New wrinkle on illegal immigration

“whoa.”

“The above poem was not written by me. I received it in an email. Just thought I'd throw it into this thread to test reactions of the board.”

“(the 'whoa' was for the video clip)”

“I tend to agree with the poem pakratz

wonder how long before that happens here (talking about the video)”

“The Islamic tact is to outbreed the host nation. Arafart told his people their greatest weapon against the Jews was the wombs of their women.”

“Mexicans go to Ariz. for medical help By Dennis Wagner, USA TODAY
Wed May 18, 6:31 AM ET


Antonio Valenzuela Gomez, a retired factory worker who boasts 49 grandchildren, lifts his shirt to show the giant scar where American doctors cut into his chest a year ago.

Gomez, 79, was at his house in the dusty Mexican border town of Naco near here when his heart began to fail. There is no hospital in that part of Mexico, so family members loaded Gomez in a car and drove him a short distance to the U.S. checkpoint.

An ambulance arrived from the Arizona side and rushed Gomez 7 miles to Copper Queen Community Hospital here. Emergency room workers stabilized him and sent him 80 miles north to Tucson Medical Center, where heart surgery was performed.

Gomez, who spent three weeks in U.S. hospitals, thinks the bill was about $20,000 - likely a fraction of the actual cost. He offers gratitude along with small monthly payments that will never cover the expense. "They saved my life," he says. "They treated me well."

Along the border from Chula Vista, Calif., to Brownsville, Texas, U.S. hospitals serve as a medical safety net for undocumented immigrants and residents of northern Mexico. Each year, their care costs American medical centers, consumers and taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. During 2002, 38 Arizona medical centers surveyed by the Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association reported losses on foreign-national patients of $153 million.

After years of pressure from the health care industry, the federal government last week announced a plan to repay hospitals across the USA for up to 30% of the unpaid bills they rack up for such patients from now through 2008. The payback could total $1 billion. Arizona hospitals stand to receive $45 million a year.

Hospitals are required by law to treat all emergency patients, regardless of nationality or legal status.


Jim Dickson, chief executive officer at Copper Queen hospital, says he is happy to care for anyone who is sick or injured. But about 15% of his patients are poor Mexican nationals, and financial losses have been excruciating for a little hospital in Bisbee (population 6,000).


Deficits force layoffs


"We had super-deficits the last two years," says Dickson, who solved his budget crisis by laying off about 35 of the hospital's 130 employees and eliminating medical services such as the long-term care center. "This has had a very negative impact on our hospital."


Arizona has been particularly burdened since the mid-1990s, when U.S. border crackdowns in Texas and California began funneling illegal immigrants and drug smugglers to the state's 350-mile border with Mexico. Last year, Arizona accounted for 52% of the 1.1 million illegals captured by Border Patrol agents in the Southwest.


Arizona's 5.7 million population includes an estimated 500,000 undocumented immigrants. The nationwide total is about 11 million, the Pew Hispanic Center estimates.


University Medical Center, a non-profit hospital in Tucson, will spend an estimated $12 million this year on unreimbursed emergency care for foreign nationals, hospital president Greg Pivirotto says. "It's a drain that hurts your ability to render care."


Because UMC has the only trauma center near the southern Arizona border, it treats severely injured patients who require expensive care. The hospital counted about 5,000 emergency patients in April, including 100 foreigners.


"It's a fairly small percentage, but it's a huge cost," Pivirotto says.


Hospitals use international collection companies to pursue payments. Some patients such as Gomez pay as much as they can. But most costs go uncollected.


Although public attention has focused on unpaid medical care for illegal immigrants, Pivirotto says four-fifths of the foreign nationals in his hospital entered the USA with legitimate paperwork - visas, 72-hour passes or "compassionate entry" permits granted in medical emergencies.


Few facilities in Mexico

The percentage is likely higher at places like Copper Queen hospital, located in this hillside mining town. To the south, Naco overflows with would-be immigrants, smugglers and others clogged at the border. Dickson, the hospital administrator, says Naco's true population is triple the official count of 7,500. Four Border Patrol agents guarded the border here a decade ago. Today, there are 550.

But Naco still has no hospital, and local clinics lack radiology labs, emergency rooms and basic equipment.

"Even the federale who gets shot, he comes here," Dickson says. "The mayor, el presidente, will tell you that they count on us for care, because we're their local hospital."

Francisco Murrieta, an aide to Naco Mayor Vicente Torres, confirms that townsfolk rely on the Bisbee hospital when serious injuries or illnesses strike.

"If somebody has a big medical need, they want the best attention," he says.

Dickson says he sympathizes with his southern neighbors and tries to help by contributing medical gear to Naco's health clinics.

"I smuggled a defibrillator across the border in an ambulance because they had no way of measuring your heart," he says. "We gave them an ambulance because they were transporting patients in the backs of cars."

Dickson says some pregnant women from Naco used to cross the border after going into labor, obtaining the best medical care plus citizenship for a newborn child.

That's no longer a problem because financial losses forced Copper Queen to close its maternity ward.”

“from an email I received

U.S. BORDER CONTROL
America's last best chance to reform our border
and immigration policies ... before it's too late.


"U.S. Border Control has been a tremendous help in getting cosponsors for immigration legislation and building support for immigration reforms." Congressman Tom Tancredo, Colorado



Dear Friends:

Congressman Gresham Barrett (R-SC) continues to demonstrate both his strength and leadership on immigration matters. Rep. Barrett has just introduced H.R. 688, the SAFER Act. SAFER stands for Securing America’s Future through Enforcing Reform Act of 2005.

