citizens would demand.”

It’s disgusting that the Dems and moderate Republicans have sold out to political pollsters who lust after the steadily growing Hispanic voting bloc. It’s rare that I’ll say anything good about right-wing Republicans, but on this issue they’re standing firm on principles that deserve to be defended. Like…

–You don’t reward sneaking across the border illegally with amnesty and American citizenship.

–You don’t undercut minimum wage laws and normal workforce supply and demand by artificially inflating the supply of foreign workers willing to work for a pittance.

–You don’t encourage an influx of more illegal aliens by saying, in effect: “We didn’t really mean to enforce our old laws, so you can assume that we won’t bother to enforce this new law either.”

Plus, I’m an avid environmentalist. If you read the cover story of TIME this week, you’ll know that global warming is here. It’s real, it means business, and it’s no joke. The United States has the biggest ecological footprint of any country on the planet. Meaning, on average each American screws up the Earth environmentally much more than a person elsewhere does.
To save the Earth, we don’t need more wasteful Americans. We need fewer. Or at least, the fewer the better. Turning twelve million Mexicans into American citizens isn’t a good thing for the planet. If some of them are needed here temporarily, fine. A minimal guest worker program might make sense.

But not wholesale amnesty. Seal up the borders. Enforce our immigration laws. Make businesses pay big-time if they hire illegals.

Progressives, I just ask you to consider this bizarre possibility: sometimes the right is right.

Link to post at Hines Sight http://tinyurl.com/lwomh

Wait until you read the comments!

Hat tip to Right Democrat! Click here for Homepage

PJB has a new book out. I just ordered it after reading what Drudge says:

As Rome passed away, so, the West is passing away, from the same causes and in much the same way. What the Danube and Rhine were to Rome, the Rio Grande and Mediterranean are to America and Europe, the frontiers of a civilization no longer defended.”

So begins a new work of warning from Pat Buchanan.

And this time Buchanan goes all the way.

STATE OF EMERGENCY: THIRD WORLD INVASION AND CONQUEST OF AMERICA… streets this week and is designed to jolt readers with stats/analysis of illegal immigration gone dangerously wild.

Buchanan warns: “The children born in 2006 will witness in their lifetimes the death of the West.”

One in every twelve people breaking into America has a criminal record.

By 2050, there will be 100 million Hispanics concentrated in the U.S. Southwest.

Between 10 and 20 percent of all Mexicans, Central Americans and Caribbean people have already moved to the United States.

Every month, the U.S. Border Patrol apprehends more illegal aliens breaking into our country, 150,000, than the number of troops we have in Iraq.

More here…

For the many who do not read the AJC….Saturday’s front page:

Georgia a magnet for illegals
Carlos Campos, Jim Tharpe – Staff
Saturday, August 19, 2006

Georgia has the fastest-growing illegal immigrant population in the nation, more than doubling in the last five years, according to a federal report released Friday.

Estimating the numbers of illegal immigrants is “challenging,” the report by the department’s Office of Immigration Statistics notes, because of the lack of concrete data. Estimates of the illegal immigrant population throughout the United States vary widely, often according to who’s compiling the numbers.

Congress remains in a stalemate over illegal immigration reform, unable to resolve key differences in House and Senate versions of a bill. As a result, states have been addressing the issue on a local level.

D.A. King of Marietta, an anti-illegal immigration activist, said he was not surprised by Friday’s numbers, but believes they are grossly underestimated.

“I believe the number to be well in excess of 20 million [in the United States],” said King, president of The Dustin Inman Society.

A Zogby International poll conducted for the Journal-Constitution in late December showed that 80 percent of Georgians wanted the Legislature to tackle illegal immigration.

The figures released Friday could further galvanize public opinion against illegal immigration, said King, who lobbies for tougher anti-illegal immigration laws and enforcement. “This news will only increase the already high number of people in Georgia who have had enough of illegal immigration in our state.”

Read the rest here.

Guess what…short-handed American Border Patrol is now guarding our National Guard.

We agree: “In a word, this is crazy”.

