Another fax to fire off to DC
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=580 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD class=t1redunderbigheader>Dear Faxer:</TD></TR><TR><TD class=t1thinwhitespace><!--t3_approve --> </TD></TR><TR><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>Tell your Rep: The H-1B visa program exacerbates illegal immigration
This new fax has been posted in your Action Buffet based on your answers to the Interest Survey.
You can find this fax by proceeding to
http://www.numbersusa.com/faxes?ID=9834
While a bill to reduce illegal immigration (H.R. 4088) remains in limbo, Members of the House are rushing to expand the H-1B visa program, which imports foreign workers to take American jobs, many of whom overstay their visas and become illegal aliens.
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz) has introduced the Innovation Employment Act (H.R. 5630), which would DOUBLE the current H-1B visa cap to 130,000 per fiscal year. H.R. 5630 would further raise the cap to 180,000, for five years beginning in 2010, if the 130,000 cap is reached during the 2009 fiscal year.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) has introduced the Strengthening United States Technology and Innovation Act (H.R. 5642), which would TRIPLE the current H-1B visa cap to 195,000 in 2008 and 2009.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) is calling for a bill that would make Rep. Smith's increases permanent.
House Chief Deputy Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) recently made the erroneous statement that H-1B visas are "not tied up to the larger issue of illegal immigration."
Representatives Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) and Michael McCaul (R-Texas) have introduced a bill that would practically staple a green card to the diploma of every foreign student who gets their Ph.D. from an American University.
Please send this fax to your representative and ask them to reject bills to import more foreign workers and support bills that will help Americans keep their jobs instead.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=t1redoversmallheader vAlign=top align=left colSpan=2>Do you want more or less information?</TD></TR><TR><TD class=t1redundersmallfooter vAlign=top align=left colSpan=2>As a NumbersUSA subscriber, you will receive occasional emails about immigration-related opportunities. If you want to increase or reduce the frequency of these emails, click here and choose from Total Activism, Moderate Activism, or Limited Activism at the bottom of your registration form: http://www.numbersusa.com/user
NumbersUSA - relies upon individuals like you to reach its goal of an environmentally sustainable and economically just America.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
http://NumbersUSA.com
1601 N. Kent Street
Suite 1100
Arlington, VA 22209
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=580 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
This new fax has been posted in your Action Buffet based on your answers to the Interest Survey.
You can find this fax by proceeding to
http://www.numbersusa.com/faxes?ID=9834
Nearly HALF of all illegal aliens in the United States entered legally at first with a visa. The H-1B visa program is a major contributor to our illegal immigration crisis.Reject any bill that expands the H-1B program.
While a bill to reduce illegal immigration (H.R. 4088) remains in limbo, Members of the House are rushing to expand the H-1B visa program, which imports foreign workers to take American jobs, many of whom overstay their visas and become illegal aliens.
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz) has introduced the Innovation Employment Act (H.R. 5630), which would DOUBLE the current H-1B visa cap to 130,000 per fiscal year. H.R. 5630 would further raise the cap to 180,000, for five years beginning in 2010, if the 130,000 cap is reached during the 2009 fiscal year.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) has introduced the Strengthening United States Technology and Innovation Act (H.R. 5642), which would TRIPLE the current H-1B visa cap to 195,000 in 2008 and 2009.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) is calling for a bill that would make Rep. Smith's increases permanent.
House Chief Deputy Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) recently made the erroneous statement that H-1B visas are "not tied up to the larger issue of illegal immigration."
Representatives Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) and Michael McCaul (R-Texas) have introduced a bill that would practically staple a green card to the diploma of every foreign student who gets their Ph.D. from an American University.
Please send this fax to your representative and ask them to reject bills to import more foreign workers and support bills that will help Americans keep their jobs instead.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=t1redoversmallheader vAlign=top align=left colSpan=2>Do you want more or less information?</TD></TR><TR><TD class=t1redundersmallfooter vAlign=top align=left colSpan=2>As a NumbersUSA subscriber, you will receive occasional emails about immigration-related opportunities. If you want to increase or reduce the frequency of these emails, click here and choose from Total Activism, Moderate Activism, or Limited Activism at the bottom of your registration form: http://www.numbersusa.com/user
NumbersUSA - relies upon individuals like you to reach its goal of an environmentally sustainable and economically just America.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
http://NumbersUSA.com
1601 N. Kent Street
Suite 1100
Arlington, VA 22209
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=6314 Repost: Vet cut flag down in Reno,Nevada
More Letters
Index:
Kankakee (Ill.) Daily Journal - 3/17
(1) Dave Gorak
The Washington (D.C.) Times – 3/18
(2) Wilson Faris
(3) Dave Gorak
The Capital Times (Wis.) – 3/19
(4) Dave Gorak
The Athens (Ga.) Banner-Herald 3/19
(5) D.A. King
The World (Ore.) – 3/21
(6) Val Don Hickerson
Asheville (N.C.) Citizen-Times - 3/22
(7) Tom Shuford
LETTERS WE’VE JUST RECEIVED
Atlanta Journal-Constitution – 2/20
(8) Paul Gamblin
Orange County (Calif.) Register – 3/9
(9) True Seaborn
(10) Randy Johnsobn
(11) Dave Connell
(1)
Kankakee (Ill.) Daily Journal - 3/17
Blagojevich's values
Your March 13 editorial, "The Value of 4-H," raises an interesting question:
How is it that the state of Illinois, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), can spend $3.5 billion each year on services for illegal aliens but cannot find $1.7 million for 4-H? Are the "needs" of illegal aliens now more critical than helping youngsters in the "Land of Lincoln" develop the proper attitudes toward work and participation in our democracy?
If you think Gov. Blagojevich lost a night's sleep and wore a pained expression on his face when he authorized this cut in the 4-H budget, think again. He's the one who signed into law in-state tuition for illegals, the acceptance of foreign consulate cards like Mexico's matricula consular as valid ID, and has repeatedly said he supports driving privileges for people here illegally.
One of the most valuable lessons a parent can teach a child is the importance of "waiting your turn."
Dave Gorak
Executive director
Midwest Coalition
to Reduce Immigration
LaValle, Wis.