Specifically, his bill would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide:

** Better screening of Aliens seeking Admission – increase number of DHS agents; in person interviews for those seeking visas; no admission to national security risks;

** Securing the border against terrorists, drug traffickers, and other illegal aliens - by increasing enforcement personnel, increasing criminal sentences and fines for smuggling; and authorize the use of troops while the border patrol reaches optimal strength;

** better tracking of aliens in country - enhances foreign student tracking systems; requires temporary visa holders to obtain a Visa Term Compliance Bond; implements a comprehensive entry-exit control system;

** tougher laws and enforcement of employers who hire illegal aliens;

** reallocation of DHS resources so it can focus on the security interests of the United States,

** Reform legal immigration - by codifying the oath of allegiance taken by new citizens; stops countries that sponsor terrorism to obtain visas; reduces legal immigration by 20%;

** bar the admission, and facilitate the removal, of alien terrorists as well as their supporters and fundraisers.

As you can see, this legislation is comprehensive and powerful. And it needs our support.

For months, Congress has been stalling on immigration reform. Some of the procrastinators say they don’t like to do things piecemeal – they want a comprehensive bill. Well, here it is.

I told Rep. Gresham we would help him find cosponsors and now I am asking for your help. Please send your email to your Representative and urge him/her to become a cosponsor to this important bill today.


Please visit our website www.usbc.org and click on Email Congress or click on the following link http://capwiz.com/usbc/issues/alert/?alertid=7618651&type=CO to go directly to our Congressional

email Server to send an email to your own Representative right now.



Thanks for your help.



Best Regards,

Edward I Nelson, Chairman

U.S. Border Control

8180 Greensboro Drive #1070

McLean, VA 22102

703-356-6567

ednelson@usbc.org

www.usbc.org”

“[...]
Fortifying the border is supposed to keep undocumented immigrants out. But, instead, it has hemmed many in.

In the past, when border enforcement was more lax, undocumented immigrants tended to be men who shuttled between jobs in the United States and families in Mexico.

Now, once they get across, more undocumented immigrants stay out of fear they will be caught on another attempt and to make the high smuggling fees worth their while. Migrants are more likely to arrange for their families to cross to join them in the United States.

"They don't want to risk coming back and forth," said Belinda Reyes, a social sciences professor at the University of California-Merced. She co-authored a 2002 study that said the economic rewards of a job in the United States outweigh all risks linked to illegally crossing the border. The study was based on census data, focus groups and the Mexican Migration Project, a database dating to 1982 compiled by researchers from the United States and Mexico.

Undocumented migrants who shuttled between Mexico and the United States stayed in this country an average of about six months during 1993-97, according to Mexican government surveys. The stays had increased to more than a year by 2001-04, Mexico's National Population Council said.

The longer migrants stay, the more likely they are to settle permanently in the United States, experts say.
[...]
The tougher border security is one of the main reasons the number of undocumented immigrants residing in the United States has grown so rapidly and why so many are now women and children. In fact, women and children now make up nearly half of the nation's undocumented population, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

"This is a logical consequence of making it more costly and more dangerous to come and go across the border," Cornelius said. "The strategy has really been a powerful stimulus for family reunification on the U.S. side of the border."
[...]


http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0619border19.html”

“In one more generation we'll all be speaking Spanish anyway. Who gives a flip?”

“U.S. Court Won't Block Ariz. Immigrant Law By PAUL DAVENPORT, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 4 minutes ago (off yahoo News)

PHOENIX - A federal appeals court refused Tuesday to block part of an Arizona law that denies some public benefits to illegal immigrants, saying the plaintiffs had no right to sue.

The voter-approved law appeared on Arizona's November election ballot. The portion at issue bars illegal immigrants from getting certain public benefits and makes it a crime for public employees to fail to report undocumented immigrants who seek the benefits.

A separate provision, unaffected by the court challenge, requires people to show proof of citizenship when registering to vote.

The plaintiffs had asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court to rule that U.S. District Judge David Bury had abused his discretion when he refused to grant a preliminary injunction to stop the law from going into effect until after a trial is held to determine its constitutionality.

The appeals court panel denied their request, saying the plaintiffs had not demonstrated they were hurt by the law.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund had argued that the law was unconstitutional on the grounds that it usurps the federal government's power over immigration and naturalization.

Supporters argued it was necessary because Arizona, the busiest illegal entry point on the country's southern border, spends millions of dollars annually to provide food stamps, welfare and other social services to illegal immigrants”

“Did anyone see the story on 60 Minutes about immigration on the border? It seems that illegals who come across the border but are not from Mexico get processed, fed, and then turned loose into America with a piece of paper that says they promise to show up for a court date. These Central and South Americans are getting across the border and then turning themselves over to Border Patrol knowing that is their ticket into the country.

Unbelievable.”

“I wonder how many of these people protesting in favor of illegal immigration are here illegally.
last edited: 3/27/06 3:44:06 PM”

“or have a vested interest (family) in somebody who is.”

“s-rge, out of all the things we disagree on we do agree on this”

“...or want guns to be illegal and/or registered.”

“I bet there are more legals at an illegal protest then there are illegals at a legal protest..............I think.”

“Jose, jew don't go to zhe parade...zhe federales will take jew away in a verde van.”

“Minutemen Gaining in Immigration Debate By GILLIAN FLACCUS, Associated Press Writer
Wed Apr 26, 2:04 PM ET (off yahoo news)


IRVINE, Calif. - Laurie Lisonbee worried about illegal immigration but figured it was somebody else's issue — until she saw hundreds of thousands of immigrants and their supporters marching across her TV screen.

Soon, Lisonbee had recruited several friends to attend a demonstration by the Minuteman Project, a volunteer group that patrols the border to keep out illegal immigrants. Now, the 51-year-old art professor checks the group's Web site daily and plans a summer trip to the Mexican border to help build a fence.