Below from the Washington Times

Guarding the National Guard
TODAY’S EDITORIAL
August 19, 2006

When President Bush announced he would send 6,000 National Guard troops to the southern border, we applauded the move, but knew that it was more a symbolic gesture than an actual solution to the crisis. Our concerns deepened after it became known that the Guard troops wouldn’t actually be, well, guarding the border. Rather, they would placed in more administrative positions, presumably to free up Border Patrol agents to patrol the field. Now, it looks like even that benign gesture may be doing more harm than good.
As Jerry Seper reported Thursday, Border Patrol agents, instead of being free to guard the border, are having to guard the Guard. “Several veteran Border Patrol agents in Arizona told The Washington Times they were issued standing orders to be within five minutes of National Guard troops along the border and that Border Patrol units were pulled from other regions to protect Guard units — leaving their own areas short-handed,” Mr. Seper reported.
In a word, this is crazy. Border Patrol agents are referring to their new duties as “nanny patrol,” and that seems about right to us. A U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman tried to sugarcoat the comedy show that has become the southern border, saying “It makes sense that agents would be nearby the National Guard members who are there to be our eyes and ears.” Except, of course, when the federal government forbids Guardsmen from bearing arms, it becomes less a question of supporting each other than protecting each other.

Read the rest here.

TESTIMONY OF D.A. KING
PRESIDENT, THE DUSTIN INMAN SOCIETY
BEFORE THE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORK FORCE
Subcommittee Field Hearing, Gainesville, Georgia
REGARDING THE SENATE PASSED IMMIGRATION REFORM BILL
[S 2611] AND ITS IMPACT ON THE AMERICAN WORKFORCE
August 14, 2006

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, good morning.

My name is D.A. King. I am president of The Dustin Inman Society, which is a Georgia-based coalition of Americans of many backgrounds and ethnicities dedicated to educating the public on the consequences of illegal immigration.

I am grateful for the opportunity to provide testimony today regarding the recently passed Senate bill addressing our borders, the illegal immigration crisis in America and the impact of the Senate legislation on the American workforce.

In an effort to make clear my own level of concern with the illegal immigration crisis in our nation, I would like to make it known that three years ago I put aside my own business and have exhausted my personal savings in a full-time effort to educate myself and others on the issue.

As someone who has chosen to be active in a grass-roots effort to encourage my government to secure our borders and equally apply American law, I am in constant contact with countless American citizens on the issue – including immigrants who have obeyed American laws in their effort to join the American family.

My adopted sister is a real, legal, immigrant who came from Korea.

The thousands of concerned Americans who have contacted me over the years share a common theme in their questions, observations and complaints. They ask why employers are allowed to hire illegal labor in violation of existing laws – and why a nation that has put men on the moon and has built, and maintains, more than 46,000 miles of interstate highways has not used that expertise to stop illegal entries into their country.

Most Americans are aware of the “one time” amnesty of 1986. They see that it did nothing to secure our borders, end illegal immigration or discourage employers from hiring illegal aliens. Despite the concerted effort of many in the Senate to label S 2611 as anything but amnesty-again, most Americans with whom I speak understand it to be exactly that.

Ignoring the climate of fear that has been created to intimidate them, American citizens are coming out of the shadows and asking why they are required to obey American laws while many employers, bankers and people with no legal right to be in the U.S. suffer no punishment for not doing so.

I have no acceptable answers for them. I sadly admit that I find myself asking similar questions.

For many of us, the new American Dream is to have borders as secure as are Mexico’s and immigration and employment laws that are as enthusiastically enforced.

Absent their ability to speak here, I respectfully ask that today I be regarded as a humble voice of the millions of Americans who reject the senate bill and its intent in its entirety.

Time constraints prohibit even a brief outline of the many flaws in the Senate bill. Among those mistakes, one of the most brilliant examples of the senate’s failure to protect the American worker is the provision that would effectively expand the Davis Bacon Act of 1931 to allow foreign workers to be paid a different – and higher – “prevailing wage” than Americans who work at the same job.