(My closing sentence is the result of sloppy editing, and it makes absolutely no sense. What follows was what appeared in the original letter: “One of the most valuable lessons a parent can teach a child is the importance of ‘waiting your turn,' especially if they live in a state where those who shouldn’t be there in the first place have been allowed to move to the front of the line.”)
(2) (3)
The Washington (D.C.) Times – 3/18
The archbishop and illegals
Washington Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl seems to have the same problem with Webster's dictionary as most wealthy businessmen and out-of-touch politicians.
I suggest he take a glance at the definitions of "legal" (immigrant) and "illegal" (alien). They in no way equate. While the archbishop routinely espouses the laws of God and the Catholic Church, he falls short when it comes to the laws of man.
The use of the old, tired reasoning that "they are already here" is as ludicrous coming from him as when it's used by the foreign governments that have planned, organized and directed the problem.
To believe the "they are already here" philosophy is to agree with having Romans in Gaul, Nazis in Poland or Russians in Hungary. It was not legal then, and it fails to meet the legal test now.
Archbishop Wuerl does a fine job when lobbying for a taxpayer bailout of the Catholic school system. Maybe he should turn his lobbying skills toward his Catholic brethren south of the border and demand that Catholic governments there do their duty by their own Catholic citizens instead of operating an ongoing criminal enterprise based on illegal immigration. If he really wishes to explore the laws of man, Mexico would be a nice place to begin.
Wilson Faris
Gaithersburg, Md.
Where does a member of the Catholic Church get off warning the American people about mass deportations of illegal aliens ("Wuerl eyes humanity for illegals," Page 1, Friday). I am a Roman Catholic, and my response to Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl is this: The United States is a sovereign nation that does not tell the Vatican how to conduct its affairs, and I would greatly appreciate it if the pope would return the favor.
Incidentally, somebody should remind Archbishop Wuerl that if we continue to admit large numbers of immigrants and refugees from Third World countries, the United States will no longer be the "world's wealthiest nation."
Do I have to draw this man a picture?
Dave Gorak
Executive director
Midwest Coalition to
Reduce Immigration
La Valle, Wis.
(4)
The Capital Times (Wis.) - 3/19
Feds alone can’t address immigration crisis
Dear Editor: Your recent editorial, "Let communities do immigration," is an apples and oranges scenario that is as ludicrous as it is insulting to your readers' intelligence.
While I understand that the precedent for disobeying federal law can be found in the Fugitive Slave Act, how can the editors of the Times suggest there is a similarity between African slaves brought here against their will and people who violated our immigration laws and, after crossing our borders, committed additional felonies when they bought bogus ID (or stole someone's) and then used that ID to get jobs?
Dane County Sheriff Dave Mahoney is to be applauded for exercising his right under our Constitution to enforce all laws rather than hiding behind the tired argument that immigration is a "federal issue." He takes seriously his oath to uphold the rule of law, which is far more than what can be said of the many "lawmakers" at all levels of government.
Even if you accept at face value the fact that the federal government is solely responsible for our immigration policy, it must be remembered that the government created the present crisis in the first place. Does it make sense then for us to want that same government, which includes certain irresponsible members of our state's congressional delegation, to be given a free hand to fix it? Their solution is preposterous, i.e., the way to end illegal immigration is to legalize those here illegally.
Dave Gorak
Executive director
Midwest Coalition to Reduce Immigration
LaValle, Wis.
(5)
The Athens (Ga.) Banner-Herald 3/19
D.A. King: Broun's column on border shouldn't rankle anyone
Georgia 10th District Congressman Paul Broun's guest column on securing American borders, deporting illegal aliens and actually enforcing American laws ("Americans want good border fences to make good neighbors," Friday), likely will draw howls of protest and disdain from those who "feel" instead of reason and will no doubt result in vicious name-calling from those in the even more militant open-borders lobby who make their living endlessly shilling for illegals and their employers and bankers.
It should not be forgotten that much the same message was delivered by another American in 1995 on the federal government gaining some credibility on immigration policy: "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. Deportation is crucial ... employer sanctions can work."
Such radical and politically incorrect rhetoric then came from the first black woman elected to Congress from the deep South.
Presidential Medal of Freedom award winner Barbara Jordan, who represented part of Texas in the U.S. House from 1973-79, made the above remarks when she reported to Congress as head of the Bill Clinton-appointed Jordan Commission on Immigration Reform nine years after the 1986 mass legalization program that was to solve our illegal immigration crisis forever.
Woe to Jordan had she made the same remarks in 21st-century America, where "comprehensive immigration reform" is code for amnesty - again. We should have heeded Jordan's recommendations then, and we should listen to the voice of reason now. Bravo to Broun and all who have the courage to come out of the shadows and stand against open borders.
D.A. King
• King is president of the Dustin Inman Society, a Marietta-based nonprofit coalition dedicated to educating the public on the consequences of illegal immigration.
(6)
The World (Ore.) – 3/21
Let's hope new law puts stop to illegals.
The front-page article headlined,"Immigrants may evade new driver's license rules" (The World, March 11) indicates that the new Oregon law is starting to work. Let's hope that it may "force them to leave the country" as the story predicted.
Perhaps now our law enforcement agencies may be able to apprehend those trying to "evade" the new rules. With 175,000 illegals already here, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, it is past time that Oregon stop being a magnet for them.
I'm sure residents will be pleased when they can stop paying for all the benefits that illegal aliens reap at taxpayers expense and unemployed legal workers may regain their jobs that illegals had taken by working for lower wages.
Val Don Hickerson
Bandon, Ore.
(7)
Asheville (N.C.) Citizen-Times - 3/22
Dole deserves credit for immigration policy
Senator Elizabeth Dole "sings the same tune" as President Bush says Communications Director for the North Carolina Democratic Party, Kerra L. Bolton (letter, Mar. 12).
Bolton hears what she wants to hear. Senator Dole played a key role in blocking the Bush-backed amnesty/immigration acceleration bill that the Senate Democratic leadership tried to ram through –- without committee hearings –- last summer.
Dole has an "A" on immigration from Americans for Better Immigration, a NumbersUSA affiliate. She engineered a first-in-the-nation partnership between North Carolina sheriffs and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to identify and remove illegal aliens who commit other crimes.
