Immigration Control

Islamic groups and governments are pressing ahead with a campaign to have international organizations take steps, including legal ones, to provide protection for their religion in the wake of the Mohammed cartoon controversy.

In a drive pursued largely away from the headlines, the Organization for the Islamic Conference (OIC) is promoting the issue at the United Nations and European Union, and having some success.

The executive council of the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) this month approved an agenda item entitled "respect for freedom of expression, sacred beliefs, values and religious and cultural symbols.

"Introduced by more than 30 Islamic states and the subject of considerable debate, the motion explicitly tied freedom of expression to " respect for cultural diversity, religious beliefs and religious symbols.

"It also directed UNESCO's director-general to carry out a "comprehensive study of all existing relevant international instruments."

The motion did not refer directly to the furor over the publication of cartoons satirizing Mohammed, although an "explanatory note" offered by the OIC members did.

The publication of caricatures of the Prophet of Islam has caused deep and widespreadoffense and indignation within the Muslim community around the world," the note said, adding that respect for religious symbols and beliefs and freedom of expression were "indissociable."

"Given the importance of religion to peoples and to dignity and the way of life in different cultures, respect for different religious beliefs is essential to international peace and security and to the progress of human civilizations," it said.The Saudi-based OIC secretariat is spearheading the international campaign of response to what it has called "wanton provocation and reckless, blasphemous libertarianism cowering behind so-called freedom of the press.

"European newspapers that reproduced 12 cartoons first published in a Danish daily last fall said they were doing so in defense of free expression. Muslims around the world protested, some violently, calling the depictions of their prophet blasphemous.

The UNESCO move is just the latest illustration of the way the OIC and its 56 member states are using the cartoon episode to apply pressure on the West to comply with Islamic norms."OIC efforts at the international level to tackle the repercussions of the caricature crisis and to meet the expectations of the Muslim world continue," it said in a recent statement.

The matter was being taken up in exchanges with the E.U., " as well as with various international and regional intergovernmental organizations and NGOs.

"The OIC said it was pursuing a "strategy to take initiatives at various international organs to contribute to the formation of an international legal framework" aimed at preventing a recurrence of the cartoon crisis. The action at UNESCO was a component of this strategy.

At an OIC meeting in Istanbul this month, OIC secretary-general Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu urged representatives of Islamic states to approach their counterparts in the West "with the aim of defending the interests of the Muslim world, presenting the true image of Islam and combating the stereotype perceptions about Islam and Muslims.

"In an earlier accomplishment, OIC members last February succeeded in pushing through a last-minute amendment to the preamble of a U.N. resolution establishing a new U.N. Human Rights CouncilThe OIC addition to the text referred to the important role of states, NGOs, religious groups and the media "in promoting tolerance, respect for and freedom of religion and belief" - but made no balancing reference to freedom of speech.

'Support mosque construction' The Islamic campaign has won sympathetic responses from some senior U.N. and E.U. figures.

"Your anguish over the publication of insulting cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed is clear and understandable," Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in a message read on his behalf at an OIC gathering in Istanbul this month.

While he said all should speak up for freedom of worship and freedom of speech, he added: "We must exercise great sensitivity when dealing with symbols and traditions that are sacred to other people."

Addressing a meeting of European imams in Vienna, Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik of Austria - the current E.U. president - also referred to the cartoons. "Freedoms do have limits that should not be overstepped," she told 300 Muslim religious leaders from across the continent.At the same gathering, the head of the E.U.'s official anti-racism body bemoaned what she said was a "dangerously high" level of anti-Muslim discrimination in Europe.

Beate Winkler, head of the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia, said E.U. governments should provide time for religious programs on public broadcasters and support mosque construction.

Participant Turfa Bagaghati of the European Network Against Racism -- an E.U.-funded NGO -- told Islam Online it was time Muslims pressed "for their rights, like enacting laws banning aggression on Islam."E.U. external relations commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner also addressed the Vienna meeting, saying that both freedom of religion and freedom of expression were "non-negotiable.

"But she added a qualifier only in the case of freedom of expression, saying "it does come with responsibilities and should be exercised with the necessary sensitivity to others.

"The E.U. will next month hold a "Euro-Med" seminar of xenophobia and racism in the media, bringing together representatives from the E.U. and the predominantly Muslim countries of North Africa and the Middle East.In another development, it was reported last week that E.U. bureaucrats are drawing up a "lexicon" of terminology to use when referring to Islam. Words like "Islamist" and "jihad" are under review, as is the phrase "Islamic terrorism."

Ciao.....Moe

posted by Moe Lauzier  # 2:00 PM 0 comments

The issue is fundamental: Should motorists be able to read warning signs on highways, roads, and bridges? Should they be able to communicate with police or other public safety officials in the event of an accident or emergency?

In other words: should people who apply for driver’s licenses be able to read and understand the English language?

For most Americans the answer is yes! All our highway warning and hazard signs are in English. So it’s easy to understand the danger posed by drivers who cannot read English.

But what is common sense to most people is not to many state officials charged with the duty of protecting public safety. In state after state they are caving into pressure from “immigrants rights” groups to make driver’s license exams and manuals available not only in Spanish but in many other foreign languages. The predictable result -- growing carnage on our roads and highways:

Four Newton, Mass. teenagers were killed when their bus crashed during a school band trip. Parents of the victims blamed the accident on the bus driver’s inability to understand traffic signs in English.

In Pennsylvania a truck driver who could not read English ran into and killed an entire North Carolina family of five. The driver had failed to heed warning signs, including one banning trucks over 10 tons from using the road he was traveling. His truck weighed 40 tons.