While most Americans – including myself – are not experts on Davis Bacon, we find it easy to understand the injustice involved if the effect of the senate bill would be to “legalize” illegal labor and then provide an avenue whereby that labor then be rewarded with pay and benefits not available to all American workers.

Further, most Americans understand that the constant reference to “temporary” or “guest workers” in the senate bill amounts to an attempt to redefine very basic words in the English language.

Not many of us consider a worker as “temporary” if that worker is offered a path to citizenship with permanent resident status at the end of the allotted time on his work visa. I have many American friends who have been employed in countries all over the world as guest workers. All of them report the laws that demand their timely departure from the host nation at the prescribed date are vigorously enforced.

None of these former guest workers were offered citizenship in the nations in which they temporarily worked.

Guest workers, by definition, and if indeed truly required, should be made to clearly understand that the period of employment in the United States is finite and that bringing their families and setting up permanent residence is not part of the bargain.

American taxpayers should not be required to subsidize the low wage labor.

We do not have time here today for me to share the many stories from citizens who report instances of their wages decreasing because of competition from illegal labor and the willingness of employers hiring that labor in violation of existing law while bypassing Americans as job applicants.

Sadly, I am personally acquainted with Americans who have lost their family businesses because they refused to violate immigration and labor laws and could not compete with others in their trade who lacked the integrity to make similar decisions.

Mr. Charles Shafer of Lawrenceville, Georgia is but one example. Mr. Shafer is a second generation framing contractor – a carpenter – who has declared bankruptcy and endured years of unemployment due to competing contractors hiring illegal labor who will work for considerably less than he was earning ten years ago.

With his permission, I attach to my written testimony Mr. Shafer’s account of his experiences and ask that it be noted that it was written more than two years ago.

I also submit a written account from Mr. Jeff Hermann of Oxford, Georgia who operates a pine straw/landscaping business. Mr. Hermann has lost considerable business and earnings to illegal labor and has been forced to apply for welfare as a result. Mr. Hermann has agreed to having his story become record as well.

Mr. Shafer and Mr. Hermann share very similar stories and are but two of thousands that have come to my attention from Americans who are working for a better life in their own country.

None of them sees the Senate bill as a remedy to their plight.

I am acquainted with many tax-paying Americans who have been denied employment because they do not speak Spanish.

I have never spoken to anyone who can recount examples of American wages increasing because of immigration, either legal or illegal.

Most Americans understand that low-skilled jobs in America pay many times more than the same jobs in most of the world. The American people recognize that fact to be a magnet that draws illegal immigration into the United States. No reasonable person I am aware of blames anyone for wanting to live and work in the United States, just as no one I am aware of is of the opinion that we can continue to allow any worldwide “willing worker” to replace Americans in our job market.

We also understand that if it is possible to verify a credit card transaction at our local department store, it is also possible to verify employment eligibility in the United States without putting an undue burden on American employers.

As president of the Dustin Inman Society, I have enrolled in the Basic Pilot Program. I am a program administrator and have used that system to verify my own eligibility to work in the United States. Until a better system is designed, it is my educated observation that one immediate goal for Congress should be to make Basic Pilot verification mandatory and increase funding to do so.

Please allow me to conclude by saying that with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, we were promised that Americans would have secure borders and equal protection under the law in the workplace. Not many of us are willing to remain silent while similar promises are made without real enforcement teeth in whatever new legislation is made into law.

I respectfully implore you to do all that is possible from your elected office to secure American borders, restore the rule of law to our nation and create a state of fairness to American workers.

Remembering the amnesty of 1986, it is my belief that the Senate legislation would accomplish none of these things.

Thank you Congressmen.

I welcome any questions.

D.A. King
American Citizen
Marietta, Ga.

Written account of Mr. Charles Shafer, carpenter, Lawrenceville Georgia.
Submitted with permission.

To be attached to D.A. King testimony.

My family has been in the residential construction business in one form or another for over 5 generations now. In the past 2 generations of my family most of us (my dad, 3 brothers, 6 uncles, and several cousins) have been residential framing contractors-carpenters.

