Home Page

Congressman Pete Sessions

As the second Session of the 110th Congress draws to a close, a number of important issues have yet to be addressed.  Not only has the Democrat leadership failed to pass any comprehensive energy legislation, but it has also failed to act on any substantial immigration legislation.  Illegal immigration remains a significant problem in the United States, and simply ignoring it will not reduce the number of people who are in the country illegally.  I remain supportive of the comprehensive, bipartisan SAVE Act (HR. 4088), which was introduced by Congressman Heath Shuler (D-NC).  Speaker Nancy Pelosi has refused to bring this enforcement-first bill to the floor for a vote, even though it has 155 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle.

A critical aspect of the SAVE Act is the E-Verify program (also known as Basic Pilot), which gives employers the tools they need to check the legal status of potential and current employees by matching names with social security numbers.  The program is fast and easy to use. The SAVE Act expands the E-Verify program by giving all businesses the tools they need to comply within four years of the bill’s enactment.  H.R. 4088 also protects employers who encounter problems but have put in a “good faith” effort to comply. 

Under the current authorization, E-Verify expires this fall.  Although many members were hoping to reauthorize E-Verify for ten years, the Employee Verification Amendment Act of 2008 (HR. 6633)—a five-year reauthorization—passed in the House with a vote of 407-2 on July 31, 2008.

Employment Eligibility Verification System: E-Verify
The E-Verify program was originally mandated by Congress as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.  The program is a partnership between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Social Security Administration (SSA) that provides employers the opportunity to check the legal status of potential employees.  E-Verify aims to reduce illegal employment by giving employers access to a national database that checks the information on the potential employee’s I-9 Employment Verification Form to the 425 million records held in the Social Security database.  The program is free, voluntary, and available in all fifty states.  Currently, over 69,000 employers are participating in the program.  The goals of E-Verify are to:

• Reduce unauthorized employment;
• Minimize verification-related discrimination;
• Be quick and non-burdensome to employers, and;
• Protect civil liberties and employee privacy.

Employers can register for E-Verify by visiting www.dhs.gov/E-Verify.  To participate, an employer must register online and accept the electronic Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that outlines the responsibilities of DHS, SSA and the participating employer.

In order for the program to continue, the Senate must also reauthorize E-Verify when it returns from August recess and before the current authorization expires.  There has been speculation that the Senate bill will also include other, more controversial immigration proposals.  A number of Republican Senators have written a letter to Senate Majority Lead Harry Reid (D-NV), asking that the Senate have the opportunity to vote on a clean, straightforward five-year reauthorization of the program that closely matches the House version.  A clean, stand-alone bill would help expedite the process of passing the bill into law.  Hopefully, Senator Reid will bring a clean bill to the Senate floor so that E-Verify does not expire.

Additionally, on June 8, 2008, President Bush amended Executive Order 12989 to require all federal departments and agencies to require contractors—as a condition of each future federal contract—to agree to use E-Verify.  I applaud this decision and believe it is in the best interest of all Americans.

If you have any questions about E-Verify or would like more information on the program, please feel to contact my Legislative Assistant Evan Shoop at 202.225.2231 or email her at Evan.Shoop@mail.house.gov.

Editor's Note: In that neither Pelosi or Reid have been able to provide any form of positive leadership, many consider that Pelosi and Reid have resorted to obstructionist tactics, thus are not leaders, simply obstructionists, standing in the way of progress and positive legislation!

So, Obama Wants You to Speak Spanish!

Obama Tells American Kids to Learn Spanish

I hope the American public is watching. For months, Barack Obama was a blank slate. The only thing people knew about him was that he gave a good speech and that he wanted "change." This apparently was enough to garner him the Democratic presidential nomination. (That should be a clue to most Americans NOT to vote for him.) But now, with no help from the media, the real Barack Obama is starting to appear.

Enough already!  How many languages should we be expected to speak in America?  And, how many languages should our government and other institutions, such as hospitals and schools, be required to accommodate?  The problem is not just Spanish speakers.  It's the more than 320 other tongues that are spoken in America today.

Hispanics now comprise about 35% of the population of California, many of whom do not speak English.  So, should we be required to print all government documents in both English and Spanish, teach school in Spanish, give civil service exams in Spanish, hire people who don't speak English?

But, it's not just about communication, although that's certainly important.  It's also a pocketbook issue, about the economic impact that trying to accommodate multiple languages has on our society.  Alameda County (CA) Medical Center, which "has 18 full-time interpreters or staff in addition to 19 on-call translators," is but one example of the burden that such laws can place on public institutions.

U.S. English, Inc. offers some interesting facts about the situation:

-- "Since 1980, the number of U.S. residents who are limited English proficient has more than doubled, from 10.2 million to 21.3 million." (Source: U.S. Census Bureau)

-- "In 2000, 11.9 million U.S. residents lived in linguistically isolated households, meaning that no one in the household spoke English at home or spoke English 'very well.'" (Source: U.S. Census Bureau)

-- "Immigrants who speak English 'not well' or 'not at all' have median weekly earnings approximately 57 percent of those of U.S. born workers."

-- "Poverty and the need for public benefits, such as food stamps, are more closely related to limited English proficiency than with citizenship or legal status."

-- "The Canadian Government spends $260 million annually to do government business in both of the nation's official languages."

-- "The cost of multilingual ballots and translations represented one-eighth of Los Angeles County's $16 million expense in the Nov. 2004 general election."

-- "The City of San Francisco must spend $350,000 for each language that a document is translated into under the city's bilingual government ordinance."

-- "79 percent of Americans, and 81 percent of first and second generation Americans favor making English the official language of the United States."

-- "Air Canada spends more than $9,265,000 per year conforming to Canada's bilingual requirements, requiring the airline to generate an additional $185,000,000 in additional sales to cover these costs."

Trying to accommodate all cultural groups costs big bucks.  For example, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences reported in 1997, "More than $100 million have been spent in the last 30 years to assess the value of bilingual education.  The study concluded: (1) There is no evidence that a program of native language instruction has greater benefits than any other type of education program, and (2) Teaching children to read in English first, instead of in their native tongue, has no negative consequences."  The federal government was already spending $665 million a year on bilingual programs at the time.

President Theodore Roosevelt addressed this issue in 1907 when he said, "In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin.  But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here.  Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all.  We have room for but one flag, the American flag...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

"The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey reveals that 83% of likely voters place a higher priority on encouraging immigrants to speak English as their primary language." ("English-First Still Favored By Most Americans," Wall Street Journal, June 7, 2008).

So, what is the "English Only" movement all about?  Quite simply, it's about making English the official language of the United States.  A bill to accomplish this (H.R. 997) was introduced in the House of Representatives in 2007, and U.S. English, Inc. reports that it is supported by more than 80% of all Americans and almost two-thirds of Hispanics, according to polls taken in 2006.

Thirty states already have some sort of English only law and, to my knowledge, it hasn't had any significant negative impacts in any of them.

"The English Language Unity Act of 2007 would require the United States government to conduct official business in English," while still retaining the flexibility to permit or require that other languages be used to protect public health and safety, national security, or for the needs of commerce and the criminal justice system.