I invite Kerra Bolton to "communicate" the North Carolina Democratic Party's record. Suggested lead sentence:
“North Carolina has a wide-ranging reputation as a mecca for illegal immigrants from throughout the eastern third of the country seeking fraudulent licenses . . . " (“DMV memo OKs licenses for illegals,” Greenboro News & Record, Jan. 26, 2005).
Under public pressure, the state's Democratic leadership did finally tighten up on drivers licenses in 2006. Otherwise, they are otherwise “staying the course” on illegal immigration. In the 2007 session alone they buried in committee and/or refused to allow a vote on a score of bills targeting illegal immigration.
Tom Shuford
Lenoir, N.C.
LETTERS WE’VE JUST RECEIVED
(8)
Atlanta Journal-Constitution – 2/20
Point is 'illegal,' not immigrant
Cynthia Tucker missed the point regarding illegal immigration. In her column "Immigrant bashing goes its sorry way" (@issue, Feb. 10), she refers to Tom Tancredo, Mitt Romney and other Republican presidential hopefuls as "anti-immigration."
They are not anti-immigration; they are anti-illegal immigration. The Republican Party encourages people who want to come here from other nations, but they do ask that you follow proper legal channels. Illegal immigrants broke our laws in coming here. For those who are employed, they broke our labor laws in taking a job here. And their employers helped them do it and broke the law themselves.
Paul Gamblin
Newman, Ga.
(9) (10) (11)
Orange County (Calif.) Register - 3/9
Reader rebuttal: Illegal immigration
Columnist Steven Greenhut declares he has waited 10 years to register his opinion on illegal immigration ["Illegals aren't to blame for everything," Commentary, March 2>. He must have been listening to the debate, though, because his arguments sure sound familiar: For example, conservatives who call for immigration restriction are mean, uncompassionate and angry. And jumping the border or overstaying a visa is only a misdemeanor anyhow, so what's the big deal? Where have I heard those arguments before? At least he didn't call us bigoted, racist haters.
He does briefly mention law enforcement, jails, schools and emergency room "issues" in connection with illegals, but those problems are really our fault because we have this lavish welfare state, you see. Well, he's right that we have a welfare state, but if we keep loading it up with folks who come here needing entitlements and working at the bottom of the pay scale, we won't have one for long.
Greenhut claims the results of the "moderate to liberal" Public Policy Institute of California's study show that "illegal immigrants … have a much lower crime rate than U.S.-born citizens." That study does deserve a closer look, and maybe it's even true, although he fails to mention that it commingles legal and illegal immigrants who have been imprisoned or otherwise institutionalized. That seems like a significant distinction. The study ignores illegal entry and ID theft, too, on the grounds that such crimes are associated only with illegals and thus should not "count" in a comparison with the native-born.
However, let's ignore such carping details. Let's stipulate that "immigrants," whatever their provenance, are better citizens than real citizens. So what? What's his solution? He halfway proposes Tibor Machan's libertarian notion of allowing anyone to come to the U.S. who passes a background check, has a job lined up, is committed to a free and pluralistic society and rejects public assistance. But then he quickly admits that our welfare state invalidates that idea. Moreover, he doesn't discuss the impact on our labor market when employers discover they can freely recruit from enormous pools of Third World labor.
He admits that Balkanization is a problem, but he doesn't mention the corrosive effects of multiculturalism, the cult of diversity worship, or our abject failure to even require newcomers to learn English. And nowhere does he talk about vigorous enforcement of existing laws. That's the pesky "rule of law" conservatives are thinking of when they get on their "high horse," as Greenhut describes it. In fact, prosecuting scofflaw employers is producing results in states like Oklahoma and Arizona. A stiff fine or the threat of losing a business license seems to wonderfully concentrate the minds of those employers, and they're beginning to use the tools at their disposal to verify Social Security numbers. That's not a police-state tactic, and it's causing many illegals to self-deport.
I wish Greenhut would recognize that conservative opposition to illegal immigration is not rooted in anger at illegals. They must be treated respectfully. Our anger is directed at our own feckless, irresponsible government, which in recent decades has turned a blind eye to our porous borders. Over the past seven years that dereliction of duty has been flagrant. Illegals do what they do because they can, and they can because our government has allowed it. We're like an organism whose autoimmune system has gone AWOL.
And, yes, as Greenhut suggests, if I were in the same situation, I'd probably be doing the same thing. That's why we count on an executive branch that will vigorously and honestly enforce the immigration laws.
True Seaborn
Los Alamitos, Calif.
Enforce the law
Steven Greenhut's opening sentence said it all: "In nearly 10 years I have yet to devote a Register column to the subject of illegal immigration, yet irate readers frequently contact me about the subject." Greenhut is well known for his opposition to government waste and overspending. But somehow for 10 years he failed to author one column on a subject that consumes $10 billion or more of our state tax dollars each year.
Did it ever occur to him that readers might be irate because he has neglected to address the issue for 10 years? And why would he fail to speak to a topic that wastes so much of our money and resources on illegal foreigners?
And Greenhut's solution: "to allow anyone to come to the United States provided they pass a background check, have a job lined up, are committed to a free and pluralistic society and reject public assistance" is both short-sighted and naive. How is an indigent foreigner earning $8-$10 an hour going to house, feed, insure and clothe himself and his family without lining up at the public trough for assistance? Impossible. His proposed solution is idealistic and absurd.
The old argument that we can't deport 12 million to 20 million individuals is worn out. We don't have to deport them. We simply have to fine and, if necessary, jail employers who hire illegal foreigners and they'll self-deport.
Why did Greenhut avoid the most obvious and practical solution? Simply enforce American law!
Regardless of whether Greenhut elects to accept the truth, illegal immigration is directly or indirectly responsible for high crime rates, jail overcrowding, deterioration of our cities (e.g. Santa Ana), emergency room and hospital closures, urban graffiti, traffic congestion, overcrowded dwellings, escalating insurance premiums, state budget deficits and other forms of social pollution with which we are forced to coexist. And he scratches his head over irate comments from his readers?
Randy Johnson
Lake Forest, Calif.
Too much inaccuracy
The very title of Steven Greenhut's article, "Is it all immigrants' fault?," disclosed his favorable bias for illegal aliens without even reading the article's content. If he had correctly included "illegal aliens" instead of "immigrants," then the readers might not have detected his bias so easily. Actually the article contained some good information as well as information slanted to favor illegals, and his next-to-last paragraph was totally inaccurate regarding the amount of crime committed by illegal aliens. Jail and prison statistics show a huge disproportional crime record for illegal aliens.