Minuteman organizers say this spring's marches have proved to be an unexpected recruitment tool for Americans who feel uneasy about the burgeoning immigration movement but may have considered the organization a pack of gun-toting vigilantes.

"We're not trying to be more mainstream — mainstream has found us," said Stephen Eichler, the group's executive director. "They're saying, 'These guys actually have teeth, they don't all chew tobacco, they don't all have a gun rack in the back of their truck.' They're saying, `They believe what I believe,' and they're joining us."

Lisonbee, a registered Republican, said only one issue matters to her now.

"My vote will go to the candidate who's the toughest on immigration, whether they're Democrat or Republican," she said from her home in Orem, Utah. "Before, we were pretty much the types of people who would call our congressmen and not take to the streets. But that's all changed now."

The Minuteman Project first gained attention last year when Orange County resident and former tax accountant Jim Gilchrist helped lead its first 30-day patrol of the border in Arizona. The group has added mainstream political tools, including a network of local chapters and e-mail lobbying campaigns.

In December, Gilchrist, a former Republican, ran as a third-party candidate in a special House election in Orange County, Calif., finished a respectable third with 25 percent of the vote.

Since this spring's huge pro-immigrant rallies, 300 people nationwide have applied to start local chapters, according to Eichler. The group's goal is 500 chapters by December and a membership of 1 million within 1 1/2 years, Eichler said.

Eichler claimed the organization's membership has climbed to more than 200,000.

But Heidi Beirich, deputy director of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project, which monitors the Minuteman Project for racist rhetoric, said that estimate appears to be ridiculously high. She offered no estimate of her own.

"At the border during this last outing, they had maybe 50 people. If they have 200,000 people, it doesn't seem right," she said.

Beirich also questioned the premise that pro-immigrant rallies will help the Minuteman Project. She said many recruits may attend one or two rallies, but leave after they discover what she called the group's extremist attitudes.

"They get in there and they're like, `My God, I didn't sign on for this,'" she said.

In the coming weeks, the Minuteman Project plans to set out in a caravan from Los Angeles to Washington, with stops in 13 cities, including President Bush's vacation haven of Crawford, Texas. It is also raising money to build a private fence along parts of the California-Mexico border.

Increased security along the border is a popular idea on Capitol Hill, where the immigration debate will soon resume. How to treat the approximately 11 million illegal immigrants now here is where Congress splits — a House bill would criminalize the immigrants, a Senate bill would offer guest worker status and a potential path to citizenship.

David S. Meyer, a professor of sociology and political science at the University of California, Irvine, said the growing Minuteman movement has "stiffened the spine" of conservative politicians who might otherwise be wary of publicly identifying with the organization's views.

He said the recent workplace crackdown at a pallet manufacturer that resulted in 1,100 arrests at 40 U.S. sites was part of an attempt by the Bush administration to appease the Minuteman Project and its congressional supporters. Bush supports a guest worker program.

"The debate has kind of come to them, and they're clever enough politically to realize that," Meyer said. "People in mainstream politics who are not associated with the Minuteman Project are essentially voicing their position, which is a victory itself."”

“Are you a minuteman Ewker?”

“an official member no but I think what they are doing is ok”

“Last thing I would want to be known as is a "Minuteman"

;)”

“Minutemen will begin building a fence on private land at the border. The property owners have had their land trashed and experienced home invasions by illegals, smugglers and drug runners. At least they are trying to help out the farmers and ranchers down there. They said because property values have dropped they can't even sell the land at a fair price.”

“The boycott for May 1 is still on and here's some info about it. According to the American Border Patrol website it looks like a good reason to go shopping on that day.

"The planned boycott of American stores and businesses by illegal aliens and their enablers is designed to demonstrate the “purchasing power” of illegal workers and to cause a frightening one-day shock to American retail sales. It is being adopted and echoed by foreign supporters of illegal immigration as well. In Mexico, a nation that has become dependent upon the billions of dollars that illegal workers inside the United States send home each year, it is being called “Nothing Gringo Day.”

Through this contrivance, the illegal labor lobby hopes to appear more powerful and to frighten retailers into supporting amnesty, which is being dishonestly called a “temporary guest worker program” in Washington.

By making a point to do as much shopping as possible on May 1, Conservative Shopping Day, Americans can stop this scam in its tracks. If the issue is to be decided by a demonstration of “purchasing power,” then let’s demonstrate the purchasing power of 300 million legal American residents. The purchasing power of 11 million illegal workers and their bosses and sympathizers will pale in comparison.

Conservative Shopping Day: Five Things You Can Do to Fight Back

Buy, buy, buy. Make your regular purchases for the week or month, but make them all on May 1. Nobody needs to go broke, just to buy on one particular day. If you’ve been putting off a purchase, put it off no more. Besides, you know the clerks will all speak English if you shop on May 1. No more painful pantomime just to find out where the paper towels are.


Eat out. Contrary to pro-amnesty propaganda, most food service workers are American citizens -- but these workers do suffer much more from illegal labor wage competition than most. Get out and treat yourself to a nice meal -- one that serves up a big steamy bowl of justice for a change.


Take notice of which businesses can still function. These are the ones playing by the rules and deserve long-term support. Come back again and again. Avoid those that mysteriously close or are obviously understaffed.


Tell your friends. Send them this message or make up you own. Call it whatever you want and credit whomever you wish. All that matters is that people get out and shop.


Tell your congressman how much you enjoyed a day with illegal aliens. Write or call; it is one of the greatest powers you have. Elected officials figure that if you care enough to call on an issue, you care enough to vote on it. You can e-mail your senators and your congressman. And you can also call your senators and your congressman.