...

Editor comment: For all to be fully assimilated and to reap the benefits of being a Citizen of this great nation, English must be the Official Language of the United States of America, and ONLY English!  And, if those coming here don't like it, well, they didn't have to come... so then, we say, "go back from whence you came!"

Minuteman News:
Non-Mexicans caught
trying to enter the U.S.

Dan Garcia
 

Dear Friend,

Ridiculous!

Illegal Aliens Demand ‘Rights’ and Reforms’

...

Border “Security” & Illegal Immigration

“The Crisis Our Nation Continues To Face!”

Congressman Pete Sessions Reports

As Congress remains adjourned this week for the Spring District Work Period, I would like to take this opportunity to update you on my work to address the border security and illegal immigration crisis that our nation continues to face.

As a nation founded by immigrants, the United States will continue to welcome the hard work, ingenuity, and entrepreneurial spirit of legal immigrants. In contrast, illegal immigration undermines the rule of law on which our nation was founded and poses a significant national security risk that is precipitated by porous borders. Without question, border security is national security.

This Congress, I have cosponsored the Secure America with Verification and Enforcement Act (SAVE Act, H.R. 4088), a bipartisan enforcement-first immigration reform and border security proposal introduced by Congressman Heath Shuler (D-NC). With 147 cosponsors, the SAVE Act has garnered support from Members of both parties and from regions across our nation. While the SAVE Act covers many important immigration and security issues, I would like to briefly highlight the bill’s three main objectives.

Border Security
The SAVE Act calls for strengthening border security by increasing Border Patrol Agents by 8,000 over the next four years: 6,400 agents to the Southern Border and 1,600 agents to the Northern Border. In an effort to combat drug smuggling through a network of underground tunnels, H.R. 4088 increases funding for the “Tunnel Task Force” by 50 percent. The bill also requires coordination between the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security.

Worker Verification
H.R. 4088 expands the E-Verify program by requiring all businesses to comply within four years of the bill’s enactment. As you may remember, E-Verify is a comprehensive yet efficient program that enables employers to check the legal status of potential and current employees by matching names with social security numbers. The bill also protects employers who encounter verification problems in spite of their “good faith” efforts to comply. The SAVE Act is supported by the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB).

Interior Enforcement
This legislation increases the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and Criminal Alien Program (CAP) officers, ultimately facilitating a greater number of deportations. The SAVE Act also funds additional bed space in detention facilities, which is particularly important because detainees are often released due to a lack of resources and bed space in the facilities. The bill also identifies the need to address the inadequate number of federal judges in certain areas of the country that are overwhelmed with pending immigration cases.


Petition for Action
In light of the House Democrat leadership’s failure to act on any immigration legislation this year, this month Congresswoman Thelma Drake (R-VA) filed a discharge petition for the SAVE Act in an attempt to bring the bill out of the committee of jurisdiction and send it to the House floor for consideration. A discharge petition can be a powerful tool used to move stalled legislation; however, it is rarely used because it requires the signatures of 218 Members of Congress—an absolute majority.

Filed on March 11, 2008, the SAVE Act discharge petition has garnered 181 signatures – now requiring the support of 37 more Members of Congress to force the House to consider this valuable bill.

When Congressman Shuler introduced the SAVE Act last fall, I was pleased to see some House Democrats standing up to their leadership’s amnesty agenda. Unfortunately, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has yet to bring this legislation to the floor despite the pressure of a discharge petition.

In the coming days, I will continue working with my colleagues in the House to garner additional bipartisan support for the SAVE Act, which places policy ahead of politics and has the potential to make significant progress in addressing illegal immigration and securing our nation – both on the border and across its interior.


U.S. Marshals Fugitive Apprehension
As our nation’s lead fugitive apprehension law enforcement agency, the U.S. Marshals Service plays a critical role in catching criminals on the run, including many illegal immigrant fugitives. The U.S. Marshals Regional Fugitive Apprehension Task Forces combine the resources of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to address violent crime, with a focus on fugitive felons, gang violence, and sexual predators.

This week, I submitted a request to the House Appropriations Committee, urging the Committee to allot $10 million for the U.S. Marshalls Fugitive Task Forces for the coming fiscal year. Additionally, I recommended that the next Regional Fugitive Task Force be established in Texas.

This request builds on my previous efforts to secure a Regional Fugitive Task Force for Texas and its surrounding states. Last fall, Senator John Cornyn and 14 other members of the Texas congressional delegation joined me in sending a letter to U.S. Marshals Director John Clark, highlighting the critical need for additional fugitive apprehension resources in Texas and requesting that he consider placing the next Task Force in our state.

In our letter to Director Clark, we note that our region has become the “drug corridor” for Mexican and South American criminals who use our weakened border system to their advantage. Additionally, our state is occupied by a high concentration of foreign gangs. We have been plagued with a rise in Central and South American criminals who commit crimes and attempt to flee without prosecution. A regional task force would provide the oversight, funding, and coordination needed to adequately address these pressing issues.

While the last new Regional Fugitive Task Force was assigned to Florida, I will continue working with my Texas delegation colleagues to secure resources for fugitive apprehension and crime fighting efforts in our state, including the acquisition of a U.S. Marshals Regional Fugitive Task Force.

Have a good weekend.

Sincerely,

Pete Sessions

Congressman Bill Sali, Idaho

Illegal Immigration

RE: Broken U.S. Immigration System

and Porous Borders

"While illegal immigration is an obvious violation of our laws

  it is also a serious breach of our national security."

February 1, 2008

Dear...:

Thank you for contacting me with your views regarding immigration reform. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this subject.

It is clear that our immigration system is broken and must be fixed at a fundamental level. An estimated 12 million illegal immigrants are living in the United States. While I understand the motivation of these men and women who come to our country for the opportunities it affords, we have to remain a nation of laws that provides opportunities for its own citizens first. The solution must be consistent with our laws, our interests and our commitment to both American workers and those who wish to become part of our country legally.

While illegal immigration is an obvious violation of our laws it is also a serious breach of our national security. On a number of occasions, our terrorist enemies have sought to enter or remain in our country illegally. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff recently noted, "All but one of the 9/11 hijackers who carried out the plot five years ago used American identification documents that they had obtained in fraudulent purposes, including drivers' licenses." Clearly, our safety as a nation is at risk under the current system. Illegal immigrants should be repatriated whenever their illegal status is verified by a local, state or federal law enforcement body. Period.

Let me outline some principles that define my approach to immigration reform:

First, it is absolutely essential that we strengthen our borders. As a sovereign nation, we must protect our borders and uphold our laws. Since September 11, 2001, more than six million people attempting to enter our nation illegally have been turned away at our borders. I applaud the diligence of our Border Security agents. Yet hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, have succeeded in entering America illegally. We must construct the border fence between the United States and Mexico, and also provide adequate funding for our border patrol officers as they combat illegal immigration.