Dave Connell
Laguna Beach, Calif.
================ http://numbersusa.com/video
Index:
Kankakee (Ill.) Daily Journal - 3/17
(1) Dave Gorak
The Washington (D.C.) Times – 3/18
(2) Wilson Faris
(3) Dave Gorak
The Capital Times (Wis.) – 3/19
(4) Dave Gorak
The Athens (Ga.) Banner-Herald 3/19
(5) D.A. King
The World (Ore.) – 3/21
(6) Val Don Hickerson
Asheville (N.C.) Citizen-Times - 3/22
(7) Tom Shuford
LETTERS WE’VE JUST RECEIVED
Atlanta Journal-Constitution – 2/20
(8) Paul Gamblin
Orange County (Calif.) Register – 3/9
(9) True Seaborn
(10) Randy Johnsobn
(11) Dave Connell
(1)
Kankakee (Ill.) Daily Journal - 3/17
Blagojevich's values
Your March 13 editorial, "The Value of 4-H," raises an interesting question:
How is it that the state of Illinois, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), can spend $3.5 billion each year on services for illegal aliens but cannot find $1.7 million for 4-H? Are the "needs" of illegal aliens now more critical than helping youngsters in the "Land of Lincoln" develop the proper attitudes toward work and participation in our democracy?
If you think Gov. Blagojevich lost a night's sleep and wore a pained expression on his face when he authorized this cut in the 4-H budget, think again. He's the one who signed into law in-state tuition for illegals, the acceptance of foreign consulate cards like Mexico's matricula consular as valid ID, and has repeatedly said he supports driving privileges for people here illegally.
One of the most valuable lessons a parent can teach a child is the importance of "waiting your turn."
Dave Gorak
Executive director
Midwest Coalition
to Reduce Immigration
LaValle, Wis.
(My closing sentence is the result of sloppy editing, and it makes absolutely no sense. What follows was what appeared in the original letter: “One of the most valuable lessons a parent can teach a child is the importance of ‘waiting your turn,' especially if they live in a state where those who shouldn’t be there in the first place have been allowed to move to the front of the line.”)
(2) (3)
The Washington (D.C.) Times – 3/18
The archbishop and illegals
Washington Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl seems to have the same problem with Webster's dictionary as most wealthy businessmen and out-of-touch politicians.
I suggest he take a glance at the definitions of "legal" (immigrant) and "illegal" (alien). They in no way equate. While the archbishop routinely espouses the laws of God and the Catholic Church, he falls short when it comes to the laws of man.
The use of the old, tired reasoning that "they are already here" is as ludicrous coming from him as when it's used by the foreign governments that have planned, organized and directed the problem.
To believe the "they are already here" philosophy is to agree with having Romans in Gaul, Nazis in Poland or Russians in Hungary. It was not legal then, and it fails to meet the legal test now.
Archbishop Wuerl does a fine job when lobbying for a taxpayer bailout of the Catholic school system. Maybe he should turn his lobbying skills toward his Catholic brethren south of the border and demand that Catholic governments there do their duty by their own Catholic citizens instead of operating an ongoing criminal enterprise based on illegal immigration. If he really wishes to explore the laws of man, Mexico would be a nice place to begin.
Wilson Faris
Gaithersburg, Md.
Where does a member of the Catholic Church get off warning the American people about mass deportations of illegal aliens ("Wuerl eyes humanity for illegals," Page 1, Friday). I am a Roman Catholic, and my response to Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl is this: The United States is a sovereign nation that does not tell the Vatican how to conduct its affairs, and I would greatly appreciate it if the pope would return the favor.
Incidentally, somebody should remind Archbishop Wuerl that if we continue to admit large numbers of immigrants and refugees from Third World countries, the United States will no longer be the "world's wealthiest nation."
Do I have to draw this man a picture?
Dave Gorak
Executive director
Midwest Coalition to
Reduce Immigration
La Valle, Wis.
(4)
The Capital Times (Wis.) - 3/19
Feds alone can’t address immigration crisis
Dear Editor: Your recent editorial, "Let communities do immigration," is an apples and oranges scenario that is as ludicrous as it is insulting to your readers' intelligence.
While I understand that the precedent for disobeying federal law can be found in the Fugitive Slave Act, how can the editors of the Times suggest there is a similarity between African slaves brought here against their will and people who violated our immigration laws and, after crossing our borders, committed additional felonies when they bought bogus ID (or stole someone's) and then used that ID to get jobs?
Dane County Sheriff Dave Mahoney is to be applauded for exercising his right under our Constitution to enforce all laws rather than hiding behind the tired argument that immigration is a "federal issue." He takes seriously his oath to uphold the rule of law, which is far more than what can be said of the many "lawmakers" at all levels of government.
Even if you accept at face value the fact that the federal government is solely responsible for our immigration policy, it must be remembered that the government created the present crisis in the first place. Does it make sense then for us to want that same government, which includes certain irresponsible members of our state's congressional delegation, to be given a free hand to fix it? Their solution is preposterous, i.e., the way to end illegal immigration is to legalize those here illegally.
Dave Gorak
Executive director
Midwest Coalition to Reduce Immigration
LaValle, Wis.
(5)
The Athens (Ga.) Banner-Herald 3/19
D.A. King: Broun's column on border shouldn't rankle anyone
Georgia 10th District Congressman Paul Broun's guest column on securing American borders, deporting illegal aliens and actually enforcing American laws ("Americans want good border fences to make good neighbors," Friday), likely will draw howls of protest and disdain from those who "feel" instead of reason and will no doubt result in vicious name-calling from those in the even more militant open-borders lobby who make their living endlessly shilling for illegals and their employers and bankers.
It should not be forgotten that much the same message was delivered by another American in 1995 on the federal government gaining some credibility on immigration policy: "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. Deportation is crucial ... employer sanctions can work."
Such radical and politically incorrect rhetoric then came from the first black woman elected to Congress from the deep South.
Presidential Medal of Freedom award winner Barbara Jordan, who represented part of Texas in the U.S. House from 1973-79, made the above remarks when she reported to Congress as head of the Bill Clinton-appointed Jordan Commission on Immigration Reform nine years after the 1986 mass legalization program that was to solve our illegal immigration crisis forever.