As recently as 5-6 years ago we were the most sought after framers in the business. Our reputations preceded us as being the best of the best. Now we are all either unemployed or are struggling to survive economically.

I started my own business in 1988. Until that point I had worked for my father mostly. We have always had so much work at times we would turn work down.

I felt I had a very successful and lucrative business until late 1998 and the beginning of the year 1999. Then around the end of 1999 and the start of 2000 the calls slowed down and most of us were not getting as many from the builders whom we had worked for in the past as well as no calls at all from any new builders.

I remember it was around the end of 1999 it seemed on a daily basis someone would come by the job and ask if I needed help or if I knew anyone who did. They always made the statement even then “I can have as much help as you need here in the morning”. Also I would like to state at that time I was working 2 legal immigrants with proper documentation, social security numbers, a driver’s license, etc. (so I believed)

I tried every thing I could think of for the next year or so to save my business and career. At the time I even tried not only getting out and riding around trying to meet new people, leaving business cards on job sites, but also sending mailings to almost every builder listed in the Atlanta Home Builders Association announcing my availability and desire to work. These efforts were basically fruitless.

Every where I went I saw more and more what appeared to be Mexican crews and less and less American crews doing the work. For a short period of time thereafter, about a year or so, instead of the most of my work being all new work it became more in the field of remodeling. That eventually went away also.

During the year 2000 the phone calls started slowing down and eventually stopped. Even though the residential construction in Atlanta was obviously ongoing at an unbelievable pace I could not find work. Whenever I did find a new subdivision starting and some one to talk to I was told I was the wrong color and I have been told I would not work for the wages they paid. At the wages they were offering, they were right, there was no way to compete.

There’s not any way then or now in my mind to compete with illegal labor. The work I was offered, when I was offered work was at such a reduced standard wage, less than half of what the same work paid only a few years prior, a person could not remain legal and still endure all the labor cost or insurance cost or taxes associated with trying to run a proper business.

I even tried for a year or so to employ a mixture of Americans and Mexicans.
Then all Mexicans. It doesn’t take long for them to become Americanized. By this I’m referring to the fact the only reason they wanted to work for me instead of one of their own was because it did not take them long to come to the conclusion an American employer would pay them a higher wage than a Mexican employer. Then I became aware that they were all illegally here in the U.S. This resulted in my having to pay all associated taxes on their behalf. That’s when I decided it was not worth it anymore and basically gave up. I wasn’t getting any phone calls for work and you surely couldn’t ride around and find any work. The illegals had it all.

Even though I have never announced to anyone in this field of my intentions to quit, to this date I have only had 2 phone calls for work in the past 3 years or so. These came from people I had done personal homes for in the past not from any builders. More or less I have tried to explain to them I had retired, not by choice, but because I could not compete against an ever increasing immigrant population.

I used to have to be very careful when I was talking to someone not to use the “illegal” terminology. Whenever I did people would respond with an ignorant comment to the effect these people were not illegal and I would respond by stating I had personally met several hundred these past few years and not a one were legal.

Since post 9-11 I have tried repeatedly to find work. My families work (the one or two remaining) is so sparse they can offer little or no help and still survive themselves. At almost 51 years old, even though I feel I have many good years left, no one I have met wants to employ me.

I have applied for many Superintendent positions to no avail. Hardly a response for so long, I finally gave that avenue up also. Why not I often ask myself. I have so much experience and knowledge about residential construction from start to finish.

It is, believe it or not, almost understandable to me because of the availability of such a younger work force now. Plus I don’t speak Spanish. I also usually know more about the business, codes etc., than the people I have tried to go to work for and I think that may have intimidated them some.

We as Americans will work and have worked with the Mexicans. It’s a fact they will not return the favor. Do you know of any American who works for a Mexican in the construction business? I don’t.

I was taught from day-one a home is usually the largest investment a person makes in life. It was instilled into my natural behavior from childhood to do the very best job possible for a person and not to cut corners or to walk away from an error or mistake. The majority of my relatives had the same raising and that’s what made us once upon a time the most desirable in the residential construction field. Now this business seems to be only about profit margins and how fast you can finish a job. Not many seem to care about quality anymore.