Second, amnesty, immediate or long-term, actual or de facto, is not an option. "Amnesty" is rewarding people with the object of their crime - in this case, legal residence in the United States. This must never be the policy of the United States, real or unintended. The Senate bill, combined with the proposal of the Bush Administration, would impose modest fines for illegal immigrants, but would then provide them with "temporary" residence visa that could, in fact, serve as means to allow undocumented persons to stay in the U.S. indefinitely. This is not acceptable. However well-intended, it is an unwise and unworkable policy that I cannot support or accept.

Third, we must also recognize that some industries, most specifically those that are agriculture-related, have come to rely on migrant workers. I am committed to ensuring that farms and agriculture businesses have access to the legal migrant workers they need. Many of these workers arrive on legal visas but then stay illegally once the harvest season is over. Many others come with forged documentation that appears to validate their residence in our country. Farmers in Idaho should not be tasked with serving as some sort of police force to check and re-check the legal status of their workers. Instead, we need to find ways of verifying legality of residence that removes the burden of enforcement from employers who do their best but also have companies to run and crops to bring in. We must also develop a comprehensive and effective tracking system that will help us keep tabs on people who enter our country legally until they either leave or become citizens.

It is noteworthy that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agency has dramatically increased its enforcement of employment law over the past several months. Undocumented workers should never take jobs away from American workers and I will continue to support enforcement of our country's legal requirements, including their application to our factories and farms.

Fourth, it is vital to assimilate legal immigrants into our society by teaching English and sharing our American values. Anyone who swears the oath of citizenship should share the ideals and civic responsibility that make our country and its people one. Toward this end, I support public libraries and faith-based and community groups that offer English language and civics instruction to immigrants who are seeking to make America their home. I also support legislation to make English the official language.

You will also be interested in know that I have cosponsored four measures designed to address this critical issue:

oH.R. 2086, to enhance the integrity of the United States against the threat of terrorism. This measure would require such funds to be used by the Secretary of Homeland Security to reimburse a state or political subdivision for expenses incurred when law enforcement officers or employees of such state or subdivision receive training to perform border security and immigration enforcement functions.

oH.R. 2399, which would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act and title 18, United States Code, to combat the crime of alien smuggling and related activities.

oH.Con.Res.83, which expresses the sense of the Congress that State and local governments should be supported for taking actions to discourage illegal immigration and that legislation should be enacted to ease the burden on State and local governments for taking such actions.

oH.R. 3554, the New IDEA (Illegal Deduction Elimination Act), which would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify that wages paid to unauthorized aliens may not be deducted from gross income.

Last spring, I joined 96 of my colleagues in a Congressional letter asking the Speaker of the House to reject amnesty for illegal immigrants. More recently, I began 2008 by co-sponsoring the Fence by Date Certain Act (H.R. 4987), legislation requiring the fence be completed in 2009, and by leading the effort to request House Speaker Nancy Pelosi make building the fence a legislative priority. I was very pleased that a majority of the Republican House members joined me in sending this letter to the Speaker.  As a member of the Immigration Reform Caucus, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the 110th Congress to reform our current immigration system.

Please know that I will keep your views in mind as I cast my vote on the House floor. You can find more information about this letter and my work in Congress by visiting www.sali.house.gov. Thank you again for contacting me; I hope you will continue to share your views on the important issues facing our country.

                                                                                                    Sincerely,

                                                                                                    Bill Sali
                                                                                                    Member of Congress

 

 

Much of our current ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION problem

is created by employers who violate our laws

in order to secure cheap, vulnerable labor!

Dear ...,

It is clear that illegal immigration is a problem that must be fixed. In addition to the shortage of border agents, I believe that much of our current problem is created by employers who violate our laws in order to secure cheap, vulnerable labor. 

This is why I have cosponsored legislation introduced by Rep. Shuler, called the Secure America with Verification and Enforcement (SAVE) Act, HR 4088. This legislation would do a number of things to stop illegal immigration, including:

• Requiring employers to check prospective employees through the E-Verify identification system.

• Increasing border security infrastructure and authorizing 8,000 new Border Patrol agents.

• Expediting the removal of illegal aliens by expanding detention capacity and increasing the number of Federal District Court Judges.

...

In addition to co-sponsoring the SAVE Act, I also supported legislation that would provide $2.7 billion in emergency supplemental funding for border security. These funds will be used to hire additional border patrol agents, train state and local entities to assist in immigration law enforcement, and construct fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Our country has a rich history of immigration, but we have a Constitutional responsibility to ensure immigration is regulated and legal. We must pursue a responsible immigration policy that will allow us to benefit from the legal influx of new and vibrant people, while ensuring that we do not harm U.S. citizens in the process.

Again, I want to hear from you on the issue of illegal immigration. ...

Sincerely,

Pete Visclosky 
Member of Congress

Do you know the story of the Incredible Disappearing Border Fence? It's an object lesson in gesture politics and homeland insecurity. It's a tale of hollow rhetoric, meaningless legislation and bipartisan betrayal. And in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses, it's a helpful learning tool as you assess the promises of immigration enforcement converts now running for president.

Last fall, Democrats and Republicans in Washington responded to continued public outrage over border chaos by passing the "Secure Fence Act." Did you question the timing? You should have. It's no coincidence they finally got off their duffs to respond just before the 2006 midterm elections. Lawmakers vowed grandiosely to keep America safe. The law specifically called for "at least 2 layers of reinforced fencing, the installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras and sensors" at five specific stretches of border totaling approximately 700 miles.

GOP leaders patted themselves on the back for their toughness. President Bush made a huge to-do in signing the bill into law. Never mind the lack of funding for the fence and the failure to address many other immediate reforms that could have been adopted immediately to strengthen immigration enforcement, close deportation loopholes and provide systemic relief at the border without the need for a single brick or bulldozer.

On the very day the bill was signed, open-borders politicians were already moving to water it down. Texas Republican Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn pushed for "flexibility to choose other options instead of fencing, if needed." Six months after passage of the Secure Fence Act -- now interpreted by Washington as the Flexible Non-Fence Act or, as I call it, the FINO (Fence in Name Only) Act -- 700 miles shrunk to "somewhere in the ballpark" of 370 miles. A 14-mile fence-building project in San Diego was stalled for years by environmental legal challenges and budget shortfalls. The first deadline -- a May 30, 2007 requirement for installation of an "interlocking surveillance camera system" along the border in California and Arizona -- passed unmet. GOP Rep. Duncan Hunter, one of the few Republican presidential candidates to walk the talk on border security, blasted the Bush administration for suffering from "a case of 'the slows' on border enforcement."

More than a year after the law's passage, the citizen watchdog group Grassfire reports that just five miles of double-layer fencing has been built in the first 12 months of implementation of the act. Five lousy miles. The Government Accountability Office claims 70 miles were erected -- but most of that fencing failed to meet the specifications of the law.

Is Congress up in arms? Will there be accountability? Don't make me snort. Instead of demanding that the law be enforced, the pols are sabotaging the law. As part of the omnibus spending package passed this week, House Democrats incorporated Senate Republicans' provisions to remove the two-layer fencing requirements and the specific target list of fencing locations.