Conservative Shopping Day -- Monday, May 1.
A unique opportunity to do something good by doing something fun."”

“I guess this doesn't include the Mexican restaurant staffed by actual Mexicans.”

“Not all illegals and their supporters like the idea of a boycott and claim that it will do more harm than good to move their agenda forward.”

“I had a strong feeling the 'immigrant rights' demonstrations could have a net effect opposite to the desired one.

I've heard from quite a few people who fully agree with the previous opinions who are Seriously Liberal on most every issue... so I don't know if it can be branded as Conservative, necessarily.”

“I don't think the label conservative is the best word for it either.”

“1. Only professionals or investors can immigrate to the country. No
unskilled laborers will be allowed in. Investors must be able to invest
at least 40,000 times the daily average wage. If they can't, they are
not allowed in.

2. Immigrants may purchase property, but locations and availability will
be limited. Ocean front property cannot be purchased by immigrants. It
is exclusively for citizens born in the country.

3. Immigrants cannot vote nor can they be elected to any public office.

4. Immigrants cannot collect any type of government assistance.

5. Immigrants cannot protest the countries government, policies or
president.

6. Immigrants cannot display a flag of a foreign country.

7. Immigrants who have illegally entered the country will be found and
imprisoned.”

“Sounds good to me.....”

“States are starting to take some action on their own and PA. wants to withhold money from businesses. They just introduced a bill and are waiting to see if Rendell signs it.
"The Legislature on Wednesday unanimously approved legislation that would force local governments, nonprofit groups and businesses to repay state grants if any of the money is used to employ illegal immigrants."

Since the Feds aren't doing anything patchwork laws are springing up. Sheriff Arpaio in Arizona started jailing illegals, human smugglers, drug runners, and other criminals in tents, putting them in pink underwear and making them pay for food and services. He has a 3000 man posse.

"Arpaio: I'm trying to get a message out to all the illegals from Mexico to stay out of this county.
Viles: Maverick Sheriff Joe Arpaio believes Arizona's new anti- smuggling law applies not just to coyotes, but to the illegal aliens they transport.
Arpaio: It's interpreted by the county attorney that those that are in conspiracy with the smuggler can also be locked up. I'm the only law enforcement agency doing it."
last edited: 5/04/06 9:49:18 AM”

“Hate to say it, but THIS could start a process whereby the States start to recalim their original Constitutional Position as per the 10th Amendment.

heck let the states decide. If you have a state that wants to support Illegals...let them do it with their money. I always thought a plan of government subsidies for WELFARE etc should be assessed by the Census. IF it costs more per person in your state than the amount you get....your taxpayers pay.”

“What would happen is illegal aliens would just go to states with soft or no laws so the problem needs a federal solution, but since that's not happening, I think people are making moves now out of frustration and the increased budget pressures.”

“It sounds great, but, the always present fact that we don't know who is and isn't legal still is the fly in...can you prove your documents are real? No big FED sucking the energy out of everyone and spending it on revenge activities. I'm ready!!!!”

“When asked about jailing too many illegals Arpaio said if he has to he'll erect tents from here to Mexico. When asked if tents are humane treatment, he said the soldiers in Iraq live in tents in desert heat and they committed no crimes, so if it good enough for them it good enough for criminals.”

“Dear Senator Frist:

There is a huge amount of propaganda and myths circulating about illegal aliens, particularly illegal Mexican, Salvadorian, Guatemalan and Honduran aliens.

1. Illegal aliens generally do NOT want U.S. citizenship. Americans are very vain thinking that everybody in the world wants to be a U.S. citizen. Mexicans, and other nationalities want to remain citizens of their home countries while obtaining the benefits offered by the United States such as employment, medical care, in-state tuition, government subsidized housing and free education for their offspring. Their main attraction is employment and their loyalty usually remains at home. They want benefits earned and subsidized by middle class Americans. What illegal aliens want are benefits of American residence without paying the price.

2. There are no jobs that Americans won't do. Illegal aliens are doing jobs that Americans can't take and still support their families. Illegal aliens take low wage jobs, live dozens in a single residence home, share expenses and send money to their home country. There are no jobs that Americans won't do for a decent wage.

3. Every person who illegally entered this nation left a home. They are NOT homeless and they are NOT Americans. Some left jobs in their home countries. They come to send money to their real home as evidenced by the more than 20 billion dollars sent out of the country each year by illegal aliens. These illegal aliens knowingly and willfully entered this nation in violation of the law and therefore assumed the risk of detection and deportation. Those who brought their alien children assumed the responsibility and risk on behalf of their children.

4. Illegal aliens are NOT critical to the economy. Illegal aliens constitute less than 5% of the workforce. However, they reduce wages and benefits for lawful U.S. residents.

5. This is NOT an immigrant nation. There are 280 million native born Americans. While it is true that this nation was settled and founded by immigrants (legal immigrants), it is also true that there is not a nation on this planet that was not settled by immigrants at one time or another.

6. The United States is welcoming to legal immigrants. Illegal aliens are not immigrants by definition. The U.S. accepts more lawful immigrants every year than the rest of the world combined.

7. There is no such thing as the "Hispanic vote". Hispanics are white, brown, black and every shade in between. Hispanics are Repu blicans, Democrats, Anarchists, Communists, Marxists and Independents. The so-called "Hispanic vote" is a myth. Pandering to illegal aliens to get the Hispanic vote is a dead end.

8. Mexico is NOT a friend of the United States. Since 1848 Mexicans have resented the United States. During World War I Mexico allowed German Spies to operate freely in Mexico to spy on the U.S. During World War II Mexico allowed the Axis powers to spy on the U.S. from Mexico. During the Cold War Mexico allowed spies hostile to the U.S. to operate freely. The attack on the Twin Towers in 2001 was cheered and applauded all across Mexico. Today Mexican school children are taught that the U.S. stole California, Arizona, new Mexico and Texas. If you don't believe it, check out some Mexican textbooks written for their schoolchildren.

