Illegals Cost You Money, and So Do Politicians!!

Gayle has this post over at Dragon Ladies Den which really tells how much our elected Senators were going to hose us for if the Immigration Reform Bill became law.  I stand by my assessment that these jerks need to be replaced by someone with, well, a little more common sense than a rock. 

It still amazes me that most of these Senators have law degrees, which means that they are supposed to have some smarts upstairs.  But how can they be so stupid as to not see the reality of the situation?  But then again...

Quoting from an earlier post:

In case any of you didn't know, a typical politician's primary job is not to serve the people who elected him. His primary job is to get himself (or herself) elected or re-elected. Second job is to reward all those contributors that gave $$ to help him get elected. Third is to get as many perks & benefits as he can while he is in office. Last on the list is the common person like you & I.

While there are some exceptions, they are the minority (or they're up for re-election), but I am just amazed at the arrogance of the politicians.  After all, it's not their money, but yours.  Earmarks, pork, and backroon deals all come together for power to the politician, not to the people that elected them.  Why am I reminded of the Jimmy Stewart movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington?

Then there is the open microphone incident that exposed HRC (a.k.a Hildebeast) and JE (a.k.a. Breck Boy) plotting to exclude their competition.  If this doesn't demonstrate the elitism that these politicians believe in, then nothing will.

Term limits, financial responsibility of Congress, flat tax or a national sales tax instead of an income tax are all things I would like to see, but then again, I'd like to have a winning Powerball ticket too.

Just An Old-Fashioned Rant...

Sometimes all you really want to do is just vent about what honks you off at the moment.  So this is mine for the day.

The Senate will vote on the Immigration Bill to see if they will bring it to the Senate floor for debate.  I've heard that this Bill is 1000 pages long, so our esteemed Senators will be voting on this document without having even read it.  So a couple of questions beg to be asked:

How in the world can a document be 1000 pages long?  It boggles the mind, but that is what happens when a bunch of beaurocrats with law degrees get together.  How could anyone read it much less understand it is beyond my meager comprehension.

I've also heard, that despite the rhetoric, this bill adds nothing to the current laws regarding illegal immigration.  The only thing that it adds is an out for the current illegals to get a card to make them "legal" workers, pay a fine, avoid prosecution, and get fast-tracked on the path to citizenship.  As I've stated in a previous post, this is still a recipe for disaster.  The 1986 Amnesty debacle is about to be repeated.  Why do our Senators not see the problem with this "solution?"

I understand that the majority of illegal aliens residing and working in this country are only trying to make things better for themselves and their families.  They have also broken the laws of this country be crossing the border illegally.  What gets me going is that the media trys to portray them as victims instead of lawbreakers.  Why do our elected officials not understand this?

An example of the above are various mayors in cities who have declared "safe zones" within their cities that are designated safe havens for the illegals.  They defend their decisions by stating that they are under no compulsion to enforce Federal immigration laws.  What???  Excuse me, but isn't one of the duties of an elected official to uphold the laws of this country, whether they are Local, State, or Federal?  Where did I miss that in Civics Class?

Our elected officials should be ashamed of themselves.  There are existing laws on the books that deal with the issue of illegal immigration.  But all they have done is handicapped our Border Patrol and INS agencies with increased regulations and decreased funding.  Border Patrol agents have been prosecuted for doing their jobs, and INS is swamped.  The border is wide open for almost anyone to cross at will, and that includes terrorists mixed in with the illegals.

What should be done is close the border first - manpower and budgets need to have priority.  Second is to find and prosecute all employers of illegal immigrants.  Last would be to find and humanly deport those who do not leave voluntarily - let those people who want to leave first leave without any trouble.

Sure, this is a simplified plan.  But simple works much better than a 1000-page doorstop...