GOP Rep. Peter T. King, who sponsored the Secure Fence Act, told the Washington Times: "This is either a blatant oversight or a deliberate attempt to disregard the border security of our country. As it's currently written, the omnibus language guts the Secure Fence Act almost entirely. Quite simply, it is unacceptable."

But so totally, totally predictable.

GOP Majority Leader John Boehner tried to blame the House Democrat majority: "The fact that this was buried in a bloated, 3,500-page omnibus speaks volumes about the Democrats' unserious approach on border security and illegal immigration," he said. "Gutting the Secure Fence Act will make our borders less secure, but it's consistent with the pattern of behavior we've seen all year from this majority." But it's border state Republicans who've been gunning to undermine the law while the ink was still fresh.

To add insult to injury and homeland insecurity upon homeland insecurity, Congress failed to adopt a ban on federal aid to sanctuary cities that prevent government employees and law enforcement officers from asking about immigration status; voted to stall implementation of stricter ID standards at border crossings; and miraculously found enough money to provide $10 million in "emergency" funding for attorneys of illegal aliens.

Next time you hear a leading presidential candidate try to woo you with his nine-point immigration enforcement plan or his secure ID plan or his Secure Borders platform, point to the Incredible Disappearing Border Fence. Poof! That is what happens to election-season homeland security promises. Why would theirs be any different?

-------

Michelle Malkin is author of "Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild."

COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

A new study by the Center for Immigration Studies, based on the latest Census Bureau data, shows the number of immigrants in America, both legal and illegal, has swelled to a record 38 million this year – making one of every eight U.S. residents an immigrant.

The new numbers indicate the highest level in more than eight decades – with a third of those being illegal aliens.

One third of immigrants are on some form of welfare, costing states nearly $20 billion a year, the study claimed, adding that efforts to legalize the spiraling number of illegal aliens will only increase the amount of uneducated, uninsured legal immigrants burdening America’s welfare rolls.

Since 2000, more than 10 million immigrants have entered the U.S., more than half of them illegally, according to the CIS. With no change in U.S. immigration policy, another 15 million immigrants will likely arrive in the next 10 years.

“The last seven years have been the highest period of immigration in American History,” says the report’s lead author, Dr. Steven A. Camarota. “The roughly 1.5 million immigrants arriving each year have a very significant effect on American life.”

Mark Krikorian, executive director of the CIS, tells Newsmax that the deleterious effects of continued immigration, include “an increasing burden on taxpayers to subsidize a 19th century workforce imported into a 21st century society; further displacement and wage reductions for the low-skilled and teen-age American workers who are the chief competitors of illegal immigrants; and continued slowing of technological innovation in the fields where immigrants are concentrated due to the artificial flooding of the low-skilled labor market and consequent reduction of incentives for businesses to mechanize and use labor more efficiently.”

The impact is being felt most pointedly in a handful of states. California, Florida, Texas, New Jersey and Arizona are bearing the brunt of immigration increases both legal and illegal, the CIS study found. California’s 10 million immigrants alone make up 27 percent of the nation’s total immigrant population.

“Some 75 percent of immigrants settle in ten states,” Krikorian tells Newsmax. “But Americans in other states are not immune to the effects of mass immigration. The consequences for security, sovereignty, assimilation, and government spending are national problems. In other words, every state is now a border state, every town a border town.”

A third of all U.S. immigrants come from Mexico, making it the top country of origin followed by China, India, the Philippines and Vietnam. Almost 60 percent of the Illegal aliens entering the U.S. come from Mexico.

The numbers portend a major shift in American demographics. More than 72 percent of native U.S. residents are white, 13 percent are black, 10 percent are Hispanic and 2 percent are Asian. But among the burgeoning immigrant population, over 48 percent are Hispanic, 23 percent are Asian, 21 percent are white and 7 percent are black.

Camarota, research director at the CIS, a Washington think tank that favors immigration restrictions along with improved services for legal immigrants, says immigrants now make up one in every five school-age children in America. Immigration accounts for all of the increases in public school enrollment nationwide over the past 20 years, the CIS reports.

In places such as Los Angeles County and New York City, the children of immigrant fathers make up nearly 60 percent of the school-age population.

On top of that, a quarter of these immigrant children live in poverty and a third lack health insurance, something Camarota says “creates enormous challenges for the nation’s schools, healthcare system and physical infrastructure.”

In fact, the study found that 17 percent of immigrants and their children live below the poverty line – with income of less than $20,000 per year for a family of four - some 50 percent higher than the poverty rate for native U.S. residents.

Many immigrants do ultimately find a better life here. But the study reveals that even those who have been in the U.S. for more than two decades are more likely than native residents to live in poverty, lack health insurance and use the welfare system.

Camarota points out that the numbers indicate the reason for the high rates of poverty and welfare among immigrants is a lack of education, “not their legal status or unwillingness to work.”

More than 31 percent of adult immigrants have not completed high school, compared to just 8 percent of U.S. natives. Since 2000, immigrants have boosted the overall number of workers who lack a high school diploma to 14 percent.

Camarota’s findings on the quality of life for uneducated immigrants shows that attempts at so-called amnesty for the current population of 12 million illegal aliens would prove costly and provide little benefit.

“Immigrants who have legal status, but little education, generally have low incomes and make heavy use of welfare programs,” the CIS report states. “If we decide to legalize illegal immigrants, we should at least understand that it will not result in dramatically lower welfare use or poverty.

“Those who advocate such a policy need to acknowledge this problem and not argue that legalization will save taxpayers money or result in a vast improvement in the income of illegal aliens,” the report continues. “Legalized illegals will still be overwhelmingly uneducated and this fact has enormous implications for their income, welfare use, health insurance coverage, and the effect on American taxpayers.”

Of the estimated 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S., nearly 7 million have jobs. Illegal immigrants earn an average of $46,000 per household annually compared with $67,000 for native families, the CIS study shows.

“A central question for immigration policy is whether we should allow in so many people with little education — increasing job competition for the poorest American workers and the population needing government assistance,” says Camarota. “Setting aside the lower socio economic status of immigrants, no nation has ever attempted to incorporate nearly 38 million newcomers into its society.”

America has, of course, traditionally been a nation of immigrants. But the CIS report points out that the immigrant population now accounts for a large share of the increase in the overall U.S. population. During the first decade of the last century, the 3.2 million additional immigrants accounted for just 20 percent of the total increase in the U.S. population. The 6.8 million immigrant increase in the last seven years equals 34 percent of U.S. population’s rise in that same period.

“Whatever one thinks of contemporary immigration, it is critically important to understand that its effect on America represents a choice,” Camarota says. “Selection criteria can be altered, as can the total number of people allowed into the country legally. With illegal aliens accounting for nearly one in three immigrants, their effect on the nation by themselves is now very large.”

True to the CIS charter, Krikorian stresses that there “ is no excuse whatever for intolerant attitudes toward legal immigrants -- we admitted them according to the rules established by our elected representatives, and we must, and will, continue to embrace them as Americans in training.

“Even illegal immigrants must be treated humanely as they are detained and returned to their homes,” Krikorian says. “But future legal immigration is a different question -- mass immigration is simply not compatible with the goals of a modern society and should be minimized to the extent possible.”