In Alabama, a federal official attributed a big jump in work-related traffic fatalities to the fact that a growing numbers of drivers are unable to read or understand warning signs in English.
The last report is particularly troubling because Alabama should have avoided this calamity. Why? In 1990 the people of Alabama voted by a landslide 9-1 margin for a constitutional amendment making English their official language.

And a few weeks after it passed Alabama stopped giving driver’s license exams in other languages. The new policy survived a court challenge in 2001 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Alabama had the right to require that its exams be given in English. My organization, ProEnglish, filed a legal brief with the Court supporting the state. That brief was endorsed and signed by fourteen members of Congress including Alabama’s current governor, Bob Riley, who was then a U.S. Representative.

By all rights, the issue should have ended there. The people had spoken loud and clear, and the Supreme Court had upheld Alabama’s right to implement its official English policy by requiring that driver’s license exams be in English. But during the six-year battle to defend Alabama’s exam policy, Riley’s predecessor used the court challenge as a pretext to bring back the old policy of giving driver’s exams in many foreign languages.

So when Riley took office, ProEnglish members in Alabama and elsewhere thought he would move quickly to restore the English language driver’s license policy.

But Gov. Riley failed to act.

That left us no choice except to ask the courts to enforce the Alabama constitution. So with help from the Southeastern Legal Foundation, five Alabama members of ProEnglish filed suit May 17 against the Governor and the Director of the Department of Public Safety. The suit asks the court to order these state officials to restore Alabama’s policy of giving driver’s license exams exclusively in English – rather than the 13 spoken languages it offers now, including Arabic and Farsi, the Iranian language.

Only Riley knows why he flip flopped on this critical issue and now seems unconcerned that every day there are more people being licensed to drive on Alabama roads who don’t have a clue about the meaning of highway warning signs. One reason may be the powerful and unholy alliance of extreme left-wing groups and big business which is constantly lobbying for policies to accommodate the increasing flood of illegal aliens.

We hope the governors of all 50 states won’t listen to them. After all, if warning signs aren’t vital for our safety, why bother with the huge cost and trouble of posting and constantly replacing them?

But cost is trivial compared to the risk that innocent motorists will be killed or injured as a direct result of having a multilingual testing policy. We pray that doesn’t happen, while we wait for the courts to act.

posted by Moe Lauzier  # 1:38 PM 0 comments

We start with the President’s remarks yesterday and couple them with the May 1st Great American Boycott, which frankly is un-American.

Here’s the story from yesterday’s Washington Post online article followed by an email I agree with making the rounds.

When you have a couple of minutes read them both back to back and please leave your comments by clicking on the comment line below with your thoughts pro or con.......Moe

Privately, Bush Says He Favors Citizenship

By DAVID ESPO
The Associated PressWednesday, April 26, 2006; 7:54 PM

WASHINGTON -- President Bush generally favors plans to give millions of illegal immigrants a chance at U.S. citizenship without leaving the country, but does not want to be more publicly supportive because of opposition among conservative House Republicans, according to senators who attended a recent White House meeting.

Several officials familiar with the meeting also said Democrats protested radio commercials that blamed them for Republican-written legislation that passed the House and would make illegal immigrants vulnerable to felony charges.

Bush said he was unfamiliar with the ads, which were financed by the Republican National Committee, according to officials familiar with the discussions.

At another point, Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada and other members of his party pressed the president about their concern that any Senate-passed bill would be made unpalatable in final talks with the House.

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat, said the lawmaker who would lead House negotiators, House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, had been "intractable" in negotiations on other high-profile bills in the past. Bush did not directly respond to the remark, officials said.
The Republican and Democratic officials who described the conversation did so Wednesday on condition of anonymity, saying they had not been authorized to disclose details.

Bush convened the session to give momentum to the drive for election-year immigration legislation, a contentious issue that has triggered large street demonstrations and produced divisions in both political parties. Senators of both parties emerged from the session praising the president's involvement and said the timetable was achievable.

"Yes, he thinks people should be given a path to citizenship," said Sen. Mel Martinez., R-Fla., a leading supporter of immigration legislation in the Senate.

Martinez said it was implicit in Bush's remarks that many of the immigrants illegally in the U.S. would be permitted to remain during a lengthy wait and application period.

Under the Senate bill, immigrants in the U.S. longer than five years could apply for citizenship without leaving the country. Those in the U.S. for more than two years but fewer than five would be required to go to a border point of entry, but they could return quickly as legal temporary workers.

Several senators said Bush had spoken in favorable terms about the overall bill, but made it clear he will not issue an endorsement.

"I understand that he wants to maintain latitude as he heads into negotiations with the House," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. He attended the meeting and is a strong proponent of legislation that would allow most of the 11 million illegal immigrants eventually to apply for citizenship.

But Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said that raised the question of "how much leverage he (Bush) has over House Republicans at this stage on a volatile issue that is rattling up his (political) base."

Asked about the meeting, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the president repeated to the senators what he has said in public. "The agreement that was reached by the bipartisan group of senators is a vehicle to get comprehensive reform moving ahead" and into compromise talks, McClellan said.

The president has spoken repeatedly in favor of legislation that includes stronger border protection and a guest worker program, but has been vague on specifics.

On Monday, Bush said "massive deportation isn't going to work," and that the Senate "had an interesting approach by saying that if you'd been here for five years or less, you're treated one way, and five years or more, you're treated another."

Bush did not mention that measure would allow millions of illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S. while waiting for citizenship _ a provision sharply criticized by some conservative lawmakers.

The House approved border security legislation last year that does not address the fate of illegal immigrants. Several Republican conservatives have criticized the Senate bill, saying it was little more than amnesty for lawbreakers.