9. Although some illegal aliens enter this country for a better life, there are 6 billion people on this planet. At least 1 billion of those live on less than one dollar a day. If wanting a better life is a valid excuse to break the law and sneak into America, then let's allow those one billion to come to America and we'll turn the USA into a Third World nation overnight. Besides, there are 280 million native born Americans who want a better life. I'll bet Bill Gates and Donald Trump want a better life. When will the USA lifeboat be full? Since when is wanting a better life a good reason to trash another nation?

10. There is a labor shortage in this country. This is a lie. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of American housewives, senior citizens, students, unemployed and underemployed who would gladly take jobs at a decent wage.

11. It is racist to want secure borders. What is racist about wanting secure borders and a secure America? What is racist about not wanting people to sneak into America and steal benefits we have set aside for legal aliens, senior citizens, children and other legal residents? What is it about race that entitles people to violate our laws, steal identities, and take the American Dream without paying the price?

For about four decades American politicians have refused to secure our borders and look after the welfare of middle class Americans. These politicians have been of both parties. A huge debt to American society has resulted. This debt will be satisfied and the interest will be high. There has already been riots in the streets by illegal aliens and their supporters. There will be more. You, as a politician, have a choice to offend the illegal aliens who have stolen into this country and demanded the rights afforded to U.S. citizens or to offend those of us who are stakeholders in this country. The interest will be steep either way. There will be civil unrest. There will be a reckoning. Do you have the courage to do what is right for America? Or, will you bow to the wants and needs of those who don't even have the right to remain here?

There will be a reckoning. It will come in November of this year, again in 2008 and yet again in 2010.

We will not allow America to be stolen by third world agitators and thieves.

David J. Stoddard
U.S. Border Patrol (RET)
Hereford, Arizona”

“Bravo!!!”

“dang, I feel like sending that to Frist also..damn good letter”

“I heard that article from David Stoddard on the radio the other day, great comments. BobGriggs.com has it posted on his "Just say no to Cinco De Mayo" website.

Here's what Chairman Sensenbrenner had to say about cracking down on illegals.

Chairman Sensenbrenner said, "This study refutes the canard promoted by the illegal immigrant lobby here that the House- passed legislation's efforts to prevent illegal immigration and control the border cannot work. For example, Japan's tough sanctions against employers of illegal workers are effective in preventing illegal immigration. Therefore, the House's effort to stiffen penalties against employers hiring illegal workers can help shut off the job magnet that lures millions of immigrants to enter the U.S. illegally." "The study reports that 'illegal immigration is a worldwide problem' and that Japan and Switzerland are the most effective of those countries studied in enforcing their immigration laws. With all of the blustery rhetoric coming from opponents about a 'harsh' and 'draconian' House bill and the pontificating coming from foreign officials about how the U.S. should structure and enforce its immigration policies, I note that five out of the six countries studied -- including Mexico -- make illegal entry and unlawful presence a criminal offense. In reality, the House bill would bring U.S. immigration law more into line with most countries," added Chairman Sensenbrenner.

Check out some of the characters that are sneaking into the country. 29% of the population in federal prisons are illegal aliens.
It's crazy to keep letting people walk right in here like they own the place with no screening taking place.
last edited: 5/05/06 6:05:34 PM”

“12,000,000 x $2,000 bounty = 0”

“A few lines from late night comedy.

“President Bush…said you can’t just move 12 million people to another country. I don’t know why. Mexico did it.” - Jay Leno

73% of Americans say that immigration is a serious problem. The other 27% said, “No habla ingles.”

"I don't understand the May 1st strike. If they don't get what they want, what will they do, go home?" - Jay Leno”

“Things are'nt good when jokes like these make even me feel a bit guilty for laughing.”

“Here's one man's opinion on what should be done to fix this problem.

"Illegal immigration, not about jobs
5/4/2006
By: Patrick Quaney


Letter to the Editor:


The illegal Mexican immigration issue is not about jobs. This issue is about the invasion of the United States by a foreign army supported by the Mexican government. Their enforcer is the La Raza organization. La Raza’s stated goal is to take back to Mexico six western states which the Mexican government claims we stole from them. The illegals are innocent dupes.


The Mexican government has recently made it legal for Mexicans in the U. S. to vote in Mexican elections – a step to controlling these western states.


All 45 Mexican Consulates in the U. S. now issue Mexican I. D. cards saying the bearer has a right to be in the U. S. with full legal rights. With these ID cards, Mexicans are opening bank accounts and they want the individual states to issue drivers licenses. With these the next step is to register to vote. When enough are voting they will control our laws. At their demonstrations they chant, “Today we march, tomorrow we vote.”


The Mexican government is waging a war, which the U. S. is losing.


What can U. S. citizens do? The employers are too organized to tackle.


There is another way. Federal, state, county and city attorneys can use existing Federal RICO laws against organized crime. ( Statute – 18 U.S.C. Section 1961-1968). “Absent specific designation by U.S. Atty. Gen. (Gonzales) … jurisdiction lies with the agency having jurisdiction over the violations …”. Gonzales must recuse himself, and his department, because he is on the Board of La Raza. Therefore local Atty’s General are authorized to seize property being used by organized crime. It has been established that smuggling illegals is organized crime. Since the residences of illegal immigrants are property used by organized crime, that property can be seized and sold. Like autos used to transport drugs.


Police departments can arrest illegals and then turn them loose. The county or city attorney can then obtain a court order to seize and sell the illegal’s residence – either owned or rented. Landlords are not organized like employers.