I have continually searched for a job and would now accept one even if its a floor sweeping job. But I have come to the conclusion that I am unemployable especially since 9-11 and with all the illegal immigrants available.

We as a family of 5, a daughter 14, a daughter 10, and a son 5, have barely survived these past few years. My wife and I filed bankruptcy last year. We had already refinanced our modest home which we only owed 3 years on….. trying to survive.

I am a proud man even to this day. I have absolutely refused any hand outs in life and will not accept one now.

Please understand residential framing/construction was to be a career I have looked forward to since childhood. It was a dream job for me even though the work was hard and the hours long. The pay while it lasted was great. We lived the American dream….if we wanted something we got it and got up the next day went to work and paid for it.

I can’t imagine what I will do in life now that the illegal immigrants are present in such enormous numbers in today’s society. I am adamant I will figure it out, how and which way to go; right now I’m not sure. I’m just not willing to give up just yet. My family surely deserves more than what illegal immigration has brought into their lives.

If you have any more questions or need anything else please feel free to contact me.

Charles Shafer, Jr.

Lawrenceville, Ga.

Written account of Mr. Jeff Hermann, landscaper of Oxford, Georgia

To be attached to testimony of D.A. King

My name is Jeff Hermann. My partner and I run a small landscaping
business called “The Pinestraw Guys”. We’ve been at it now for almost eight
years. Our work is fairly labor-intensive, as it involves spreading the
pinestraw in the decorative ‘islands’ of peoples’ homes and businesses.

When we started the business, we didn’t have any customers, so we’d load
up the truck and knock on doors all day looking for jobs. It was tough
at first, but as time went by we grew. After two years we had enough
customers to stop knocking on doors and hire someone to help us.

Our customers loved our work and referred their friends and neighbors to us.
Life was getting pretty good. We hired a few more guys, and the business
continued to grow.

That’s all changed now.

About two and a half years ago we started noticing a drop-off in our business.
Several of our accounts had stopped calling. When we called them to find out why, they said simply that we had been under-bid by a competitor. I
had a hard time believing that because we operate on a very small
mark-up to begin with. Now, I’m not a bashful man by any means, so I
called my competition and asked them how they could do it so cheap.
“Simple,” was the reply, “I hired some Mexicans down at the Home Depot.
They’re illegals, so they work really cheap.”

I know of several landscape contractors who now do the same thing. They
pay these illegal aliens 5 or 6 bucks an hour, cash under the table of
course, and pocket the difference. Well, MOST of the difference. The
rest they give to their customers in the form of lower prices. That’s
all good for the contractor and the customer, but not so good for me.
Suddenly I’m in competition with someone who’s willing to do this work
for minimum wage or less.

By last fall my income had dropped over 50%, and I had to apply for food
stamps in order to feed my kids. I also applied for Medicaid because I
could no longer afford my health insurance. I qualified for the food
stamps (Thank God) but my income, less than $200 a week by then, was too
high to get Medicaid. While talking to my caseworker about this, she let
it slip that if I had been an illegal alien, I would have qualified for
‘emergency’ Medicaid and been covered by it that day. Needless to say,
my jaw almost hit the floor.

Let me re-cap what I’ve been through because of illegal immigration.

My business has been cut in half.

I’ve had to lay off American workers.

I can no longer afford health insurance.

I’ve had to take welfare.

And to top it off, I can’t even get Medicaid.

I’m not asking for handouts, I’m asking for that ‘level playing field’
our President loves to espouse. Secure the border. Deport illegal aliens.
Enforce the law. Give me my life back.

Please.

Jeff Hermann
Oxford, Ga.

Personal information/ other information as requested.

D.A. King

I have been studying the consequences of our unsecured borders and the resulting illegal immigration for more than four years and have been regarded as an expert on the issue on various network television broadcasts including the CNN, CBS, PBS and FOX networks as well as many nationwide radio shows including NPR that address the issue.