Several officials said Bush sidestepped one issue during the meeting: the legal status of immigrants who have broken no law except by remaining in the United States.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., pushed Bush on the issue, noting that Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., has said the White House wanted the House-passed bill to make illegal immigrants subject to misdemeanor prosecution.
© 2006 The Associated Press


Now, the email:

(Ed note, AFP is Agence France-Presse, one of the oldest news services in the world.)

WASHINGTON (AFP) Immigrants' rights advocates, elated by the resounding success of Monday's "National Day of Action," which drew the backing of hundreds of thousands of protesters across the United States, now are planning a national boycott which they hope will have an even greater resonance.

Organizers are planning the May 1 "Great American Boycott," urging illegal immigrants -- who cannot vote and who have only limited political power -- to flex their economic muscle. Protesters are being urged to refrain from shopping, and to stay away from school and work. (end)




You should take a moment to let that sink in!

This is a movement orchestrated by people who entered the US illegally, and then want to scream about their "rights."

WHAT RIGHTS? YOU DON'T EVEN BELONG HERE! Let's take a look at some of the many benefits that illegal aliens have blessed our great country with:

Street gangs, graffiti, drugs, skyrocketing healthcare, depreciation of property value, illiteracy. The list could go on. What they actually have to offer (cheap labor) pales to what they have given our country to
deal with. I'll take expensive vegetables over expensive healthcare any day! And now, like terrorists, they are going to attack our economy -- the one entity that makes our nation stand out from all the others.

The backbone of our nation. The country they came to like locusts so they could reap the benefits is now the focus of their boycott. You've seen it on TV:

Marching on our American streets waving their Mexican flags, boldly showing that they can be
more racist than who they accuse of, and yet the obvious is totally oblivious to them......

IF YOU'VE GOT IT SO BAD HERE, THEN LEAVE!!!

To all the real Americans, you can do one small thing on May 1st, 2006. It won't be racist, nor will it be violent. It will not be boastful, arrogant, selfish, nor distasteful. It will not be any of those things that our "guests" have already displayed.

What it will do is nullify a movement. All you have to do is buy something on May 1st! Make up for what they will try to take away. It doesn't have to be a new car or house (unless you were already planning on getting one). It simply needs to be a day of trading.

• Hold off grocery buying until May 1st.
• Take your wife out to eat that night.
• Get the kids pizza, hamburgers, whatever!
• Make several trips to the convenience store.
• Buy your meals at work.
• Fill up your tank.
• Shop for clothes, furniture, outdoor equipment.
  

If it needs to be bought, BUY IT MAY 1st! Those are just a few suggestions. We're not asking you to spend your inheritance that day, but just to spend more than you normally would.

Even if it's only a few dollars, this will help soften the blow that the Mexicans will try to inflict on our economy that day. It sounds trivial at first, but if this idea gets around, what the Mexicans set out to do will fail.

NOW COMES THE HARD PART:

This email will not self-destuct if you don't send it to someone. It will not cause bad luck, nor will it make you impotent. It will not do some trick or show a cute little animation if you send it to "X" number of people. You will not get paid for doing it. It will not spread the message though, if it just gets deleted. Forward at will.....

What can you do you might ask? Simple send the link to this story to anyone who will read it. The more of us who do this the better. Immigration is the most serious facing us in both the short and long term.

Thanks for reading this aand please leave your comments by clicking the comments line below.....Moe

I received an email this morning which is a serious indictment of the illegal immigrant movement. It explains why even legal aliens support the illegal movement. I checked the email out on the Urban Legends web site (link to their article on the email posted below). I deleted some portions which appear to be simply inflammatory or dubious. The entire email can be read through the link to "Snopes". Use your own good judgment. However it is something to consider in our action regarding illegal immigration.....Moe

"You old white people. It is your duty to die."

Augustin Cebada, Brown Berets:
"Go back to Boston! Go back to Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get out! We are the future. You are old and tired. Go on. We have beaten you. Leave like beaten rats. You old white people. It is your duty to die . . . Through love of having children, we are going to take over.

Richard Alatorre, Los Angeles City Council:
"They're afraid we're going to take over the governmental institutions and other institutions. They're right. We will take them over . . . We are here to stay."

Excelsior, the national newspaper of Mexico:
"The American southwest seems to be slowly returning to the jurisdiction of Mexico without firing a single shot."

Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez, University of Texas:
"We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. The explosion is in our population . . . I love it. They are shitting in their pants with fear. I love it."

Art Torres, Chairman of the California Democratic Party:
"Remember 187 — proposition to deny taxpayer funds for services to non-citizens — was the last gasp of white America in California."

Gloria Molina, Los Angeles County Supervisor:

"We are politicizing every single one of these new citizens that are becoming citizens of this country ... I gotta tell you that a lot of people are saying, "I'm going to go out there and vote because I want to pay them back."

Mario Obledo, California Coalition of Hispanic Organizations and California State Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare under Governor Jerry Brown, also awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Bill Clinton:

"California is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who doesn't like it should leave."

Jose Pescador Osuna, Mexican Consul General :

"We are practicing 'La Reconquista' in California."

Professor Fernando Guerra, Loyola Marymount University:

"We need to avoid a white backlash by using codes understood by Latinos ..."

Are these just the words of a few extremists? Consider that we could fill up many pages with such quotes. Also, consider that these are mainstream Mexican leaders.

THE U.S. VS MEXICO:

On February 15, 1998, the U.S. and Mexican soccer teams met at the Los Angeles Coliseum. The crowd was overwhelmingly pro-Mexican even though most lived in this country. They booed during the National Anthem and U.S. flags were held upside down. As the match progressed, supporters of the U.S. team were insulted, pelted with projectiles, punched and spat upon. Beer and trash were thrown at the U.S. players before and after the match. The coach of the U.S. team, Steve Sampson said, "This was the most painful experience I have ever had in this profession."