When these properties are sold the profit would be divided 50/50 by the police department and the county.


With no place to live the illegals would eventually return to Mexico. A message would be sent to the 50 million waiting at the border that there will be no place for them to live.


For more information: www.humaneventsonline.com/articles.php?id=13863 and another web: www.frostywooldridge.com then click on Links. My web is www.quaney4congress.com


Patrick Quaney

Democratic Candidate

U. S. Congress

Kansas 4th District"”

“U.S. Immigration Debate Is a Road Well Traveled
Early-20th-Century Concerns Resurface

By Michael Powell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 8, 2006; A01

NEW YORK -- They were portrayed as a disreputable lot, the immigrant hordes of this great city.

The Germans refused for decades to give up their native tongue and raucous beer gardens. The Irish of Hell's Kitchen brawled and clung to political sinecures. The Jews crowded into the Lower East Side, speaking Yiddish, fomenting socialism and resisting forced assimilation. And by their sheer numbers, the immigrants depressed wages in the city.

Advocates of stricter enforcement argue that those who came a century ago were different because they arrived legally. Movies and novels depict customs agents at New York's Ellis Island -- that keyhole through which 16 million immigrants passed from 1882 to 1922 -- examining immigrants and their papers with a capricious eye toward shipping back laggards.

Peggy Noonan, a former speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan, wrote about her Irish forebears in a Wall Street Journal column: "They waited in line. They passed the tests. They had to get permission to come. . . . They had to get through Ellis Island . . . get questioned and eyeballed by a bureaucrat with a badge."

But these accounts are flawed, historians say. Until 1918, the United States did not require passports; the term "illegal immigrant" had no meaning. New arrivals were required only to prove their identity and find a relative or friend who could vouch for them.

Ninety-eight percent of the immigrants who arrived at Ellis Island were admitted to the United States, and 78 percent spent less than eight hours on the island. (The Mexico-United States border then was unguarded and freely crossed in either direction.)

But perhaps half of the Italian immigrants returned to Italy, often with cash to buy a farm or own a business. Greeks, too, returned in large numbers. "People complain about Mexicans coming for economic reasons, but they don't realize how many earlier immigrants just sojourned here," said Richard Wright, a geography professor at Dartmouth College. "The rates of return are staggering."
Still, European immigrants found plenty of backlash. Nativist sentiments ran strong, and white Protestant reformers championed English-language instruction and temperance, the latter reflecting the Establishment's disdain for hard-drinking immigrants. The Germans set up 121 breweries in Brooklyn and Manhattan alone.

Politicians cast a wary eye at Kleindeutschland, the 300,000-person Little Germany in Lower Manhattan (no trace of the enclave exists today), and called on Germans to stop being "hyphenated" Americans. As Italians and Poles and Jews and Slavs poured into New York City, native-born Americans complained about the "mongrelization" of the "white race."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/07/AR2006050700721_pf.html”

“Here's an article from the Center of Immigration Studies stating the differences of the present mass immigration compared to immigration as it was 100 years ago, along with some recommendations.

Too Many
Looking Today's Immigration in the Face

by Steven A. Camarota

National Review
July 29, 2002


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When the history of the 1990s is written, the most important story may not be the GOP takeover of Congress, the boom economy, or the Clinton impeachment. The big story may be the decade's unprecedented level of immigration: a social phenomenon of enormous significance, affecting everything from the nation's schools to the political balance between the two parties.

Newly released census figures show that the foreign-born population reached 31.1 million in 2000 (including some 7 to 8 million here illegally). This is by far the largest immigrant population in U.S. history, and represents a 57 percent increase from 1990. The rate of increase is itself unprecedented: Even during the great wave of immigration from 1900 to 1910, the foreign-born population grew by only about 31 percent (from roughly 10 million to 13.5 million). Over the past 30 years, the number of immigrants in the U.S. has tripled. If current trends are allowed to continue, the foreign-born share of the population will in fact pass the all-time high by the end of this decade. Many defenders of high immigration argue that the current immigration is not really unusual, because although the numbers and growth are without precedent, the total U.S. population was smaller 100 years ago and immigrants constituted a larger share of the total. It is true that the 11.1 percent of the nation's population that is foreign-born today is lower than the all-time high of nearly 15 percent reached in 1910. But one may ask why 1910 should be the benchmark by which to judge today's immigration. In evaluating its effect on modern society, it seems more reasonable to compare today's immigration with that of the more recent past. And in that context, today's figures represent a fundamental break with prior decades: From 1940 to 1990, the foreign-born population averaged less than 7 percent, and as recently as 1970 it was less than 5 percent.

The implications for American society are enormous. For example, a good deal of attention has been given to the fact that the number of people who live in poverty did not decline in the 1990s, despite a strong economy. What has generally not been reported is that new immigrants and their U.S.-born children accounted for the nation's stubborn poverty rate. The primary reason so many immigrant families live in poverty is that a large percentage have very little education. Newly arrived adult immigrants, for example, are more than three times as likely as natives to lack a high-school education.

Immigrants and their children also account for nearly two-thirds of the increase in the population lacking health insurance over the last decade. By dramatically increasing the uninsured population, immigration creates significant costs for taxpayers, and it drives up costs for insured Americans as providers pass along the costs of treating the uninsured to paying customers. The central role immigration has played in creating the nation's health-insurance quandary has largely gone unreported.

The impact on public schools is even more significant. In the last 20 years the school-age population has grown by roughly 8 million. Most observers agree that this increase has strained resources in districts across the country. What most media accounts of this growth leave out is that census data indicate that there are about 8 million school-age children from immigrant families -- and, because they are much poorer on average than natives, this increase in enrollment has not been accompanied by a corresponding increase in local tax revenue. Moreover, because of language barriers, the children of immigrants often cost significantly more to educate than those of natives. Most news coverage of the issue discusses how to meet the needs of these children, but fails to point out that federal immigration policy created the problem in the first place.