Senate Immigration Bill

Listening to the radio last week about the Senate's "agreement" just riled me to no end.  The fact that a committee made this agreement in secret harks back to the age of backroom deals that smacks of illicit activities.  Some of the details that have come out about the compromised (!) bill are somewhat expected.  From msnb.com:

The key breakthrough came when negotiators struck a bargain on a so-called "point system" that prioritizes immigrants' education and skill level over family connections in deciding how to award green cards.

The immigration issue also divides both parties in the House, which isn't expected to act unless the Senate passes a bill first.

The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a "Z visa" and — after paying fees and a $5,000 fine — ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of household would have to return to their home countries first.

They could come forward right away to claim a probationary card that would let them live and work legally in the U.S., but could not begin the path to permanent residency or citizenship until border security improvements and the high-tech worker identification program were completed.

A new temporary guest worker program would also have to wait until those so-called "triggers" had been activated.

Those workers would have to return home after work stints of two years, with little opportunity to gain permanent legal status or ever become U.S. citizens. They could renew their guest worker visas twice, but would be required to leave for a year in between each time.

Democrats had pressed instead for guest workers to be permitted to stay and work indefinitely in the U.S.

In perhaps the most hotly debated change, the proposed plan would shift from an immigration system primarily weighted toward family ties toward one with preferences for people with advanced degrees and sophisticated skills. Republicans have long sought such revisions, which they say are needed to end "chain migration" that harms the economy, while some Democrats and liberal groups say it's an unfair system that rips families apart.

Family connections alone would no longer be enough to qualify for a green card — except for spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens.

New limits would apply to U.S. citizens seeking to bring foreign-born parents into the country.

But what is really interesting are the comments that various politicians have made.  Let's view & comment on a few:

"It is not amnesty. This will restore the rule of law." - Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa.

Excuse me, Senator Specter, but we are a nation of laws the last time I checked.  What needs restoring is the enforcement of the current laws, not a compromise that circumvents those same laws.

"I have serious concerns about some aspects of this proposal, including the structure of the temporary worker program and undue limitations on family immigration." - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

I too have serious concerns about this proposal, Senator Reid, but not the ones that you have.  I do not like giving felony-level offenders (of which I understand illegal immigration is) a pass with a slap on the wrist, a fine, and permission to do it again. To whit -

"What part of illegal does the Senate not understand? Any plan that rewards illegal behavior is amnesty," said Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus.

Representative Bilbray hit the nail on the head.  Unfortunately, there just isn't enough common sense or thought given to the long-term actions that this Bill would inflict upon the country.

Proponents of the Bill point to Ronald Reagan's amnesty program from 1986 as precedent for this updated and improved Bill.  This is one of the few times that I would say that Reagan was wrong.  In excerpts from a New York Times Op-Ed piece published on May 24, 2006, Ed Meese had this to say:

In the mid-80's, many members of Congress — pushed by the Democratic majority in the House and the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy — advocated amnesty for long-settled illegal immigrants. President Reagan considered it reasonable to adjust the status of what was then a relatively small population, and I supported his decision.

In exchange for allowing aliens to stay, he decided, border security and enforcement of immigration laws would be greatly strengthened — in particular, through sanctions against employers who hired illegal immigrants. If jobs were the attraction for illegal immigrants, then cutting off that option was crucial.

...

The difference is that President Reagan called this what it was: amnesty. Indeed, look up the term "amnesty" in Black's Law Dictionary, and you'll find it says, "the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for undocumented aliens already in the country."

...

There is a practical problem as well: the 1986 act did not solve our illegal immigration problem. From the start, there was widespread document fraud by applicants. Unsurprisingly, the number of people applying for amnesty far exceeded projections. And there proved to be a failure of political will in enforcing new laws against employers.

After a six-month slowdown that followed passage of the legislation, illegal immigration returned to normal levels and continued unabated. Ultimately, some 2.7 million people were granted amnesty, and many who were not stayed anyway, forming the nucleus of today's unauthorized population.

...

America welcomes more immigrants than any other country. But in keeping open that door of opportunity, we also must uphold the rule of law and enhance a fair immigration process, as Ronald Reagan said, to "humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship."