Did you know that immigrants from Mexico and other non-European countries can come to this country and get preferences in jobs, education, and government contracts? It's called affirmative action or racial privilege.

The Emperor of Japan or the President of Mexico could migrate here and immediately be eligible for special rights unavailable for Americans of European descent. Recently, a vote was taken in the U.S. Congress to end this practice. It was defeated. Every single Democratic senator except Ernest Hollings voted to maintain special privileges for Hispanic, Asian and African immigrants. They were joined by thirteen Republicans. Bill Clinton and Al Gore have repeatedly stated that they believe that massive immigration from countries like Mexico is good. (Ed. note, include President Bush in that statement.)

They have also backed special privileges for these immigrants. Corporate America has signed on to the idea that minorities and third world immigrants should get special, privileged status. Some examples are Exxon, Texaco, Merrill Lynch, Boeing, Paine Weber, Starbucks and many more.

DID YOU KNOW?

Did you know that Mexico regularly intercedes on the side of the defense in criminal cases involving Mexican nationals? Did you know that Mexico has NEVER extradited a Mexican national accused of murder in the U.S. in spite of agreements to do so? According to the L.A. Times, Orange County, California is home to 275 gangs with 17,000 members; 98% of which are Mexican and Asian.

WHEN I WAS YOUNG: When I was young, I remember hearing about the immigrants that came through Ellis Island. They wanted to learn English. They wanted to breath free. They wanted to become Americans. Now too many immigrants come here with demands. They demand to be taught in their own language. They demand special privileges — affirmative action. They demand ethnic studies that glorify their culture. HOW

http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=Augustin+Cebada%2C+Brown+Berets&getit=Go&sp-a=00062d45-sp00000000&sp-advanced=1&sp-p=all&sp-w-control=1&sp-w=alike&sp-date-range=-1&sp-x=any&sp-c=100&sp-m=1&sp-s=0

I suspect President George Bush doesn’t get it when it comes to amnesty and a fence to control our border with Mexico.

There can be no effective talk of new or more laws concerning illegal aliens until we have our border with Mexico secured.

Let’s make this as simple for him to understand as possible.

We have learned to lock the doors to our homes. In some high crime areas we must resort to bars on our windows and possibly install alarms. If the situation is very bad we need to take even more drastic action such as arming the home’s occupants.

If the home has been breached we must stop the intrusion at the same time we seek out and expel the trespassers. Nothing else can be done until our perimeter is under control and the interlopers removed. I doubt we would offer the privelege of remaining if they’ve been there for an extended time or had performed some sort of service to the home. Our only order would be to leave the property.

The president says it is unrealistic to recommend we deport those who are already here. That’s baloney.

There are a number of things we can do to get them to leave.

1. No government benefits of any kind short of life saving medical help.

2. No educating their children.

3. Amend the U.S. Constitution to clarify the “natural born citizen” provision. Provide for a child born here to illegal alien parents will not have American citizenship conferred on him/her.

4. No drivers’ licenses to illegals.

5. No property rights to illegals.

6. Turn the IRS and Social Security lose on companies who knowingly hire illegals.

7. Establish a guest worker program where the background of the applicant can be checked.

8. After the sentence has been served, deport all aliens convicted of felonies.

9. Revoke the no tax status of charities not cooperating with immigration officials.

10. Restrict federal aid to states which refuse to cooperate in seeking out and detaining illegals.
It is time to end the concept of look the other way and indicating here is nothing we can do about it.

Our candidates for federal office (the house and senate), president, and our candidates for state offices including governor and attorney general.

Your Mother always admonished you that “when there’s a will, there’s a way.” She was right. Conversely when there’s no will, there’s no way.

George Bush and our many of our politicians would rather give lip service to the problem than develop a will to begin the process of making America our home again.

~~~ Moe

A Robert Frost poem celebrates a fine New England tradition with the now-famous “Good fences make good neighbors.”

The United States needs a good fence.

The Simpson-Mazzoli Act signed by President Reagan in 1986 set up an amnesty under which about three million illegal aliens — three-fourths Mexican and most of the rest Nicaraguan — reportedly “emerged from the shadows” and claimed legal permanent resident status.

“Stiff” sanctions in the act against future employment of illegals and other “reforms” would make this a panacea, the be-all-and-end-all. Only this once, mind you, and our problem will be solved!

Sure. Just four years later, Sen. Alan Simpson, R-Wyo., again working on immigration reform, said, “Uncontrolled immigration is one of the greatest threats to the future of this country.”

Indeed it was. And remains so.

Years ago, I argued that the United States should not and would not use a physical barrier and/or military force to prevent illegal entry. Instead, I claimed, we should help particularly Mexico improve its economy, thereby eliminating most of the pressure forcing its citizens into Gringolandia. I was wrong.

To his credit, President Clinton braved withering political fire from his union leader friends and got the North American Free Trade Agreement ratified. Whether or not NAFTA and other efforts have improved Mexico’s economy, the pool of illegals in the United States today, and the daily flow feeding it, dwarf what existed in 1986.

Is the United States prepared to defend its sovereignty against this quiet, pernicious invasion? The U.S. House of Representatives has answered in the affirmative. The U.S. Senate has no answer, which is tantamount to “nay.”

A newspaper editorial published recently illustrated the lack of resolve so evident in addressing this crucial issue. It said, “Republicans can bellow all they want about rule of law, but we’re more than a nation of laws; we’re also a nation of outlaws — from (Thomas) Jefferson and (Thomas) Paine through the Whiskey Rebellion and on to the civil disobedience it took to put us on the road to civil rights still unattained by too many.”
Come again? The Whiskey Rebellion is irrelevant. The Toms invoked there are known most especially for their leadership in efforts leading to overthrowing by force a colonial government prominent in pre-U.S. history, that of the King of England. Forcible overthrow of our contemporary government is a clear objective of some, but surely not of my friend who wrote that editorial.

The civil disobedience involved attainment of rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution but denied nonetheless to particular citizens on account of the color of their skin.

In fact, the ‘60s Freedom Rides which were a part of that have recently (circa 2003) been fraudulently emulated on behalf of noncitizens whose presence in our country, furthermore, is illegal. And that was nothing compared with this month’s organized marches and rallies flaunting illegality and demanding “rights.”

This latest outrage may have done us a great favor. Thomas Sowell wrote, “These marches revealed the ugly truth behind the fog of pious words and clever political spin from the media and from both Democrats and Republicans in Washington.”

Washington is rife with talk of another amnesty, of course under the cover of other terms like “guest worker.” I invoke Missouri’s slogan, “Show me.” Don’t talk to me about another chapter in legalizing the illegal until our national government shows its determination to exercise sovereignty with secure borders.

Military action remains an option, but a truly nasty one. Forced repatriation following periodic workplace roundups, possibly including stiff criminal enforcement against employers, remains another. Still pretty nasty.

A good fence would be more humane than either.

I am a WRKO listener. Enjoy your show very much. I am so concerned about the 'illegal' situation in this country. We are probably the laughing stock of the world - having 'illegals' tell our government what they want (and most likely getting it). What part of 'illegal' don't they understand??? Also, how do we get English to be our official language? Where do we start.

Thank you for your help. ( I keep wondering what our veterans and troops think about what is happening here).