© 2007 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

It is this reporter's opinion that when it comes to our shameful immigration situation, Mexican President Felipe Calderon and the outgoing president, Vicente Fox, are one and the same.

Both are outspoken and critical of U.S. immigration law enforcement. Both support amnesty for all illegals from Mexico. Both continue to use their consulates in the United States and activists — La Raza, MEChA, etc. to meddle in our affairs.

The recent case of a Mexican rapist-murderer now on death row in Texas illustrates the problem. His name is José E. Medellín. He was convicted and sentenced to death after he confessed in 1993 to the savage rape and murder of two teenage girls in Houston.

At this late date, his legal representation again resorts to the courts claiming that under the Vienna Convention aliens accused of crimes in a foreign country are required to request the assistance of consular officials from their country.

Medellín never requested such assistance until after all of his appeals were denied. Incredibly the Bush administration knuckled under to the World Court, formally known as the International Court of Justice, and ordered the Texas courts to give Medellín another hearing.

In this case, we find the Bush administration in opposition to our government and the courts of his own state of Texas.

Let’s take a look at a glaring contrast between our own lack of enforcement of illegal immigration and Mexico’s very strict immigration laws enforced by every police agency in the country. Two excellent sources on the subject are American citizen Allan Wall, who resides in Mexico with a permit issued by the Mexican government, and John W. Slagle, a U.S. Navy aviation veteran and Border Patrol engineer with service spanning 30 years.

Wall and Slagle cite Article 33 of the Mexican Constitution that specifically authorizes immediate expulsion of any foreigner whose presence the Mexican government deems objectionable.

Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics.” When foreigners are deemed detrimental to economic or national interests, when they have broken Mexican laws, they are jailed or deported.

Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. Mexicans who help illegals enter the country are themselves considered criminals. A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to five years in prison. And no foreigner may engage in political affairs, in any manner.

If a foreigner wishes to reside in Mexico, he or she must have a guaranteed job or be financially independent, and must prove an income from abroad consisting of pensions or investments four hundred times the minimum wage in Mexico City (monthly). This amount represents approximately $1,500 in U.S. dollars per month.

Mexico welcomes only foreigners who are “useful to Mexican society.” Foreigners may not, in any manner, involve themselves in the political affairs of the country. In May of 2002, 18 Americans were expelled for participating in a May Day march. An additional five persons were booted out for taking part in a demonstration.

Speaking of meddling by the Mexican government and its activists representatives, in 2006 three Americans (two lawyers and an activist) working on a case involving Cardinal Roger Mahoney and the archbishop of Mexico, traveled to Mexico to publicize a lawsuit being brought in Los Angeles.

After holding a news conference, the three were expelled from Mexico and banned from returning for five years.

The glaring contrast between our own haphazard “look the other way” on the illegal alien invasion, compared to Mexico’s strict immigration laws is scandalous and should prove a powerful answer to those in Washington who consider our own U.S. laws unenforceable.

If you have any doubts about this issue, read Article 33 of the Mexican Constitution. It specifically authorizes immediate expulsion of any foreigner whose presence the Mexican government deems objectionable, without previous legal action. We need to learn from their example.

Federal Judge Blocks Homeland Security prosecution of 8 million unmatched Social Security numbers...

The Department of Homeland Security planned to send out 140,000 letters to companies that employed more than 8 million people whose Social Security Numbers did not match the names on file with the Social Security Administration.  The Department of Homeland Security had warned companies they could face criminal and civil sanctions if they did not clear up the discrepancies within 90 days.

The Social Security Administration planned to mail the "no-match" letters in September.  However, labor and immigrant rights groups sued to prevent the government from cracking down on them.

U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer issued a preliminary injunction yesterday that blocked the Department of Homeland Security from starting the program to punish companies based on discrepancies between worker's names and Social Security numbers.  "Altering the status quo would subject employers to greater compliance costs and employees to an increased risk of termination," the judge wrote.

What about the fraud, taxpayer waste and security risks that the overwhelming majority of these 8 million Social Security mismatches pose to the rights, public safety and pocketbooks of the other 280 million law abiding American citizens?

The judge's ruling is NOT final.  He will rule within the next few months on whether to make the injunction permanent.

...

David Caton
Executive Director
FFA

“No Match” Letters and E-VERIFY

Taking steps to ensure workplace enforcement

This month in Washington, I spearheaded a letter to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Michael Chertoff in support of his efforts to combat illegal immigration through workplace enforcement.  As you may know, DHS issued a policy, effective September 14, 2007, to notify employers of steps to take should they encounter inconsistencies in the social security numbers of their employees.

Each year, the Social Security Administration (SSA) sends “No Match” letters when the social security numbers of employees, as reported in tax forms to the SSA, do not match the identity of the actual employee.  Once notified, employers are expected to address these issues—some of which are simply clerical errors.  However, until now, employers had little direction on the proper steps to take to correct these discrepancies.  Of the 250 million wage reports received by the SSA, as many as 4 percent show no matches.  Not surprisingly, many of the employees with “No Match” social security numbers are undocumented workers.

DHS’s “No Match” letters were to be sent in conjunction with the SSA’s letters, notifying employers of the steps they can take upon receipt of these letters so that they would not be in violation of “safe harbor” laws that prohibit employers from knowledgeably employing illegal aliens.  This letter gives employers the tools they need to verify the status of their workers and aids them in workplace enforcement.  I believe this is an important tool in fighting illegal immigration.

Unfortunately, on August 31^st U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney issued a temporary restraining order on the DHS’s “No Match” policy.  Her ruling puts a hold on these important letters and prohibits them from being sent to employers.  I am extremely disappointed by this judge’s decision because I believe that the “No Match” letters provide crucial information to employers and equip them to properly handle possible instances of illegal employment.  

Employment Eligibility Verification System: E-VERIFY

The Employment Eligibility Verification System, known as E-VERIFY, is another program DHS is trying to implement.  As you know, the majority of illegal immigrants come to the United States for employment.  Consequently, if there is no longer a job magnet, there will be less incentive for people to enter the country illegally.  E-VERIFY aims to reduce illegal employment by giving employers access to a national database that checks the information on the potential employee’s I-9 Employment Verification Form to the 425 million records held in the Social Security database.  Under the current pilot program, over 19,000 employers can use this resource, which is free to use and is available in all states.   

Proof of Health Insurance and Legal Status: A Democrat Double Standard    

Recently, Democratic lawmakers have introduced proposals for universal health care that would require proof of insurance when applying for a job.  However, these same Democrats adamantly oppose requiring job applicants to prove that they are in the United States legally. Under this proposed policy, United States citizens can be turned down for jobs because they do not have health insurance, but illegal immigrants may not be questioned about their legal status. 

It also raises the question—will illegal immigrants have to prove they have health insurance?  And if so, how will they get it and who will provide it?  Clearly, the government should not be providing health insurance to people who are illegal immigrants.  The logical flaws in these polices are endless and detrimental to the fight against illegal immigration.  I will continue to follow this health care debate as it pertains to illegal immigration and workplace enforcement, keeping your viewpoints in mind.