And here is the crux of the matter!!  Unless the border is secured and the employers hiring illegal immigrants are prosecuted, we will find ourselves in the same mess in another 20 years. 

We have already seen the political will-power of our Congressional Representatives and Senators on the issue of Terrorism.  What sane person thinks that they will have the will-power to follow through on all of the funding and enforcement that comes along with with passing this Bill?  No more than the 1986 law, I guarantee you that.

President Bush said:

“I appreciate the effort of senators who came together to craft this important legislation.  This bill brings us closer to an immigration system that enforces our laws and upholds the great American tradition of welcoming those who share our values and our love of freedom.”

President Bush, I respectfully disagree with you.  If these people respect our country and "share our values," they would not have crossed the border illegally.

The Bill that I would like drafted, passed, and signed is funding to enforce the immigration laws already on the books.  After all, if those cannot be enforced, then how in the world is new legislation going to work any better?

What I Think...

This is what I think on a few choice subjects...

The War in Iraq:

When it was announced that the United States was giving Iraq's Saddam Hussein an ultimatum in response to the non-compliance of UN resolutions, I really didn't like the implications. Going into Iraq without UN support, i.e., alone, was not the right thing to do. I was concerned that the second Bush was going to do what the first Bush didn't do (and was severely criticized for) - get rid of Saddam Hussein. While the intelligence at the time supported the invasion of Iraq, Saddam had too much time to bury or otherwise get rid of his WMD arsenal. However, as I've posted here and on numerous comments on other blogs, the United States cannot leave Iraq without a self-sustaining government - the danger of Iraq descending into chaos and taking the region with it is too great.

The War on Terrorism:

As stated in several previous posts, negotiation with terrorists should never be an option. They should be found and prosecuted with every means at the disposal of the United States government and the governments of the world. And it can be done if the politicians get out of the way...

War in General:

War is the last resort after diplomacy has failed, and should be avoided, but not at all costs. Giving away everything you believe in just for the sake of peace is a deal with the devil, and will not, in the long run, achieve the desired result of peace. War is unhealthy for all the participants, both for soldiers and civilians alike. I do not want war, nor do I promote it - I just know that in some situations it cannot be avoided.

Immigration:

Illegal immigration is a blight on our country, and a subject that politicians would rather avoid. Just mentioning this topic raises many feelings that are not, shall we say, are very civilized. I do not have a problem with people immigrating to this country legally, but to reward those that come here by illegal means and then defend their actions grates against my law-abiding nature. It also gets me that illegal immigrants are eligible for Social Security benefits, driver's licenses, & other governmental services (your tax dollars!!), and the politicians just give the wink & a nod & ignore this problem.

Michigan's Proposal 2:

Michigan's Proposal 2 states:

A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO BAN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMS THAT GIVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS BASED ON THEIR RACE, GENDER, COLOR, ETHNICITY, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION OR CONTRACTING PURPOSES

The proposed constitutional amendment would:

* Ban public institution from using affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes. Public institution affected by this proposal include state government, local governments, public colleges and universities, community colleges and school districts.

* Prohibit public institutions from discriminating against groups or individuals due to their gender, ethnicity, race, color or national origin. (A separate provision of the state constitution already prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin.)

On the surface, this looks like a good idea. I have problems with quotas wrapped in the guise of affirmative action. Everyone should have an equal bite at the apple, but the deciding factor should be on the person's ability & merit, not race or gender. Unfortunately, what has happened is not fair and is patronizing to those people that the program is supposedly helping. In an earlier post, I wrote the following of what Martin Luther King had envisioned for the Negro people:

His vision looked for the Negro people to stand side by side with the White people as equals, and to get there by self-sufficiency, not by a government mandate. He wanted his people to rise up to their potential, to stand on their own two feet, not by some law or subsidy. Patronage of the Negro was not his vision, but to join the human race as equals to any other ethnic group, to enjoy the fruits of hard labor through equal opportunity, and not through quotas.