~~~ Moe

I am a WRKO listener. Enjoy your show very much. I am so concerned about the 'illegal' situation in this country. We are probably the laughing stock of the world - having 'illegals' tell our government what they want (and most likely getting it). What part of 'illegal' don't they understand??? Also, how do we get English to be our official language? Where do we start.

Thank you for your help. ( I keep wondering what our veterans and troops think about what is happening here).

~~~ Moe

I am a WRKO listener. Enjoy your show very much. I am so concerned about the 'illegal' situation in this country. We are probably the laughing stock of the world - having 'illegals' tell our government what they want (and most likely getting it). What part of 'illegal' don't they understand??? Also, how do we get English to be our official language? Where do we start.

Thank you for your help. ( I keep wondering what our veterans and troops think about what is happening here).

Professor Walter Williams:

"(Columnist) Thomas Sowell...questions calling for "guest worker" status for people who, because they weren't invited, are not guests at all but gate-crashers. Sowell argues that the more substantive arguments for flaunting our immigration laws are just as phony. How about the argument that 'We can't catch all the illegals'? That's true, but should we apply that principle to other illegal acts? For example, we can't catch every rapist or burglar, but does it follow that we shouldn't try?"

Columnist Thomas Sowell:

"If the Republicans wimp out (on the illegal immigration issue), that could so demoralize their base that Republican turnout in the fall elections could decline to the point where Democrats regain control of the House of Representatives."

"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." Theodore Roosevelt 1907

~~~~~~~

Yesterday we posted The story of the Georgia legislation. Here is how the governor of Arizona is handling the burgeoning illegal immigration problem.

By JACQUES BILLEAUD
Associated Press Writer

PHOENIX

Gov. Janet Napolitano vetoed a bill that would have criminalized the presence of illegal immigrants in Arizona, citing opposition from police agencies that want immigration arrests to remain the responsibility of the federal government.

The proposal would have expanded the state's trespassing law to let local authorities arrest illegal immigrants anywhere in Arizona, the nation's busiest illegal entry point. Congress also had considered criminalizing the presence of illegal immigrants in the country.

In a letter to lawmakers, Napolitano said she opposes automatically turning all immigrants who sneaked into the state into criminals and that the bill provided no funding for the new duties.
"It is unfortunate that the Legislature has once again ignored the officials who are most directly affected by illegal immigration and instead has passed yet another bill that will have no effect on the problem but that will impose an unfunded burden on law enforcement," Napolitano wrote Monday.

Supporters said the bill would have given Arizona a chance to get a handle on its vast border problems by providing a second layer of enforcement to catch the tens of thousands of immigrants who slip past federal agents each year.

Republican Sen. Barbara Leff of Paradise Valley, who proposed the bill, said the governor has painted herself as tough on illegal immigration by declaring a state of emergency at Arizona's border, but has taken little action to back up her rhetoric.

"I don't think the governor wants to do anything about this problem," Leff said. She said the bill would have been a means to detain illegal immigrants until federal agents can pick them up.
The Democratic governor, accused by her Republican critics of being soft on immigration, has vetoed other immigration bills from the GOP- majority Legislature within the past year, including a proposal to give police the power to enforce federal immigration laws.

While immigrants provide the economy with cheap labor, Arizona spends tens of millions of dollars each year in health care and education costs for illegal workers and their families. An estimated 500,000 of the state's population of about 6 million are illegal immigrants.

PERDUE SIGNS BILL ON ILLEGALS
CRACKDOWNLAW FACES CHALLENGES

By Jim TharpeThe Atlanta Journal-Constitution April 18, 2006

Gov. Sonny Perdue signed into law on Monday a far-reaching attempt to confront illegal immigration in Georgia, but the plan goes on the books facing the threat of a legal challenge and possible congressional action that could render some of its provisions moot.

Perdue put his signature on the Georgia Security and Immigration Compliance Act, which targets illegal immigrants and those who employ them.

"We recognize that immigration is ultimately a national issue that begs for a national solution," Perdue said. "But it's our responsibility to ensure that our famous Georgia hospitality is not abused, that our taxpayers are not taken advantage of, and that our citizens are protected."