...

Editor's note:

"Of the 250 million wage reports received by the SSA, as many as 4 percent show no matches.  Not surprisingly, many of the employees with “No Match” social security numbers are undocumented workers."  Due to the fact that many in Congress readily admit that up to 10,000,000 ILLEGAL ALIENS are ILLEGALLY employed in this country... as you can see,

it does compute: 250,000,000 X 4% = 10,000,000, therefore, why does our Congress allow one "know-it-all" to interfere with the Legislative process and the enforcement of our laws, when these facts are so evident?!  Do special interest groups, the ILLEGAL ALIENS and Mexico have that much influence?!  Will individual judges dictate, one at a time, what Legislation Congress may enact and have enforced?!  We say, "NO!"  We know that you say, "NO," too!  But, you must let Bush and Congress hear you LOUD and CLEAR!

Call and/or Email President Bush:  Contact President Bush

Call and/or Email your Senators:  Contract your Senators

Call and/or Email your Representatives: Contact your Representatives

Sanctuary Cities

Mike Rogers
Member of Congress

I write to provide you with an update on my work to protect taxpayers and prevent illegal immigrants from receiving free health care from the federal government, which you pay for.  I appreciate the opportunity to contact you on this matter.

Once again, some in Washington are trying to roll back our already too lax rules on immigration.  In the past two days Democrats have passed two separate bills designed to give illegal immigrants government funded healthcare and other aid.

Illegal immigrants should not be collecting American taxpayer-funded health care or employment and housing assistance yet, that is exactly what will happen according to two bills pushed through the House of Representatives by Democrat leadership this week.  In fact, on one measure the Democrat leadership, in an unprecedented and shameful abuse of power, changed the outcome of a vote and made the support for illegal immigrants possible.

What makes this even more outrageous is that on Wednesday the House of Representatives passed a bill through the House of Representatives designed to provide taxpayer-funded Medicaid and children's health benefits to every single illegal alien in the United States.

Hidden deep in legislation intended to continue and expand a popular program for poor children is a provision that eliminates the requirement that all Medicaid recipients provide proof of citizenship.  The bill also eliminates the five-year waiting period currently required for legal immigrants to participate in Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance programs run by each state.

Under the bill, non-U.S. citizens, including illegal aliens, could immediately receive health care benefits.  Immigrants who cross our borders illegally should not be rewarded with free health care.  Nor should every working American watch their hard-earned tax dollars go toward encouraging non-U.S. citizens who have not paid into Medicaid to pick up free health care.

... Congress has no business diverting precious resources to provide for people who are in our country illegally.  ...

 Vote Manipulated

to Give Benefits to Illegal Aliens

(Democrat "leadership," allowed members to change their vote!)

Congressman Tom Price
Tuesday, August 07, 2007

As you may have seen in the media, unprecedented events took place on the floor of the House of Representatives this past Thursday night.  During consideration of the agriculture spending bill, Republicans offered a motion to ensure that taxpayer-funded benefits in the legislation did not go to illegal aliens. When the vote was completed, and the gavel fell, the motion had passed by a slim margin of 215-213.  However, this outcome was unacceptable to Democrat leadership, and they allowed members to change their vote to reverse the outcome -- after the vote was finished. Though the motion was successful, the record was changed to show that it had failed by a vote of 212-216.

This troubling episode displays the lengths that some in Washington will go to give benefits to illegal aliens.  Americans know that we cannot expect the flow of illegal immigrants to slow if we continually provide new incentives to break our laws.

The actions taken on Thursday were a disservice to representative government and the American people. Changing the outcome of a vote to give benefits to illegal aliens is not only unacceptable, it is wrong.

 How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico               (in 1954, 1.3 million ILLEGAL ALIENS returned to their homelands,       and, during the Depression, President Hoover did likewise!                     Yes, it can be done... that is if you, Mr. President, want it to happen!)

Fifty-three years ago, when newly elected Dwight Eisenhower moved into the White House, America's southern frontier was as porous as a spaghetti sieve. As many as 3 million illegal migrants had walked and waded northward over a period of several years for jobs in California, Arizona, Texas, and points beyond.

President Eisenhower cut off this illegal traffic. He did it quickly and decisively with only 1,075 United States Border Patrol agents - less than one-tenth of today's force. The operation is still highly praised among veterans of the Border Patrol.

Although there is little to no record of this operation in Ike's official papers, one piece of historic evidence indicates how he felt. In 1951, Ike wrote a letter to Sen. William Fulbright (D) of Arkansas. The senator had just proposed that a special commission be created by Congress to examine unethical conduct by government officials who accepted gifts and favors in exchange for special treatment of private individuals.

General Eisenhower, who was gearing up for his run for the presidency, said "Amen" to Senator Fulbright's proposal. He then quoted a report in The New York Times, highlighting one paragraph that said: "The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican 'wetbacks' to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government."

Years later, the late Herbert Brownell Jr., Eisenhower's first attorney general, said in an interview with this writer that the president had a sense of urgency about illegal immigration when he took office.

America "was faced with a breakdown in law enforcement on a very large scale," Mr. Brownell said. "When I say large scale, I mean hundreds of thousands were coming in from Mexico [every year] without restraint."

Although an on-and-off guest-worker program for Mexicans was operating at the time, farmers and ranchers in the Southwest had become dependent on an additional low-cost, docile, illegal labor force of up to 3 million, mostly Mexican, laborers.

According to the Handbook of Texas Online, published by the University of Texas at Austin and the Texas State Historical Association, this illegal workforce had a severe impact on the wages of ordinary working Americans. The Handbook Online reports that a study by the President's Commission on Migratory Labor in Texas in 1950 found that cotton growers in the Rio Grande Valley, where most illegal aliens in Texas worked, paid wages that were "approximately half" the farm wages paid elsewhere in the state.

Profits from illegal labor led to the kind of corruption that apparently worried Eisenhower. Joseph White, a retired 21-year veteran of the Border Patrol, says that in the early 1950s, some senior US officials overseeing immigration enforcement "had friends among the ranchers," and agents "did not dare" arrest their illegal workers.

Walt Edwards, who joined the Border Patrol in 1951, tells a similar story. He says: "When we caught illegal aliens on farms and ranches, the farmer or rancher would often call and complain [to officials in El Paso]. And depending on how politically connected they were, there would be political intervention. That is how we got into this mess we are in now."

Bill Chambers, who worked for a combined 33 years for the Border Patrol and the then-called US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), says politically powerful people are still fueling the flow of illegals.

During the 1950s, however, this "Good Old Boy" system changed under Eisenhower - if only for about 10 years.

In 1954, Ike appointed retired Gen. Joseph "Jumpin' Joe" Swing, a former West Point classmate and veteran of the 101st Airborne, as the new INS commissioner.

Influential politicians, including Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D) of Texas and Sen. Pat McCarran (D) of Nevada, favored open borders, and were dead set against strong border enforcement, Brownell said. But General Swing's close connections to the president shielded him - and the Border Patrol - from meddling by powerful political and corporate interests.