What Are They Thinking?

As everyone now knows, our wonderful Senate passed a bill to the House which essentially would lead to the illegal immigrants working for citizenship with little or no penalty. I don't have all the details, but the more I hear, the more I believe that the Senate has absolutely no clue what is important to the hardworking citizens of the United States.

What is important is the security of this nation. Giving a pass to 11 million lawbreakers sure doesn't make me feel secure at all. One wonders if they even remember 9/11. What's worse is that the Government of the United States is charged by the Constitution to provide for the security of the country. Without secure borders, we are open to attack from multiple sources.

While I've written on this topic before, I thought (mistakenly) that our elected representatives understood where the average citizen stood. BUZZZZ!!! Wrong!!

I understand fully the desire for people to better themselves, and to travel to places that offer them more opportunity. But I also understand respect for the law, and the immigrants that come to this country by sneaking across the border are not respecting our laws, our country, nor us. How does giving them a shot at citizenship while ignoring the laws of the land beneficial to this country? I have yet to hear of a logical, common-sense (!) explaination.

As I see it, this issue is broken down into 3 parts - security of the order, people who enter illegally, and companies who employ those without citizenship or papers. Each of these issues must be dealt with independently of each other. This so-called "comprehensive legislation" being thrown around as a one-stop shopping solution is a bunch of weasel words designed to delay, obscure, and otherwise mislead the citizenry from the issues until the next election is over. Then they'll do whatever the H*** they want no matter what our desires as citizens are.

Here's the kicker: There are already laws on the books that deal with these issues!! If our elected representatives would start worrying about this country instead of the next election & political power struggles, enforce the laws on the books by funding the appropriate agencies for manpower & equipment, there would be absolutely no need for new legislation. Illegals would be apprehended & deported, companies would be fined, and the border wouldn't resemble Swiss cheese. And we, as citizens, would show our gratitude by voting to allow these wonderful representatives to keep their jobs.

But then again, what the H*** do I know...

Immigration Article & Post

I know, I know - another post on the immigration "crisis." In fact, we are all beginning to get a shade POed about it.

This article from the American Thinker titled Why Americans Hate This “Immigration” Debate seems to address the real issue.

Not to be outdone, Indigo Red has this post on the words of Teddy Roosevelt that reflects upon this article before it was written!

Why Mexico Won't Stop the Immigrants

While I was spending some time in the back room (see previous posts), I started to think about why Mexico's President Fox stated that he would not even try to stop Mexican citizens from crossing the border to the United States. Here's what I came up with:

• For every Mexican that crosses the border is one less person that the Mexican government must take care of or be concerned with.
• The illegal immigrants create revenue for Mexico by sending a portion of their wages back to their families, who in turn, spend it in Mexico.
• If the immigrant is a criminal in Mexico, it's one less person for the Mexican authorities to track down, try in their courts, and incarcerate (with the associated expenses).
• In many ways, these border crossers are one of Mexico's greatest exports, at least from their viewpoint.

So from an economic sense, Mexico is making out like a bandit (!) by not stopping or curtailing illegal immigration to the United States. Can you think of any others that I may have missed?

Thoughts on Immigration & Other Social Ills

As most people know by now, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed a bill to the main Senate for debate. The vote was 12 to 6 in favor of the bill which includes provisions such as creating a guest-worker program and giving illegal immigrants the chance to work toward legal status without first returning home. In order to gain permanent residency, illegal immigrants would have to wait six years, pay $2,000 in fines and any back taxes, undergo a background check and learn English.

It has been well documented on several government reports as well as independent investigations that illegal aliens are draining funds from public services such as healthcare facilities and schools. One of the better blogs on this subject that I stumbled across is Border Watch. While the proposed fine and payment of back taxes is an attempt to reimburse the states for these costs, it will fall far short of the actual costs that have been incurred.