Senate Bill 529 was heralded by those who have crusaded for tougher laws and condemned by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which called it "unjust and unfair."
There are an estimated 250,000 to 800,000 illegal immigrants in Georgia. No one knows the exact number, nor their impact on the economy and taxpayer-funded social services.

"Certainly we're disappointed the governor signed the bill," said Tisha Tallman, legal counsel for MALDEF's Atlanta office. "We believe this legislation does nothing to move us forward in the direction we need to be moving economically, culturally and socially."

Tallman said MALDEF "continues to prepare for possible litigation" but has made no final decision on if or when a lawsuit will be filed. Tallman has argued some provisions of the law pre-empt federal authority and are therefore unconstitutional. Supporters say they are confident the law will withstand any court challenge.

D.A. King, a Cobb County activist who has lobbied state lawmakers and organized rallies in support of a crackdown on illegal immigration, applauded the law. Polls have indicated more than 80 percent of Georgians wanted the state Legislature to address the issue during its recent session, which ended last month.

"I am absolutely ecstatic that the governor of Georgia has joined 82 percent of the people who wanted something done about illegal immigration on a state level," King said after a rally Monday at the Capitol. "The bill is the most comprehensive of its kind in the country."

King predicted the Georgia law would be a model for other states. He said it could help spur Congress to action as it debates a federal crackdown.

"I don't know what it will take to get the president and Congress to do their jobs," he said. "But I think [SB] 529 is a step in that direction. It's certainly a step toward protecting ourselves absent the promised federal care."

The legislation breezed through the election-year Legislature as Georgia became one of more than two dozen states trying to confront an issue many believe has been ignored by the federal government.

Initially, business and agricultural interests were leery of the plan, but they muted their objections after trigger dates for key provisions were delayed, giving them more time to prepare for the changes.

Under the law, adult illegal immigrants may not obtain some taxpayer-funded services. However, their children are exempt, and adults will still have access to some medical services, including emergency care, treatment for communicable diseases, and prenatal care. The children of illegal immigrants may still attend public school — a right that has been guaranteed by the federal courts.

Some provisions kick in July 1, 2007, including tough penalties for human trafficking. But other key provisions — one would hold employers responsible for hiring illegal immigrants — will not take effect until 2008 for those with fewer than 500 workers.

One portion prohibits employers from claiming a state tax deduction on the wages of illegal immigrants. However, it depends on the worker providing documentation, and most experts agree there are so many fake documents in the pipeline that it will be difficult to enforce.

"There is a legitimate argument with fake documents," said Sen. Chip Rogers (R-Woodstock), who sponsored the bill. "And I pledge to come back next year and work specifically on that issue."

Rogers has come under attack from some proponents of a crackdown, who argue the law does not go far enough, and those on the other side who argue that it unfairly punishes low-paid laborers who underpin agriculture and the hospitality and construction industries.

"Somebody once told me, you know you've got a bill just right when the people on both ends start complaining," he said after attending Monday's signing. "So maybe we hit it just right for this year."

Rogers declined to speculate about the political implications of the crackdown in an election year — all 236 state lawmakers, the governor and most statewide officers are up for election. Some critics have accused Republicans of pushing the bill to boost their political fortunes.

"Anytime you send a message to the people of Georgia that we are serious about enforcing the law and the law ought to apply equally to everyone, that is a good message to send," Rogers said. "It doesn't matter what party you are in or what year it is."

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Sunday, April 16, 2006 2:43 p.m. EDT

Newt Gingrich: Immig Failure Could Hand Dems Congress

Newt Gingrich, the architect of the 1994 GOP Revolution, is warning that Republicans in Congress better "get their act together" and pass tough new laws against illegal immigration - or the Democrats will win back the House and Senate in November.

Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," the former House Speaker scorched his successors for a lack of performance across a whole range of issues, but zeroed in on what he called "the debacle two weeks ago on immigration."

"The [Senate's] McCain-Kennedy bill and the compromise that followed is so far from what the average American wants," Gingrich said, "that it raises the danger of Republican [voters] staying home."

The one-time top Republican noted that in poll after poll, the public has demanded tougher border security and reforms like a voter ID card, saying it would be easy to put Democrats on the defensive on the illegal immigration issue.

"I'd be perfectly happy for the Senate Republicans to bring up a border control bill and have Hillary and Schumer try to stop it," Gingrich told Fox.

"Sometimes incumbents forget that we were sent here to reform Washington, we were not sent here to be co-opted by Washington," he added. "For Republicans to succeed in '06 and '08 we need real change."

"The question for Republicans in the next 90 days is: Are they going to become the party of real change?" Gingrich said. "Are they going to learn some lessons and get their act together?"