One of Swing's first decisive acts was to transfer certain entrenched immigration officials out of the border area to other regions of the country where their political connections with people such as Senator Johnson would have no effect.

Then on June 17, 1954, what was called "Operation Wetback" began. Because political resistance was lower in California and Arizona, the roundup of aliens began there. Some 750 agents swept northward through agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 aliens were caught in the two states. Another 488,000, fearing arrest, had fled the country.

By mid-July, the crackdown extended northward into Utah, Nevada, and Idaho, and eastward to Texas.

By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and an estimated 500,000 to 700,000 illegals had left the Lone Star State voluntarily.

Unlike today, Mexicans caught in the roundup were not simply released at the border, where they could easily reenter the US. To discourage their return, Swing arranged for buses and trains to take many aliens deep within Mexico before being set free.

Tens of thousands more were put aboard two hired ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried the aliens from Port Isabel, Texas, to Vera Cruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles south.

The sea voyage was "a rough trip, and they did not like it," says Don Coppock, who worked his way up from Border Patrolman in 1941 to eventually head the Border Patrol from 1960 to 1973.

Mr. Coppock says he "cannot understand why [President] Bush let [today's] problem get away from him as it has. I guess it was his compassionate conservatism, and trying to please [Mexican President] Vincente Fox."

There are now said to be 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the US. Of the Mexicans who live here, an estimated 85 percent are here illegally.

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

Border Patrol vets offer tips on curbing illegal immigration

One day in 1954, Border Patrol agent Walt Edwards picked up a newspaper in Big Spring, Texas, and saw some startling news. The government was launching an all-out drive to oust illegal aliens from the United States.

The orders came straight from the top, where the new president, Dwight Eisenhower, had put a former West Point classmate, Gen. Joseph Swing, in charge of immigration enforcement.

General Swing's fast-moving campaign soon secured America's borders - an accomplishment no other president has since equaled. Illegal migration had dropped 95 percent by the late 1950s.

Several retired Border Patrol agents who took part in the 1950s effort, including Mr. Edwards, say much of what Swing did could be repeated today.

"Some say we cannot send 12 million illegals now in the United States back where they came from. Of course we can!" Edwards says.

Donald Coppock, who headed the Patrol from 1960 to 1973, says that if Swing and Ike were still running immigration enforcement, "they'd be on top of this in a minute."

William Chambers, another '50s veteran, agrees. "They could do a pretty good job" sealing the border.

Edwards says: "When we start enforcing the law, these various businesses are, on their own, going to replace their [illegal] workforce with a legal workforce."

While Congress debates building a fence on the border, these veterans say other actions should have higher priority.

1. End the current practice of taking captured Mexican aliens to the border and releasing them. Instead, deport them deep into Mexico, where return to the US would be more costly.

2. Crack down hard on employers who hire illegals. Without jobs, the aliens won't come.

3. End "catch and release" for non-Mexican aliens. It is common for illegal migrants not from Mexico to be set free after their arrest if they promise to appear later before a judge. Few show up.

The Patrol veterans say enforcement could also be aided by a legalized guest-worker program that permits Mexicans to register in their country for temporary jobs in the US. Eisenhower's team ran such a program. It permitted up to 400,000 Mexicans a year to enter the US for various agriculture jobs that lasted for 12 to 52 weeks.

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

The Christian Science Monitor
from the July 06, 2006 edition

John Dillin is former managing editor of the Monitor

June 19, 2007

Dear... :

Over the past few weeks, many constituents have called or e-mailed me to share their concerns regarding the Senate immigration bill.  I do not support amnesty or creating a path towards citizenship for illegal aliens which is an element contained in this bill.  The issue of illegal immigration demands a careful, law-respecting solution and wholesale amnesty is not a solution at all.

From what I've seen so far, this bill fails to respect the millions of people who worked within the system and emigrated legally.  The people who have done it right are not given the respect they've earned by following the rules and our nation's laws.  Our first principle s on immigration reform should be to secure the borders, uphold American laws and protect our national security.  Rest assured I will strongly oppose this current Senate bill or any bill granting amnesty to people who entered our country illegally.  I have included an article * (below) that shows one of the many shortcomings of the bill.

Please contact me on any issues of concern you may have . You may be interested in viewing my website at www.foxx.house.gov to learn about constituent services, legislative updates and my work in Congress. I hope you will visit the website and let me know what you think about it.

Sincerely,

Virginia Foxx

Member of Congress

*Amnesty Plus
The immigration doesn’t just waive penalties but rewards crime.

UNDER GUTIERREZ/FLAKE:
 
 
• Every illegal alien who could produce marginally plausible “evidence” that he/she had been illegally present in the United States since June 1, 2006, would get amnesty and be put on the path to US citizenship.
   
• In exchange for the highest honor our country has to bestow, the illegal alien would have to pay $2,000, pass a criminal record check, pay at least some of any income taxes he/she had chosen not to pay while working illegally, and learn some English. The already overburdened and error-prone U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) would be responsible for ensuring that applicants meet these criteria and for handing out temporary visas and work permits to 2-plus million illegal aliens.
   
• After the no-longer‐illegal aliens had been in temporary status for six years, USCIS would issue green cards to those who had learned passable English and, in the case of some heads of household, had traveled outside the United States (to any other country, not necessarily their own) for a short time. Single heads of household, children, the elderly, business owners, and those in the military would be exempt from the travel requirement. (Any criminals and terrorists whose fingerprints were not yet on file with the FBI would then have official documents in whateve name they chose to provide USCIS during the first phase of the amnesty.)
   
• Lest any illegals be left out of the general amnesty, the bill includes two others for which they could qualify: the AgJOBS amnesty for those claiming to have performed agricultural work in the United States (the fraud rate for a similar amnesty in 1986 is estimated at 70% and resulted in at least one of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers getting a green card, which he used to fly to Afghanistan for terrorist training) and the DREAM Act amnesty for those who received a US taxpayer-funded high school diploma or an equivalent.
   
• To ensure a constant flow of cheap labor into the United States, the bill would create a worker importation program for an additional 400,000 foreign “guest” workers each year, all of whom would be given the choice to stay permanently, as long as they weren’t caught committing a crime or terrorist act before they applied.  DHS would have to certify that it is capable of verifying workers’ legal status before this new program could take effect.

"The prosecution of my client sends a wrong message to criminal illegal immigrants who are being tempted to cross our borders with impunity," he said. ...

TOM FEENEY
Member of Congress
24th District, Florida

Telephone Greeting, U.S.A.

How Do You Say "English Only!" in Spanish?

By John Lillpop

www.lucianne.com

Apparently not all Americans share our president's adoration for illegal aliens and their influence on American language and culture.

That is certainly the case in Farmers Branch, Texas, a suburb of Dallas where town leaders unanimously approved tough new anti-immigration measures, including one making English the official language.

Farmers Branch city council members also approved (unanimously) fines for landlords and businesses that deal with illegal immigrants, and decided to allow local authorities to screen suspects in police custody to see whether they are in the country illegally.

The good people of Farmers Branch were joined by great Americans in Pahrump, Nevada, where the town board declared English the official language, restricted the display of foreign flags, and denied town benefits to illegal immigrants.