Woe to Jordan had she made the same remarks in 21st-century America, where "comprehensive immigration reform" is code for amnesty - again. We should have heeded Jordan's recommendations then, and we should listen to the voice of reason now. Bravo to Broun and all who have the courage to come out of the shadows and stand against open borders.
D.A. King
• King is president of the Dustin Inman Society, a Marietta-based nonprofit coalition dedicated to educating the public on the consequences of illegal immigration.
(6)
The World (Ore.) – 3/21
Let's hope new law puts stop to illegals.
The front-page article headlined,"Immigrants may evade new driver's license rules" (The World, March 11) indicates that the new Oregon law is starting to work. Let's hope that it may "force them to leave the country" as the story predicted.
Perhaps now our law enforcement agencies may be able to apprehend those trying to "evade" the new rules. With 175,000 illegals already here, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, it is past time that Oregon stop being a magnet for them.
I'm sure residents will be pleased when they can stop paying for all the benefits that illegal aliens reap at taxpayers expense and unemployed legal workers may regain their jobs that illegals had taken by working for lower wages.
Val Don Hickerson
Bandon, Ore.
(7)
Asheville (N.C.) Citizen-Times - 3/22
Dole deserves credit for immigration policy
Senator Elizabeth Dole "sings the same tune" as President Bush says Communications Director for the North Carolina Democratic Party, Kerra L. Bolton (letter, Mar. 12).
Bolton hears what she wants to hear. Senator Dole played a key role in blocking the Bush-backed amnesty/immigration acceleration bill that the Senate Democratic leadership tried to ram through –- without committee hearings –- last summer.
Dole has an "A" on immigration from Americans for Better Immigration, a NumbersUSA affiliate. She engineered a first-in-the-nation partnership between North Carolina sheriffs and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to identify and remove illegal aliens who commit other crimes.
I invite Kerra Bolton to "communicate" the North Carolina Democratic Party's record. Suggested lead sentence:
“North Carolina has a wide-ranging reputation as a mecca for illegal immigrants from throughout the eastern third of the country seeking fraudulent licenses . . . " (“DMV memo OKs licenses for illegals,” Greenboro News & Record, Jan. 26, 2005).
Under public pressure, the state's Democratic leadership did finally tighten up on drivers licenses in 2006. Otherwise, they are otherwise “staying the course” on illegal immigration. In the 2007 session alone they buried in committee and/or refused to allow a vote on a score of bills targeting illegal immigration.
Tom Shuford
Lenoir, N.C.
LETTERS WE’VE JUST RECEIVED
(8)
Atlanta Journal-Constitution – 2/20
Point is 'illegal,' not immigrant
Cynthia Tucker missed the point regarding illegal immigration. In her column "Immigrant bashing goes its sorry way" (@issue, Feb. 10), she refers to Tom Tancredo, Mitt Romney and other Republican presidential hopefuls as "anti-immigration."
They are not anti-immigration; they are anti-illegal immigration. The Republican Party encourages people who want to come here from other nations, but they do ask that you follow proper legal channels. Illegal immigrants broke our laws in coming here. For those who are employed, they broke our labor laws in taking a job here. And their employers helped them do it and broke the law themselves.
Paul Gamblin
Newman, Ga.
(9) (10) (11)
Orange County (Calif.) Register - 3/9
Reader rebuttal: Illegal immigration
Columnist Steven Greenhut declares he has waited 10 years to register his opinion on illegal immigration ["Illegals aren't to blame for everything," Commentary, March 2>. He must have been listening to the debate, though, because his arguments sure sound familiar: For example, conservatives who call for immigration restriction are mean, uncompassionate and angry. And jumping the border or overstaying a visa is only a misdemeanor anyhow, so what's the big deal? Where have I heard those arguments before? At least he didn't call us bigoted, racist haters.
He does briefly mention law enforcement, jails, schools and emergency room "issues" in connection with illegals, but those problems are really our fault because we have this lavish welfare state, you see. Well, he's right that we have a welfare state, but if we keep loading it up with folks who come here needing entitlements and working at the bottom of the pay scale, we won't have one for long.
Greenhut claims the results of the "moderate to liberal" Public Policy Institute of California's study show that "illegal immigrants … have a much lower crime rate than U.S.-born citizens." That study does deserve a closer look, and maybe it's even true, although he fails to mention that it commingles legal and illegal immigrants who have been imprisoned or otherwise institutionalized. That seems like a significant distinction. The study ignores illegal entry and ID theft, too, on the grounds that such crimes are associated only with illegals and thus should not "count" in a comparison with the native-born.
However, let's ignore such carping details. Let's stipulate that "immigrants," whatever their provenance, are better citizens than real citizens. So what? What's his solution? He halfway proposes Tibor Machan's libertarian notion of allowing anyone to come to the U.S. who passes a background check, has a job lined up, is committed to a free and pluralistic society and rejects public assistance. But then he quickly admits that our welfare state invalidates that idea. Moreover, he doesn't discuss the impact on our labor market when employers discover they can freely recruit from enormous pools of Third World labor.
He admits that Balkanization is a problem, but he doesn't mention the corrosive effects of multiculturalism, the cult of diversity worship, or our abject failure to even require newcomers to learn English. And nowhere does he talk about vigorous enforcement of existing laws. That's the pesky "rule of law" conservatives are thinking of when they get on their "high horse," as Greenhut describes it. In fact, prosecuting scofflaw employers is producing results in states like Oklahoma and Arizona. A stiff fine or the threat of losing a business license seems to wonderfully concentrate the minds of those employers, and they're beginning to use the tools at their disposal to verify Social Security numbers. That's not a police-state tactic, and it's causing many illegals to self-deport.
I wish Greenhut would recognize that conservative opposition to illegal immigration is not rooted in anger at illegals. They must be treated respectfully. Our anger is directed at our own feckless, irresponsible government, which in recent decades has turned a blind eye to our porous borders. Over the past seven years that dereliction of duty has been flagrant. Illegals do what they do because they can, and they can because our government has allowed it. We're like an organism whose autoimmune system has gone AWOL.
And, yes, as Greenhut suggests, if I were in the same situation, I'd probably be doing the same thing. That's why we count on an executive branch that will vigorously and honestly enforce the immigration laws.