The GOP had better wake up ot it will be the former GOP pretty soon. The issue of Illegal Immigration will not go away.

~~~Moe

Something to ponder? The question of the impact of illegal aliens on Social Security. The latest story to be spun favorinf illegal aliens is they pay intot he system using phony Social Security numbers, therefore they will never be able to collect. Here's an interesting article posted on Human Events On-line. Post your comments below.

Do You Really Believe Illegal Immigrants Will Save Social Security?
by Mac JohnsonPosted Apr 17, 2006

One of the more idiotic arguments in favor of open borders is that, due to the declining birthrate of our selfish society, we need millions upon millions of impoverished foreigners to rush in to support our bleating aging baby boomers in their extended and lethargic retirements.

The only correct thing about this argument is that it recognizes that Social Security is simply a pyramid scam, always in need of increasing numbers of young new victims to tax in order to support the old (and the “disabled”) at a level far beyond their average contributions. But I got news for you, boomers. There are two big reasons why Jose and Maria aren’t going to be able to fill that role as the extra little mijos you never bothered to have, and thus cannot now leech upon.

Reason No. 1 is pretty simple: poor people don’t pay taxes. They earn tiny little incomes, which is why we call them “poor” people, and this means you’re going to have poor luck getting blood out of those economic stones. Compound this with the fact that illegal aliens tend to work jobs that pay in cash, and therefore pay even less in taxes than they should, and your fountain of youthful wealth transfers is looking a bit dry.

In fact, when you look at the structure of our modern welfare state, you will find that the average cash-earning hole-digging illiterate stowaway from the third world, or “illegal alien” uses far more in government benefits and obligations each year than he pays in taxes. This means you lose money on every one. One study indicated that the average illegal alien household costs taxpayers over $2,700 per year -- far more than any benefit they provide the Social Security program directly. But perhaps you intend to make up the loss with volume?

Maybe if we lose money on 100 million or 200 million such “productive” workers that will save Social Security? Hey, that business model worked for the “dot com” boom, for two years.

Upon legalization, these low-income tax-generating machines will then become eligible to collect Social Security payments, both when they retire -- many are just as old as you -- and should they become disabled. And as the son of a construction worker, I can tell you that manual labor disables far more workers than anything other than union membership. That’s why our society was moving away from manual labor and towards automation and labor saving technologies -- until we found a huge supply of foreign helots to re-addict us to cheap and simple labor.

And speaking of foreign, that leads me to Reason No. 2 why illegal immigration cannot save Social Security: race relations. If America’s history has taught us anything, it’s that people just LOVE the idea that they are working to support people of a different race. Black people love it. White people love it. And brown people will love it just as much. Let us pretend that we know nothing of economics (Hey, I suddenly feel like a senator) and that we do not understand that people who do not pay much in taxes (i.e. poor people) cannot save Social Security. Suppose that, through a sprinkle of leftist pixie dust, we really could structure society so that 75 million decrepit old mostly white and English-speaking geezers were being supported in part by 150 million poor mostly Hispanic and Spanish-speaking young workers. How politically stable do you think that system would be?

Given the tendency of all mankind to self-segregate and organize with their own kind, how long do you think the intergenerational intercultural transfer of receipts would go unnoticed?

When Social Security becomes a scam to help old white folks parasitize young brown folks, I wouldn’t count on that direct deposit every month, especially in the months following an election.

Now, please understand, I do not encourage such racial realities. I’d like to buy the world a Coke, after all. But the world is what the world is.

And if you think we can save Social Security by giving citizenship away to the whole world with that Coke I’d buy everyone, you have not been paying attention to history.

Additionally, would you really want to live in a society in which one race-based class lives off another, even if you were among the race on top? It’s not what I wish for America. We were happily moving away from that.

I doubt Social Security can be saved at all. But I know Social Security cannot be saved by a sea of foreign poor people being added to a welfare state democracy. Aw, pobrecito boomers. Looks like 75 is the new 67.

Copyright © 2006 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

Please leave your comments by clicking on the comment line below.

Legal, permanent -- and alone
By Jeff Jacoby

Apr 13, 2006

When Sumathi Athuluri met the man she was destined to marry, it was love at first sight. She sensed at once that Jeevan Kumar, a young physician working on a World Health Organization project to eradicate polio in India, was someone special. And the more she learned about his lifestyle and values, she was telling me the other day by phone from Salem, Mass., where she now lives, "the more I felt he was the man I was looking for."

Jeevan was equally taken with Sumathi, a software engineer from Hyderabad who had moved to the United States on an H-1B work visa in 1999 and had become a legal permanent resident -- the holder of a green card -- in February 2002. The couple was married in India in August 2002, and for the first three months of their marriage they were virtually inseparable.

But green-card holders are not permitted to remain abroad indefinitely, and when the time came for Sumathi to return to the United States, she was a wreck. "It was so painful to leave him," she says. "I was crying in the plane all the way to the US."

Hoping to be quickly reunited with her husband, Sumathi filed a Form I-130, an application for an immigrant visa that would allow Jeevan to enter the United States. That was when she ran headlong into what has been called the most anti-family, anti-marriage, anti-immigrant aspect of American law: the prolonged and pointless separation of legal permanent residents from their spouses and children.

Sumathi's I-130 application for Jeevan was submitted more than three years ago; unless the law changes, it is likely to take at least two more years before his immigrant visa is finally approved. In the meantime, he is barred from entering the United States to visit his wife, even briefly. Because Sumathi has a green card -- because she is here lawfully and will soon be eligible for US citizenship -- her husband cannot get even a tourist visa to come see her.

Crazy? Yes, and it gets worse: If Sumathi had first gotten married and then applied for her green card, her husband would have been able to move here right away. Same thing if she had been here on a student visa, or had simply made no change in her status as the holder of a work visa. But becoming a legal permanent resident meant that anyone she subsequently married (and any child she gave birth to) outside the United States would have to languish on a waiting list for five or more years before being allowed to enter the country.

No policy aim is advanced by separating legal immigrants from their spouses and children -- especially when the only immigrants affected are those who have proclaimed their commitment to this country by becoming permanent residents. Congress didn't set out deliberately to put Sumathi and Jeevan and others like them through emotional torment. But by holding down the annual number of immigrant visas available to the spouses and kids of green-card holders, it unwittingly created a giant backlog.

Happily, the problem can be solved: Congress has only to remove the annual quota on visas for immediate relatives of legal permanent residents, thereby clearing up the backlog and eliminating the long wait. Legislation introduced by Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska would make that change. An alternative solution, offered by Representative Robert Andrews of New Jersey, would allow the spouse and minor children of green-card holders to enter the United States on a special "V visa," and to live here while waiting for their immigration petitions to be approved.

Unlike the illegal immigrants who have been raising such a ruckus across the country in recent days, green-card holders like Sumathi broke no laws to get here. Most of them are highly skilled professionals who eventually become US citizens, enriching their adopted country in the time-honored immigrant manner.

"I came here legally," says Sumathi, who develops speech recognition software for use in health care settings. "I'm making a contribution. I pay my taxes. I've never been a burden to the government. My husband is a doctor whose work on polio is saving lives. Why must we be separated like this?" She observes tartly that the United States lectures other countries about the importance of marriage and family. Yet "US immigration law is destroying my family life. I live alone, eat alone, sleep alone, cry alone, and suffer alone. . . . The only thing that keeps me going is my husband's photograph sitting next to me."

It is no virtue to split husbands from wives, or parents from young children. What is being done to immigrants like Sumathi Athuluri is both unjust and unwise. Above all, it is unworthy of a nation built by immigrants.

Jeff Jacoby is an Op-Ed writer for the Boston Globe, a radio political commentator, and a contributing columnist for Townhall.com.

Copyright © 2006 Boston Globe

posted by Moe Lauzier  # 11:37 AM 0 comments

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Zogby: Most Americans Oppose Amnesty

A majority of Americans said they oppose amnesty for illegal aliens, so-called "undocumented workers" from other nations who are already residing in the United States, according to a recent Zogby International survey.

While 52 percent said there should be no amnesty, 32 percent said they would favor amnesty for illegal aliens who currently reside in the United States.

The U.S. Congress has estimated that there are 11 million illegal immigrants now living in America. Amnesty was offered to people in this category during the Reagan administration, but it did little to stem the tide of illegal immigration into the country, primarily via the U.S.-Mexico border.

As Congress now works on immigration reform legislation in Washington, the survey shows there is a significant partisan divide on this question. Among self-identified Democrats nationwide, 51 percent favor amnesty, while 29 percent oppose it. Another 20 percent said they are unsure on the issue.

Among self-identified Republicans participating in the survey, just 13 percent said they favor amnesty, while 76 percent said they oppose such an offer.

A majority of political independents are opposed to offering amnesty – 50 percent said they are against it, while 33 percent said they are in favor of it.

This question also divides the nation based on age of the respondents. While younger respondents favor amnesty in greater numbers, older likely voters do not.

For added perspective, here's an interesting Associated Press report concerning illegals moving rapidly to the Mexican/USA border in hopes of amnesty legislation passing in congress.

Do you favor amnesty for illegals? Post your comments below.

There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing.

As we celebrate 'diversity' American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America - take note of California and other states - to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell's book "1984."

In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building:

• "War is peace."
• "Freedom is slavery."
• "Ignorance is strength."

Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don't get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream.

Do you agree or disagree with former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm? Register your opinion by clicking on the comment line. There you can tell us your thoughts on this.