In 2003, I put down my own insurance business of twenty-five years and began to organize public rallies, to lobby lawmakers and educate people on the issue of illegal immigration at my own expense. I have spent our life savings, sold my stocks and refinanced my house to do so.

I have been to the U.S. – Mexican border three times in the last two years and watched as brave Border Patrol agents risk their lives to guard those borders and then watched with disgust as the illegal aliens who escape apprehension there are hired here in Georgia and then demand the rights and privileges of citizens and legal residents.

I founded the Dustin Inman Society in 2005 in an attempt to raise public awareness on facts surrounding illegal immigration and I write a periodic column on the topic in the Marietta Daily Journal.

The Dustin Inman Society is named for a friend’s son who lost his life in 2000 because of an automobile crash involving a driver who is an illegal alien.

In my Marietta home of twenty-two years, the only house I have ever owned, I have lived across the street from people that I now know were in the U.S. illegally. The number of persons living in that three-bedroom house at times numbered as many as eighteen.

Having spoken out in the demand that American borders be secured as is required by the Constitution, that American law be equally and fully applied and that the English language be the common language of our nation, I have been called a variety of derogatory names and labeled “un-American” by the many who profit from the crime of illegal immigration and employment.

I am a former Marine [1970-1971] and vividly remember being promised no-cost medical care for the rest of my life as a condition of my military service. In 2004, my application to the Veterans Administration for that medical care was denied due to a means test that began in 2003. I have watched since then as my tax dollars go to provide federally mandated no-cost medical care to people with no legal right to be in the United States – without any mention of such a means test.

I am qualified to testify on the effects of illegal immigration because literally thousands of Americans come to me with stories of injustice in their lives caused by that organized crime and ask me to tell their stories to elected officials who they trust to remedy those cases of inequality under the law.

I would like to respectfully note that I have reached the point at which I truly wish I did not know what I have learned.
D.A. King

Testimony of Barbara Jordan,
Chair, U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform
Before the U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims
February 24, 1995

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, let me express my gratitude to you for the opportunity to report to you on the progress of the work of the bipartisan Commission on Immigration Reform.
In our First Interim Report to Congress, U.S. Immigration Policy: Restoring Credibility, presented to Congress September 30, 1994, this Commission undertook to recommend a comprehensive strategy for controlling illegal immigration. The comprehensive approach we outlined has eight parts.

First, we set forth principles. We are a nation of immigrants committed to the rule of law. The Commission believes that legal immigration has strengthened the country and that it continues to do so. We as a Commission denounce the hostility that seems to be developing toward all immigrants.

To make sense about the national interest in immigration, it is necessary to make distinctions between those who obey the law, and those who violate it. Therefore, we disagree, also, with those who label our efforts to control illegal immigration as somehow inherently anti-immigrant. Unlawful immigration is unacceptable.

The second part of our strategy is worksite enforcement. You will hear testimony today about visa overstayers. You will hear that roughly one-half of the nation’s illegal alien problem results from visitors who entered legally but who do not leave when their time is up. Let me tell you in three simple words why that is: they get jobs.

We believe that employer sanctions can work, but only with a reliable system for verifying authorization to work. Employers want to obey the law, but they are caught now between a rock and a hard place. The current system is based on documents. An employer must either accept those documents, knowing that they might be forged, and thus live with the vulnerability to employer sanctions for hiring someone presenting false identification. Or, an employer may choose to ask particular workers for more documentation, which is discrimination.

The Commission has recommended a test of what we regard as the most promising option: electronic validation using a computerized registry based on the social security number. This is the only approach to deterring illegal immigration that does not ignore the half of the problem, the visa overstayer problem you are investigating today. We are pleased with the prompt, bipartisan support that this highly visible recommendation has received, and we look forward to real results from pilot projects before our final report in 1997.

Third in our recommmendations for a comprehensive strategy is making eligibility for public benefits consistent with our immigration policy. Decisions about eligibility should support our immigration objectives. Accordingly, the Commission recommended against eligibility for illegal aliens except in most unusual circumstances.