True Seaborn
Los Alamitos, Calif.
Enforce the law
Steven Greenhut's opening sentence said it all: "In nearly 10 years I have yet to devote a Register column to the subject of illegal immigration, yet irate readers frequently contact me about the subject." Greenhut is well known for his opposition to government waste and overspending. But somehow for 10 years he failed to author one column on a subject that consumes $10 billion or more of our state tax dollars each year.
Did it ever occur to him that readers might be irate because he has neglected to address the issue for 10 years? And why would he fail to speak to a topic that wastes so much of our money and resources on illegal foreigners?
And Greenhut's solution: "to allow anyone to come to the United States provided they pass a background check, have a job lined up, are committed to a free and pluralistic society and reject public assistance" is both short-sighted and naive. How is an indigent foreigner earning $8-$10 an hour going to house, feed, insure and clothe himself and his family without lining up at the public trough for assistance? Impossible. His proposed solution is idealistic and absurd.
The old argument that we can't deport 12 million to 20 million individuals is worn out. We don't have to deport them. We simply have to fine and, if necessary, jail employers who hire illegal foreigners and they'll self-deport.
Why did Greenhut avoid the most obvious and practical solution? Simply enforce American law!
Regardless of whether Greenhut elects to accept the truth, illegal immigration is directly or indirectly responsible for high crime rates, jail overcrowding, deterioration of our cities (e.g. Santa Ana), emergency room and hospital closures, urban graffiti, traffic congestion, overcrowded dwellings, escalating insurance premiums, state budget deficits and other forms of social pollution with which we are forced to coexist. And he scratches his head over irate comments from his readers?
Randy Johnson
Lake Forest, Calif.
Too much inaccuracy
The very title of Steven Greenhut's article, "Is it all immigrants' fault?," disclosed his favorable bias for illegal aliens without even reading the article's content. If he had correctly included "illegal aliens" instead of "immigrants," then the readers might not have detected his bias so easily. Actually the article contained some good information as well as information slanted to favor illegals, and his next-to-last paragraph was totally inaccurate regarding the amount of crime committed by illegal aliens. Jail and prison statistics show a huge disproportional crime record for illegal aliens.
Dave Connell
Laguna Beach, Calif.
================ http://numbersusa.com/video
[FONT=arial,sans-serif]
<TABLE cellPadding=5 width=623 bgColor=#ffffff border=0 xcomment="bordercolor=#0000FF"><TBODY><TR><TD xcomment="bordercolor=#ffffff">
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and a handful of her far-left cronies in Congress are plotting to put amnesty for 12-20 million illegal aliens back on the table![/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]And their first order of business is BLOCKING legislation that would finally beef up our nation's border security and crack down on employers that hire illegal aliens.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]"Senior Democrats... have come up with a Plan B -- muddling the issue by attaching a killer amendment to the Shuler bill, which would come in the form of an amendment proposed by Rep. Joe Baca, California Democrat and chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus."
"The Baca Amendment would give illegal aliens who pass a background check a 'five-year temporary worker permit' that expires on Dec. 31, 2012. It would also provide employers who hired illegal aliens 'safe harbor' (apparently some measure of immunity from prosecution) for past hiring of illegal aliens. ...a senior official with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce told Congressional Quarterly that he believed there was 'some kind of deal in the works.'"[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]There has been speculation for some time that Pelosi and liberal Members of Congress were meeting behind closed doors... planning to unveil a 5-year amnesty plan in the Spring.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]As you already know, the SAVE Act is an enforcement-only bill that will add 8,000 agents to secure our borders and implement systems that will allow employers to easily verify workers' immigration status.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]You might ask why Members of Congress who actually sponsored a piece of legislation would not be jumping and clawing to be among the first to bring that legislation to the floor for a vote.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]And if they know you're watching... THEY WON'T! If they know you're watching, they will do the right thing![/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]If Congress could vote on the SAVE Act of 2007 TODAY, IT WOULD PASS WITH EASE![/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]"But unfortunately, the Democrats are putting together an elaborate con job: using tough-sounding rhetoric while working behind the scenes with open-borders advocates in the business community to win support from firms that have become very dependent on cheap foreign labor. The goal of these Democrats ... is to defeat a bipartisan bill that takes a no-amnesty, enforcement-oriented approach to illegal immigration. Specifically, they are very worried about the fact that a growing number of moderate and conservative Republicans and Democrats (and even a few liberals) are cosponsoring the Secure America through Verification and Enforcement (SAVE) Act, H.R. 4088..."[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]The SocialistWorkers.org website speaks openly of Pelosi and company's assurances:[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]"So far, the House leadership says it will block the SAVE Act unless provisions are added to give the undocumented a chance at citizenship..."[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]As you know "undocumented" is a code word the amnesty crowd uses because it's less offensive than calling those who break our laws and come into the United States illegally what they are -- illegal aliens.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]"You've got Ms. Pelosi and the traditional Democrat groups basically wanting to see this population of 20 million illegals voting for Democrats. They want to give them residency, citizenship, and register them to vote so they can use this illegal population as a political bloc that's [beholden] to them because they're the one who empowered them with the votes."[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]The ultimate passage of the SAVE Act rests with you.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]As the Washington Times put it:[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]"In the coming weeks, many rank-and-file Democrats will have to make a very difficult choice: carry water for Nancy Pelosi or respond to the legitimate concerns of their constituents."[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]If they hear from you now, the answer will be obvious! [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]But we won't win unless you speak up![/FONT]
Yours In Freedom,
Jeff Mazzella
President
www.cfif.org
P.S. Please help us reach as many concerned Americans as possible by forwarding this e-mail to at least 10 of your friends and family members.
The CFIF Action Alert is a service to the conservative community. If you would like to subscribe please go to www.cfif.org/signup.