NOTE #1: Before I go any further, I do not, like many people, have problems with people legally immigrating to the United States. Furthermore, I have problems from the standpoint of rewarding anyone for committing an illegal act. While I understand the reasons for Mexicans, Asians, and others to cross our borders in search of a better economic life, there is a better, although difficult, legal way to do it.

While the subject of illegal immigration drags on in our government, I have heard a sound bite that I don't think has been explored by many of the bloggers on my blogroll. Here it is:

• Illegal immigrants are filling jobs that Americans do not want.

Hmmm...Why is that, do you suppose? I can think of several reasons...

The first reason that comes to mind is one that has been floated many years ago was that the illegals are in areas that are logistically difficult to fill. In other words, people are not where the jobs are. In some respects, I can see that, but in others, I don't. As an example of this, how many illegals are employed in the lawn care services based in large cities? There was a report done some time back in a Detroit area paper that stated around 50% of the workers in the lawn care industry were illegal aliens (sorry, can't find the reference). If true, then why?

Which leads to the second reason - The job (or the employer) doesn't pay enough. That's right, an employer would rather pay an illegal immigrant below minimum-wage pay and no benefits. Gee, I wonder why...because it's more money in his pocket, for one!

A third reason is that the illegals will show up to work on a consistent basis. Since they are being paid below minimum-wage they need to show up so they can live. Having been out there working for 25+ years, I have seen up to 15% no-show in some industries, even though some of these workers are being paid far above minimum wage. Employers will give the illegals the jobs because they will show up for work.

Which brings me to why Americans do not want the jobs that illegal immigrants take - we are too damn comfortable in our way of life to work for a living!!

In many respects, people would rather sit back & take unemployment or Welfare than go out & work. The typical person on welfare has a standard of living far above those people living in a country like Mexico. As I understand it, the typical Welfare recipient has a place to live, food stamps to purchase food, a clothing and furniture allowance, and cable TV. True, it's typically not the best place or way to live, but the basic needs are met without working.

NOTE #2: I am not talking about the aged, infirm, or those who are otherwise physically or mentally incapable of working. I'm talking about those persons who believe that Welfare is their God-given right & feel they are entitled to it, and are able to work for a living.

Where I think that both the illegal immigration and Welfare are tied hand in hand is that both are rife with blind-eyed corruption. The employers, out of necessity or greed or both, hire who they can to get the job done. The government, for whatever reason, allows cradle-to-grave Welfare recipients who are able-bodied but do not want to work, and allow the employers to hire illegals without too much fear of arrest or fines.

NOTE #3: The following solutions are simplified. In no way, shape, or form would they be comprehensive enough to cover all situations. Especially after the government gets through with them...

Since it appears that our elected representatives have decided to cave in to the radical illegal immigrant lobby, go ahead and put into place the measures listed above. Pay their back taxes with interest just like any other citizen of this country, and if they have used public services such as hospitals & schools, set up a payment plan for them to pay their fair share. Fine them the two grand (but it would be more if I had my way). If, after a certain grace period, an illegal is found, they are to be deported immediately to their country of origin. No more "do-overs" or grace periods.

Second, companies or employers that hire illegal immigrants would be fined and the company officers jailed. Period.

Next, seal up the borders so that even a jack-rabbit can't get through without being observed. Yes, observed. Electronic surveillance only goes so far - we need people out there that can take quick & decisive action.

State to Mexico under no certain terms that we will not be accepting any more workers that do not come through official channels. I read this over at Mike's America, and does it have me steamed!!

Last, reform the Welfare program so that the people who need it get it and those who don't won't. Welfare is not an entitlement, it is to be used only if you need help to get back on your feet.

Now I know that some of this is a rant, and some of you readers out there will pick this apart - I know there are holes in the above. I understand that's what some of you like to do. That's fine as long as you understand the message and intent of this post. And I hope you do, and comment accordingly...

UPDATE: Look at this post from Michelle Malkin. Is this getting out of control or what?