For legal immigrants, we recommended making abuse of the public charge provision grounds for deportation. The affidavit of support that sponsors sign should be a legally-binding contract. Moral obligations work well enough in church, but the law requires a contract.

But the Commission also recommended that legal permanent residents should continue to be eligible for means-tested programs and against any broad, categorical denial of eligibility for public benefits based on alienage for those who obey our laws. It is important to see a lack of citizenship as something more than “the funding mechanism” for welfare reform. It gets to a fundamental issue for defining the national interest in legal immigration-the relationship between the decision to come here as an immigrant and the decision to naturalize to become a citizen.

Citizenship and naturalization should be more central to the process of immigration. There are many barriers to naturalizing in law and practice, and they should be removed. But it is a debasement of the concept of citizenship to make it the route to welfare.

We on the Commission believe strongly that it is in the national interest for immigrants to become citizens for the right reasons, not the wrong ones. We want immigrants to be motivated to naturalize in order to vote, to be fully participating members of our polity-to become Americans. We don’t want to motivate lawabiding aliens to naturalize just so that they can get food stamps, health care, job training, or their homes tested for lead.

Fourth, deportation is crucial. Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave. The top priorities for detention and removal, of course, are criminal aliens. But for the system to be credible, people actually have to be deported at the end of the process. The Commission will have additional recommendations on this crucial matter later this year.

Fifth, emergency management. Migration emergencies such as we have seen recently with Haiti and Cuba do recur, and we must be prepared for them. Again, we will have detailed recommendations on migration emergencies.

Sixth, reliable data. The current debate over the economic impact of immigration is marked by shaky statistics, flawed assumptions, and an amazing range of contradictory conclusions from what ought to be commonly-accepted methods. Rather than attempt to choose sides in this discussion, the Commission has contracted with the National Academy of Sciences to analyze the methods used for evaluating immigration data, to cut through this fog. We will share their interim results with you as we receive them.

Seventh, much as we support enhanced enforcement by this country, we must face the fact that unilateral action on the part of the United States will never be enough to curb illegal immigration. Immigrants come here illegally from source countries where conditions prevail that encourage or even compel them to leave. Attacking the root causes of illegal migration is essential and will require international cooperation.

As a case in point, this Commission is the lead agency for the U.S. government in developing the U.S-Mexico Binational Study to analyze the causes of migration across our border with Mexico. Perhaps we can even come to some agreement, not only on the analysis, but also on the policy prescriptions necessary.

Finally, the Commission recommends better border management. Far more can and should be done to meet the twin goals of border management: deterring illegal crossings while facilitating legal ones. But we have to recognize both goals.

The Commission on Immigration Reform endorsed a border crossing fee in principle as a user fee. It should not go into the general treasury. It should be used to avoid the kind of counterproductive backups which happen all the time in border towns. Many people who are authorized to cross the border legally simply tire of waiting in line and cross illegally to save time. This is a waste of resources for the Border Patrol, which frequently apprehends such people. We applaud the efforts of innovative Border Patrol leaders, such as Silvestre Reyes with Operation Hold the Line in El Paso, and we must do our part, as well.

A border crossing fee, properly applied, would benefit the border towns immensely. It would be a kind of NAFTA fund, used along both borders, to ensure that legal crossings are convenient and secure. It is to fund the future prosperity of border towns like El Paso, Laredo, Nogales, and San Diego that depend so much on crossborder trade.

So that is our eight-point strategy for dealing with illegal immigration in a comprehensive, systematic way. The Commission made all of these recommendations unanimously, by consensus. We are nine Commissioners, Republicans and Democrats, a diverse group. We might have been expected to simply throw up our hands at the difficulty of the task Congress mandated for us. But we put aside rhetoric. We determined that we would look for answers-and not excuses. And our work is not done.

I must leave here shortly, Mr. Chairman, to return to my colleagues just around the corner here, who are engaged in the second day of consultations on legal immigration reform. The Commission is well along in its consideration of the national interest in legal immigration, of the qualities that we seek in immigrants, of the limits. Our first report represented a hard-won, bipartisan consensus on emotionally-tough, intellectually-complex issues.