Despite the clear implications mass immigration has for the future of American society, many boosters still argue that today's immigration is very much like that of 1910. No doubt, there are similarities, but the differences are profound and striking to even the casual observer. America is a fundamentally different place than it was 100 years ago, and today's immigration is also very different.

As far as assimilation is concerned, numbers matter at least as much as percentages. For example, a quarter of a million immigrants in a metropolitan area are enough to create linguistic isolation: neighborhoods where immigrants can live and work without ever learning much English. Large numbers also create politically influential ethnic organizations whose leaders often adhere to an anti-assimilation multicultural ideology. Whether the immigrants in question represent 10 percent or 30 percent of a city's population is not so important; it's the raw numbers that count, and the numbers are already well over twice what they were in 1910.

In one sense, today's immigrants are more diverse than ever before, in that significant numbers arrive from all continents and races. But in a more important sense, today's immigration wave is considerably less diverse than those of the past, because Spanish speakers dominate in a way no other group ever did before. While German speakers accounted for a little over a quarter of all immigrants in the late 1800s and Italians for about one-fifth in the first decades of the 1900s, such concentrations were transitory. In contrast, the domination of immigrants from Latin America has grown steadily. In 1970, 19 percent of the foreign-born were from Latin America; by 2000, it was more than half. One ethno-linguistic group can now predominate in schools, neighborhoods, entire metropolitan areas, and even whole states.

One institution that helped immigrants and their children acquire an American identity in the past was public education. Schools brought children from different immigrant backgrounds into contact with natives and helped to forge a common American culture. But today, basic demographics makes this much more difficult. Unlike in the past, immigrants now have many more children on average than natives, which means kids from immigrant families very quickly predominate in public schools. For example, although about a quarter of California's total population is foreign-born, half of the school-age population is from immigrant families. In many districts in high-immigration states, immigrant families now account for more than 80 percent of school kids.

Of course, neighborhood schools in 1910 saw heavy immigrant concentrations. But because of the large differences in fertility rates, immigration today creates many more districts in which the cultural norms are set by children from immigrant families, who have relatively little contact with their counterparts from native families.

There is, of course, another problem with expecting public schools to play the role they did in the past of assimilating immigrants: Schools don't want to. A very significant share of the U.S. elite has embraced the anti-assimilation ethos, which regards America as a collection of peoples, each with its own distinct culture, which vie for political power as groups. America's educational establishment has embraced this multicultural vision. This is why history textbooks look as they do, and why bilingual education remains widely popular among educators. This trend shows no signs of abating; in fact, the growing number of immigrants only feeds the multiculturalist perspective. Immigration provides further justification for it by creating an ever larger aggrieved class, whose cultures must be preserved in the face of an oppressive majority culture.

Of course, some form of assimilation does take place, even in the modern public school. While language acquisition almost certainly has slowed in recent years, most immigrants learn to speak at least some English. But assimilation is much more than learning to speak English, or driving on the right side of the road. It involves what John Fonte of the Hudson Institute calls "patriotic assimilation," the belief that American history is one's own history. A century ago it meant that immigrants and their children came to see America's past as something "we" did, not something "they" -- white people of European ancestry -- did. To the extent that immigrants are assimilating they are doing so, in many cases, as "multicultural" Americans.

Some conservatives, and even some liberals, have a different conception of assimilation, but it is not at all clear that those who wish to see a more robust love of country inculcated in our children (immigrant or native) are winning the debate. It simply makes no sense, therefore, for a society that cannot agree on its own history or even what it means to be an American to welcome over a million newcomers each year from outside.

Technology is another obstacle to assimilation. It is now possible to call — or even to visit — one's home country with a frequency that was inconceivable even 50 years ago. One can listen to a hometown radio station or read the local newspapers on the Internet. The costs of travel and communication are now so low that many wealthier immigrants can live in two countries at the same time, traveling back and forth with ease. In such a world, it is less likely that immigrants will develop a deep attachment to the U.S.

The American economy is also fundamentally different, with serious consequences for the assimilation process. A century ago, manufacturing, mining, and agriculture employed the vast majority of the workforce, creating plentiful work for unskilled immigrants. These jobs eventually led to solid working-class incomes for immigrants and their children. (In fact, most native-born Americans a century ago worked in the same kinds of jobs.) Though most people were poor by today's standards, most historians agree that there was not a very large economic gap between the standard of living of natives and that of immigrants; this was because, on average, immigrants were not that much less skilled than natives. Data are limited, but in terms of years of schooling or literacy, immigrants 100 years ago were roughly equal to natives.

This is no longer the case. While a number of today's immigrants are quite skilled, immigrants overall are significantly less educated than natives. As a result, when it comes to average income, poverty rates, welfare use, and other measures of economic well-being, today's immigrants are much worse off than natives. Unlike that of 1910, today's U.S. economy offers very limited opportunity for those with little education, and this creates a very sizable gap between the two groups.

Another important change since 1910 is the profound expansion in the size and scope of government. Spending on everything from education to infrastructure maintenance is many times greater than it was back then. With federal, state, and local government now eating up roughly one-third of GDP, the average individual must be able to pay a good deal in taxes to cover his use of public services. In practice, the middle and upper classes pay most of the taxes; the poor, immigrant or native, generally consume significantly more in public services than they pay in taxes.