Center for Individual Freedom
113 S. Columbus St., Suite 310
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-535-5836
Fax:703-535-5838
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
[/FONT]
<TABLE cellPadding=5 width=623 bgColor=#ffffff border=0 xcomment="bordercolor=#0000FF"><TBODY><TR><TD xcomment="bordercolor=#ffffff">
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and a handful of her far-left cronies in Congress are plotting to put amnesty for 12-20 million illegal aliens back on the table![/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]And their first order of business is BLOCKING legislation that would finally beef up our nation's border security and crack down on employers that hire illegal aliens.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]We're talking about the Secure America Through Verification and Enforcement Act of 2007 or SAVE Act of 2007 (HR 4088), an enforcement-only bill that will add 8,000 agents to secure our borders and implement systems that will allow employers to easily verify workers' immigration status.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]According to the Washington Times:[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]"Senior Democrats... have come up with a Plan B -- muddling the issue by attaching a killer amendment to the Shuler bill, which would come in the form of an amendment proposed by Rep. Joe Baca, California Democrat and chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus."
"The Baca Amendment would give illegal aliens who pass a background check a 'five-year temporary worker permit' that expires on Dec. 31, 2012. It would also provide employers who hired illegal aliens 'safe harbor' (apparently some measure of immunity from prosecution) for past hiring of illegal aliens. ...a senior official with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce told Congressional Quarterly that he believed there was 'some kind of deal in the works.'"[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]There has been speculation for some time that Pelosi and liberal Members of Congress were meeting behind closed doors... planning to unveil a 5-year amnesty plan in the Spring.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]But if her 5-year amnesty plan is to succeed, THE SAVE ACT MUST DIE![/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]Perhaps that explains why many Democrats who actually co-sponsored theSecure America Through Verification and Enforcement Act of 2007 or SAVE Act (HR 4088) have not yet signed the discharge petition that would bring the bill to a vote and prevent Pelosi and liberals in Congress from silently killing it in committee.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]As you already know, the SAVE Act is an enforcement-only bill that will add 8,000 agents to secure our borders and implement systems that will allow employers to easily verify workers' immigration status.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]And now it appears that Pelosi, Baca and company are getting desperate and hedging their bets. If they can't kill the SAVE Act outright, they'll neuter it with a killer amendment.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]We can't let that happen! [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]If 37 additional Members of Congress sign the discharge petition, the SAVE Act WILL come to the floor of the house for a vote![/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]If the SAVE Act comes to the floor for a vote, IT WILL PASS![/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]And if the SAVE Act passes, and Pelosi and company do not succeed in attaching their killer amendment to it, theplan to impose a 5-year amnesty for illegal aliens WILL be stopped dead in its tracks! [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]We are very close to a major victory but we need ONE FINAL PUSH![/FONT][FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]If the SAVE Act comes to the floor for a vote, IT WILL PASS![/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]And if the SAVE Act passes, and Pelosi and company do not succeed in attaching their killer amendment to it, theplan to impose a 5-year amnesty for illegal aliens WILL be stopped dead in its tracks! [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent and personalized Blast Fax messages to President George W. Bush, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and the Members of the House of Representatives who sponsored the SAVE Act of 2007 but have not signed the discharge petition to force it to the floor of the House for a fair up-or-down vote![/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]Tell them they can not have it both ways. Tell them they can not proudly proclaim their support of common-sense border enforcement legislation to the American people on the one hand and enable those who are trying to kill this bill by their silence on the other![/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]Tell them in no uncertain terms that you are watching and that there is no excuse not to push for a fair up-or-down vote on a bill that each of them proudly sponsored![/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/saveactupdatebe.html[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]AOL Members Use This Hyperlink[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]If the above hyperlink does not appear to function you can copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]We Can't Let Pelosi Win This One![/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]There are a number of possibilities.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]First and foremost, some of them may fear reprisals from Pelosi and company and the open borders lobby.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]Make no mistake, many of these Members are probably being pressured and strong-armed RIGHT NOW to keep their mouths shut and let the SAVE Act of 2007 die an unceremonious death![/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]And you can probably bet that some of these Members may be thinking that they can have their cake and eat it too. Through their silence they can kill two birds with one stone. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]They can stay in Pelosi's good graces and still go back home and tell the folks that they proudly sponsored the SAVE Act of 2007![/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]But you can tell these elected officials RIGHT NOW -- in no uncertain terms -- that they can't have it both ways![/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]And if they know you're watching... THEY WON'T! If they know you're watching, they will do the right thing![/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent and personalized Blast Fax messages to President George W. Bush, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and the Members of the House of Representatives who sponsored the SAVE Act of 2007 but have not signed the discharge petition to force it to the floor of the House for a fair up-or-down vote![/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]Tell them they can not have it both ways. Tell them they can not proudly proclaim their support of common-sense border enforcement legislation to the American people on the one hand and enable those who are trying to kill this bill by their silence on the other![/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]Tell them in no uncertain terms that you are watching and that there is no excuse not to push for a fair up-or-down vote on a bill that each of them proudly sponsored![/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/saveactupdatebe.html[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]AOL Members Use This Hyperlink[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]If the above hyperlink does not appear to function you can copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]Are There Really Plans To Put Amnesty Back On The Table?[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]And that's why Pelosi and her cronies are blocking it! Any real border enforcement measures will undermine their plans to put amnesty for 12-20 million illegal aliens back on the table![/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]The Washington Times calls it a "con job."[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]"But unfortunately, the Democrats are putting together an elaborate con job: using tough-sounding rhetoric while working behind the scenes with open-borders advocates in the business community to win support from firms that have become very dependent on cheap foreign labor. The goal of these Democrats ... is to defeat a bipartisan bill that takes a no-amnesty, enforcement-oriented approach to illegal immigration. Specifically, they are very worried about the fact that a growing number of moderate and conservative Republicans and Democrats (and even a few liberals) are cosponsoring the Secure America through Verification and Enforcement (SAVE) Act, H.R. 4088..."[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]The SocialistWorkers.org website speaks openly of Pelosi and company's assurances:[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]"So far, the House leadership says it will block the SAVE Act unless provisions are added to give the undocumented a chance at citizenship..."[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]As you know "undocumented" is a code word the amnesty crowd uses because it's less offensive than calling those who break our laws and come into the United States illegally what they are -- illegal aliens.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]It's the same old song and dance we heard last year; give us amnesty and we'll talk about securing the border.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]But history teaches us that when our elected leaders talk about amnesty and border security in the same breath, these measures are typically long on amnesty and short on enforcement.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]The American people understand that. We're on to that game. And we will NOT allow AMNESTY to hold border enforcement hostage![/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]Congressman Bilbray claims Pelosi and company has other motives as well:[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]But history teaches us that when our elected leaders talk about amnesty and border security in the same breath, these measures are typically long on amnesty and short on enforcement.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]The American people understand that. We're on to that game. And we will NOT allow AMNESTY to hold border enforcement hostage![/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]"You've got Ms. Pelosi and the traditional Democrat groups basically wanting to see this population of 20 million illegals voting for Democrats. They want to give them residency, citizenship, and register them to vote so they can use this illegal population as a political bloc that's [beholden] to them because they're the one who empowered them with the votes."[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]The ultimate passage of the SAVE Act rests with you.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]As the Washington Times put it:[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]"In the coming weeks, many rank-and-file Democrats will have to make a very difficult choice: carry water for Nancy Pelosi or respond to the legitimate concerns of their constituents."[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]If they hear from you now, the answer will be obvious! [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]But we won't win unless you speak up![/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent and personalized Blast Fax messages to President George W. Bush, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and the Members of the House of Representatives who sponsored the SAVE Act of 2007 but have not signed the discharge petition to force it to the floor of the House for a fair up-or-down vote![/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]Tell them they can not have it both ways. Tell them they can not proudly proclaim their support of common-sense border enforcement legislation to the American people on the one hand and enable those who are trying to kill this bill by their silence on the other![/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]Tell them in no uncertain terms that you are watching and that there is no excuse not to push for a fair up-or-down vote on a bill that each of them proudly sponsored![/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/saveactupdatebe.html[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]AOL Members Use This Hyperlink[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,sans-serif]If the above hyperlink does not appear to function you can copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.[/FONT]
Yours In Freedom,
Jeff Mazzella
President
www.cfif.org
P.S. Please help us reach as many concerned Americans as possible by forwarding this e-mail to at least 10 of your friends and family members.