We ask that you give us the chance to try to reach such a bipartisan consensus on legal immigration reform. Bipartisanship ought to be more common. There is a time and a place for partisan battles, to be sure. But immigration, like foreign policy, ought to be a place where the national interest comes first, last, and always.

Immigration is far too important to who we are as a nation to become a wedge issue in Presidential politics. We have seen that kind of thing happen before, and it is not productive. I, for one, wish that we would do away with all the hyphenation and just be Americans, together.

I will be glad to answer any questions you may have.

FOR PLANNING PURPOSES CONTACT: Steve Forde
August 11, 2006 (202) 225-4527

***MEDIA ADVISORY***

U.S. Reps. Charlie Norwood, Tom Price, Nathan Deal to Lead Hearing on Impact of Immigration on Worker Wages

WASHINGTON, D.C. – On Monday, August 14, 2006 at 11am (ET), the U.S. House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, chaired by Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA), will hold a hearing on “Immigration: Economic Impact on American Workers and their Wages” at the federal courthouse in Gainesville, Georgia.

The hearing is one in a series the House Education & the Workforce Committee is holding nationwide to examine key aspects of and proposed changes to U.S. border security and enforcement, with a particular focus on the U.S. workforce.

This hearing will focus on the impact of illegal immigration on the wages of American workers, while examining wage-related provisions of both the House and Senate immigration proposals. At a hearing held last month in Washington, the House Education & the Workforce Committee heard concerns of witnesses about a requirement in the Senate immigration bill that would force some employers to pay guest-workers prevailing wages, even if the same right is not extended to American workers doing the same job in the same city.

*****

WHAT: Hearing on “Immigration: Economic Impact on American Workers and their Wages”

WHO: Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA) – Chairman, House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections

Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) – Member, House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections

Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA) – Member, U.S. House of Representatives

WHEN: Monday, August 14, 2006, 11am (ET)

WHERE: Federal Courthouse, 121 Spring Street SE, Gainesville, Georgia

*****

WITNESS LIST

Gary Black

President

Georgia Agribusiness Council

Commerce, Georgia

Phil Kent

National Spokesman

Americans for Immigration Control

Atlanta, Georgia

D.A. King

President

Dustin Inman Society

Marietta, Georgia

Hon. Chip Pearson

Georgia State Senator

Dawsonville, Georgia

Dr. Jeffrey Wenger, PhD

Assistant Professor of Public Policy

University of Georgia

Athens, Georgia

Terry Yellig, Esq.

Sherman, Dunn, Cohen, Leifer, & Yellig

Washington, D.C.

***Other witnesses and participating Members may be announced.

Those who study United States history understand the principles upon which our nation was founded and the ideals for which we fought over the last two centuries. Many immigration reformists expect our elected officials to defer to our history and embrace the ideals that we see as fundamental to our nation. Yet our history is now presented in our schools through the sanitized filter of political correctness and our ideals have become nearly lost in an amalgamation of values resulting from a deliberately-constructed multicultural society.

There is a substantial flaw in reformists’ demands that “President Bush must seal the border and enforce our immigration laws.” Quite simply, President Bush and his fellow Neocons have every intention of NOT securing our borders and strengthening our national bonds. Actions speak for themselves. In 2005, Bush signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America with the clearly-stated goal of eradicating our borders by 2010. We’re well on our way to planned assimilation into the North American Union. Bush to People: resistance is futile. (More information is at http://www.theamericanresistance.com/sovereignty/sovereignty.html ).

Mass immigration is but one way to destroy a nation. The immigration reform movement will not succeed under the assumption that elites really want to secure our borders if only they could. We are dealing with a multi-faceted problem; mass immigration is now the most clearly visible aspect. That should be a warning to those who are perceptive enough to look deeper.

Why do those in power wish to dissolve our national sovereignty? A large part of the answer is simply power and money. And then what? It remains to be seen whether the sovereign People of America will act to curtail these insurgent actions by their elected public servants.