This means that the arrival of large numbers of relatively poor immigrants has a significant negative effect on public coffers in a way that was not the case in the past. In 1997 the National Academy of Sciences estimated that immigrant households consumed between $11 and $20 billion more in public services than they were paying in taxes each year. (Other estimates have found this deficit to be even higher.) A smaller government may well be desirable, but it is politically inconceivable that we would ever return to the situation of 100 years ago, when government accounted for a tiny fraction of the economy. Thus, continually allowing in large numbers of unskilled immigrants has very negative implications for taxpayers.

The situation of today's immigrants is, then, dramatically different from what it was at the turn of the last century. But even if one ignores all these differences, one undeniable fact remains: The last great wave of immigration was stopped, as an act of government policy. World War I, followed by restrictive legislation in the early 1920s, dramatically reduced immigration to about a quarter of what it had been in previous decades. This immigration pause played a critically important role in turning yesterday's immigrants into Americans. So if the past is to be our guide, then we should significantly reduce immigration numbers.

If we don't, the assimilation problem will only get worse. We know from experience that it is often the children of immigrants who have the greatest difficulty identifying with America. While their parents at least know how good they have it, the children tend to compare their situation to that of other Americans, instead of that in their parents' homeland. Unless the gap between themselves and other Americans has been closed in just one generation, something few groups have been able to accomplish, this can be a source of real discontent. Moreover, it is children born in the U.S. to immigrant parents who often feel caught between two worlds and struggle with their identity.

What we should do is call a halt to the current heedless increase in annual immigration, and reduce the numbers to something like their historical average of 300,000 a year. In the mid 1990s, the bipartisan immigration-reform panel headed by the late Barbara Jordan suggested limiting family immigration to the spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens and legal non-citizens, and to the parents of citizens. However, we should probably eliminate the preferences for the spouses and minor children of non-citizens, since these provisions apply to family members acquired after the alien has received a green card but before he has become a citizen. If we also eliminated the parents of U.S. citizens as a category, family immigration would fall to less than half what it is today. The Jordan panel also wisely suggested eliminating the visa lottery and tightening up the requirements for employment- and humanitarian-based immigration.

These changes would, taken together, reduce legal immigration to roughly 300,000 annually. Only if we get the numbers down to this reasonable level can we begin the long process of assimilating the huge number of immigrants and their children who are already here.

Steven A. Camarota is director of research of the Center for Immigration Studies.

What's going on now is invasion not immigration. We need an orderly system to accept immigrants, not the free for all that is happening now.
last edited: 5/08/06 8:05:05 PM”

“Having worked in the orchard industry in Washington State, I know that illegal immigrants are hard working decent people. I know that in one or two generations, they will be as American as I am. The issue in my eyes is not if they are good people or will make good citizens. The vast majority are salt of the earth good people with only good in their hearts.

The question is whether any person in the world should have to check in first before showing up in the U.S. Should anyone from any country, including Haiti, Guuatamala, Cuba, Somalia, Brazil, China, Thailand, Russia, Syria, Jordan, Albania, and including criminals or people with AIDS, or just released from a mental institution, should they just get here by whatever means available, or should they have to check in and undergo some form of scrutiny? Don't we have the right to decline some? Are we advocating poeople from any country should have free access to jobs and support infrastructure in the U.S., or should only Mexicans have that free access? There are a lot of Chinese who want in. Do we just say, "sure, come on over, ALL of you."? As a country I think we have a right to exercise some control, and you dont' have control unless people officially "check in".”

“Mr. bob, I am so with you on the issue. It would make sense to abandon all of our borders if we are going to abondon one. Besides, once the southern border is open it will be the gateway to America for all nations. One good thing though, once the southern border is open, instead of being a military zone like it is now, the U.S. will save all kinds of money. No border means no border patrol...no wages, no equipment to purchase and maintain and so on.
Yes, opening our borders to everyone is really the best thing to do.”

“Anyone ever think of the environmental implications of a U.S. with no borders where everyone in the whole world would be invited to stay?

Federation for Immigration Reform has some idea of what could happen.

"Since 1970, our population has grown by over 85 million people. Over half of our current high rate of population growth is due to new immigration and the children born to immigrants here. More people means more demands for resources, more pollution, more energy use, and more waste. More land is required for agriculture, causing deforestation and soil erosion. More homes, factories, and roads must be built, destroying habitat for other species. If our population continues to grow, we won’t reach any of our environmental goals. Our best efforts to conserve water and energy, reduce pollution, control sprawl, and preserve green spaces will continue to be overwhelmed by population growth.

Further population growth now means diminishing our remaining open space, higher consumption, fewer natural resources, and high pollution. Besides, we’re not advocating closing the door to immigration. But we thrived with immigration at less than one third of the current level during half of the past century, and we need to return to a less disruptive flow.

The projected U.S. population based on current immigration and other demographic assumptions will be 404 million in 2050 in the Census Bureau’s middle scenario (116 million more people than our current population). The high scenario is for 520 million. To simply hold our total consumption constant, we would have to reduce it on a per capita basis by 50 percent in the middle scenario or by 100 percent in the high scenario. This obviously is no solution."

With open borders the population total might even be higher that what they projected. What would it be like with a billion people in the U.S from an open border policy? I don't know, but I do know that with the rate of sprawl happening with the numbers we have right now, I wouldn't plan on doing any backpacking with the intentions of going very far from civilization. You'll be lucky if there's any forests left at all. In tonight's local newspaper the infrastructure of PA. was given a grade of D, just above failing. We can barely handle water needs, sewage needs, road and bridge work as it is now and that's only at the 2006 population numbers.
last edited: 5/10/06 8:08:54 PM”

“Yippy! Squinty McGee just unveiled his plan for stopping illegal immigration. And here it is...

”

“better than illegal immigrants on new wrinkles i suppose.”