The CFIF Action Alert is a service to the conservative community. If you would like to subscribe please go to www.cfif.org/signup.
Center for Individual Freedom
113 S. Columbus St., Suite 310
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-535-5836
Fax:703-535-5838
says the redneck who posted a joke about a redneck girl KILLING 2 immigrants then followed it up by typing god bless america!....decent?...lol what a red neck joke you are.
if YOU cant stay decent then be ready for the rebuttle neo neck.....and by the way i will have something to say EVERYTIME you get outta line in this thread now....this is pretty much MY thread now.
we didn't cross the border, the border crossed us!....and dont ever forget it hillbilly.
thanx for the link red neck....i just called geno's and told them i will be stopping by sometime this weekend to order a cheese steak in native cherokee....and if you dont serve me ill beat your wop ass all the way back to italy....click.
i'm soo good/ i'm soo straight/ your soo fake/ i'm soo real/ i'm soooooo hood!
and dont ever forget it bitch!
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lKnSpimeAF4&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lKnSpimeAF4&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
US Starts Deporting Vietnamese Illegals
By Gillian Wong
The Associated Press, April 1, 2008
Singapore (AP) -- Washington has started deportation proceedings against thousands of Vietnamese living illegally in the United States under a pact between the two countries, a top U.S. immigration official said Tuesday.
Julie Myers, director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, eased the fears of some Vietnamese groups about the plan, saying those who have lived in the U.S. for more than 13 years would not be deported.
The repatriation pact applies to Vietnamese who entered the U.S. illegally after the former foes normalized relations in 1995. Some critics had expressed concern the agreement could include others who entered the U.S. in the 70s and 80s.
’We’re just going to begin the process of returning individuals back to Vietnam,’ Myers said in an interview with The Associated Press during a visit to Singapore. ’The Vietnamese government has been very cooperative and helpful in this process as we’ve identified particular cases to move forward on.’
The agreement was completed in late January but took 60 days to go into effect, Myers said.
The deal took 10 years to complete because Vietnam had previously been reluctant to accept citizens back and community leaders in the U.S. said many immigrants have been living with deportation orders for years, even decades.
’Every country in the world has a responsibility by treaty to take back their nationals,’ Myers said. ’This agreement simply says that Vietnam will follow what every country in the world has to do with respect to taking back their nationals.’
More than 1.5 million Vietnamese — the largest population outside Vietnam — live in the U.S. Many fled their native country in boats after the Vietnam War ended in 1975 and northern communist forces took control of the former South Vietnam, which the U.S. had backed.
Myers was attending an ICE-sponsored conference in the city-state on forced child labor, child sex tourism and human trafficking.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVwLEA5nPZVEleeL
FlZ2HuSIXlCQD8VP25GO1
By Gillian Wong
The Associated Press, April 1, 2008
Singapore (AP) -- Washington has started deportation proceedings against thousands of Vietnamese living illegally in the United States under a pact between the two countries, a top U.S. immigration official said Tuesday.
Julie Myers, director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, eased the fears of some Vietnamese groups about the plan, saying those who have lived in the U.S. for more than 13 years would not be deported.
The repatriation pact applies to Vietnamese who entered the U.S. illegally after the former foes normalized relations in 1995. Some critics had expressed concern the agreement could include others who entered the U.S. in the 70s and 80s.
’We’re just going to begin the process of returning individuals back to Vietnam,’ Myers said in an interview with The Associated Press during a visit to Singapore. ’The Vietnamese government has been very cooperative and helpful in this process as we’ve identified particular cases to move forward on.’
The agreement was completed in late January but took 60 days to go into effect, Myers said.
The deal took 10 years to complete because Vietnam had previously been reluctant to accept citizens back and community leaders in the U.S. said many immigrants have been living with deportation orders for years, even decades.
’Every country in the world has a responsibility by treaty to take back their nationals,’ Myers said. ’This agreement simply says that Vietnam will follow what every country in the world has to do with respect to taking back their nationals.’
More than 1.5 million Vietnamese — the largest population outside Vietnam — live in the U.S. Many fled their native country in boats after the Vietnam War ended in 1975 and northern communist forces took control of the former South Vietnam, which the U.S. had backed.
Myers was attending an ICE-sponsored conference in the city-state on forced child labor, child sex tourism and human trafficking.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVwLEA5nPZVEleeL
FlZ2HuSIXlCQD8VP25GO1
Tired of dial 1 for English baloney?-Take action!
http://capwiz.com/proenglish/issues/alert/?alertid=11196606
http://capwiz.com/proenglish/issues/alert/?alertid=11196606