The town board vote (3-2 in favor) drew a standing ovation and cheers from many of the 250 people at the meeting.

Patriots in Texas and Nevada were shown the way by super patriots in Arizona who passed Proposition 103 on November 7 to make English the official language of that great state.

Proposition 103 should help to end bilingual foolishness and the bitter divisiveness resulting from yet another failed liberal scheme that has proven to be contrary to the greater good.

Although all of these actions are great news and certainly steps in the right direction, all lack the ultimate punch needed to stamp out the pollution of American language. Namely, ending the nonsensical presentation of ballots and other government documents in multiple languages.

After all, voting is supposed to be the prerogative of citizens only. Right?

And those who become citizens by virtue of naturalization are supposed to have passed a citizenship test to demonstrate English proficiency. Right?

All of the above being true, why in Hades is a single penny of taxpayer money being wasted on other-than-English voting materials? You respond by saying it is required by federal law.

Well, let's change the stupid federal law, and all implementing state and local laws as well!

Sound too harsh and anti-immigrant, perhaps even a tad racist? Well, consider this: Migrants have the greatest chance of realizing the "American Dream" if they learn the American language-that would be English-and assimilate into American culture.

Presenting voting materials and other public documents in a foreign language is counter-productive and actually harmful to newcomers because it enables many to delay or completely avoid assimilation. Coddling newcomers is not in their overall best interests, notwithstanding liberal pap to the contrary.

Some of my more rigid colleagues actually believe that "English Only" should be a federal statute with strict enforcement. Some even believe that speaking Spanish in public should be a federal crime, akin in severity to running a red stop light.

I disagree most vehemently. In my view, first-offense public Spanish speakers should be forced to listen to President Bush until it becomes clear that even Pidgin English is preferable to speaking hispanically.

Incidentally, President Bush reportedly reacted to the "English Only" wave sweeping America by saying: "No Es Buenos!"

That pretty much says it all with regard to our president and his acute concern for American language!

John Lillpop is a recovering liberal, 'clean and sober' since 1992 when last he voted for a Democrat. Pray for John: He lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, where people like Nancy Pelosi are considered reasonable! Writing is his passion. He loves creating lively copy with irony and humor!

Want a Scary Read? 

Try this Report on Border Security,

Gaping Holes are Allowing Terrorists Unimpeded Entry,

"A Line in the Sand"

Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border

Gaping Holes are Allowing Terrorists Unimpeded Entry

By Douglas MacKinnon

Houston Chronicle

October 27, 2006

While much of the national mainstream media continue to focus on "he said, she said" political stories, an exponentially more serious subject is escaping their notice. It's a story that... involves the national security of the United States.

U.S. Rep. Michael T. McCaul, R-Austin, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security - Subcommittee on Investigations, has released a report titled "Line in the Sand: Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border." If you want to experience real terror, then skip the latest horror movie playing at your local cineplex and read this report.

Contrary to what some Republicans, Democrats or the press may state or believe, the national security of our country is not a partisan issue. If we don't work together as Americans to defeat terrorism and close the gaping holes at our borders, then we will all bear some responsibility should the worst happen and tens of thousands of our fellow citizens are killed in a terrorist attack. This alarming report underscores that threat and possibility.

Aside from confirming that heavily armed Mexican drug cartels with military-grade ordnance control all to the south of our borders and have direct control over every single illegal person, weapon or narcotic that enters our nation, the report also affirms something much more sinister: Terrorists from Islamic organizations have and continue to enter our country through our southern flank.

Among its numerous sobering details of infiltration of known terrorists into our nation, are these findings: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement investigations have revealed that aliens were smuggled from the Middle East to staging areas in Central and South America, before being smuggled illegally into the United States. That members of Hezbollah have already entered the United States across the Southwest border.

Let's pause a moment here to take in that little newsflash. Members of Hezbollah have already infiltrated the United States. And finally, the report stresses that U.S. military and intelligence officials believe that Venezuela is emerging as a potential hub of terrorism in the Western Hemisphere.

While Venezuelan strongman and madman Hugo Chavez just embarrassingly lost his bid to buy his way onto the United Nations Security Council, this report validates and reiterates that not only is Chavez not going away, but that he intends to franchise his revolution and Islamic terrorism throughout the Western Hemisphere with the direct goal of punishing the United States of America.

The report further states that Venezuela is providing support - including identity documents - that could prove useful to radical Islamic groups. The Chavez government has issued thousands of cedulas - the equivalent of U.S. Social Security cards - to a number of suspect nations, including Middle Eastern nations - that host foreign terrorist organizations.

A vivid example of this is that several Pakistani nationals were apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border with fraudulent Venezuelan documents. Whether the Chavez government directly gave the Pakistanis the documents or they obtained them elsewhere is still not certain. What is not a question, is that they had them and were trying to enter the United States illegally. To those who pay attention, Hugo Chavez makes no secret of his intentions. As he said on Al Jazeera television, "I am on the offensive because attack is the best form of defense. We are waging an offensive battle."

The report went on to stress that in response to the Chavez threat and others, a number of U.S. officials are alarmed that terrorism is seen chiefly as a Middle East problem and that the U.S. must look south to protect itself. As an aside, two pipe bombs were just found at the U.S. Embassy in Caracas. These were apparently designed to spread the virtues of Hezbollah by pamphlet upon explosion.

While the report is chilling in its warning, there is still debate on how best to respond to its findings. Even among local members of Congress. U.S. Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston, seems to be of the mind-set that we need to respond directly and forcefully to these incursions along our border. While Rep. McCaul, the author of the report, also wants the U.S. and Mexican governments to take immediate action, he seems to want to dot every "i" and cross every "t," before making categorical charges.

Which man is right in his response to this frightening report? Both, if they get more of their fellow politicians and government officials to pay attention to this verifiable and growing danger.

It's the silly season in terms of the midterm election, but national security belongs to no party. Al-Qaida and its imitators dream about ways to infiltrate our nation. This report says they may have found the door. As Americans, we need to work together to seal it, or suffer the consequences.

MacKinnon was press secretary to former Sen. Bob Dole. He is also a former White House and Pentagon official...

To read and view the complete report, "A Line in the Sand," simply click on this .pdf file, A Line in the Sand.pdf

To Download Adobe Reader for .pdf files, FREE, click on:           To return to this page, click "Back" on the tool bar.

An Open Letter to the President and Congress

Please read the following article, and then "explain" this apparent hypocrisy and deception by Congress and the President?  Or, should we just chalk this up to "politics as usual" at election time and the questionable ethics of our Congress?!  Do you realize how sad it is that no one, any longer, trusts anyone in Congress, or even our President!  In fact, when we go to the polls we no longer have a choice when it comes to integrity -- there doesn't seem to be any.  And, if this article is even close to being true, this is the ultimate in deception and the worst of insults to the citizens of this nation!  A very sad commentary -- what choice do we have in that what appears to be sham, deceptive legislation was passed by both the House and Senate and signed by the President?! 

In border fence’s path, legislative roadblocks

Loopholes mean fence may never be built, at least not as advertised