~~~ Thanks, Moe

If we were a perfect society, our borders could remain open. We could accept any number of people that wished to enter the US from other countries and absorb them to become good tax-paying citizens and do their part to keep this country strong.

We have Immigration laws because we have always been less than perfect. No one can absorb an unlimited flow of immigrants, and we need to control the process by which people enter the country and the conditions under which they remain.

We are a country based on immigrants. Anyone who is not of Native American blood IS an immigrant--or a descendant of one--or a descendant of a slave. My own family is of Italian descent and immigrated here from Italy in the early 1900's. They quickly learned the English language, adopted the culture and laws of this country, set up businesses and taught their children to be good Americans while retaining their ethnic roots.

At that time, ethnic and racial bigotry was rampant. We were barely 40 years past the Emancipation Proclamation, and there were few laws on the books to protect any minorities.

Who has not heard of stories of their own ethnic groups being subjected to harassment? Irish, Italian, Polish, Russian, Portuguese, not to mention Chinese and Japanese, all these peoples found themselves in their own self-styled Ghettos in our major cities, isolated, mistrusted and misunderstood. How many people are aware, for example, that the Mafia, an old organization which had its origin in Sicily, began not as a criminal gang, but as a community protection group? And who has ever heard of the "Guoppo", the Mafia's rival?

Yet, we pulled thru. We pulled thru without affirmative action, without bilingual education, without most of the "protections" we take for granted today. We did it with the courage that has always been the trademark of America--the courage to explore new ways, to grow, to meet challenges head-on and win. We learned the language, adapted to the culture, fought our way thru the prejudices that held us back and came out as strong as anyone already here.

One of the biggest reasons why we won that struggle was respect. We respected ourselves, we respected the country that was our host, and we earned the respect of that country in return.

Today, the situation is drastically different. There is no longer the vast expanse of unoccupied land that we had a hundred and fifty years ago. There is no longer room in our cities to accommodate immigrants in the vast numbers that cross our borders every day, legally and illegally. There are no longer jobs in the quantities necessary to provide substantive employment for them all. There is no longer money available for the government programs to feed, clothe and shelter the masses that seek to come. With the coming of the extraordinary flood of immigration, housing prices have skyrocketed in the cities, blue-collar wages have become depressed in most industries, and while the economy has gotten a boost, much of that boost has come at the cost of wage levels and our standard of living. And every dollar sent abroad by these people to help support families adds to our trade deficit and weakens the dollar at home.

If you had a family and a secure home, your first priority would be to protect that home and family. Our traditional values tell us that if a neighbor knocked on your door, with his child, saying that they were hungry, you would have an obligation to share with them, offering food and other aid to whatever reasonable extent you could. But if a hundred, or a thousand, such families walked onto your property, a tenth of then breaking down your door, the rest coming in thru windows, ransacked your home, took your food, stole money and valuables, threatened the safety of your family, would it be the same? In all likelihood, such an invasion would shatter your family, threaten your job security and place you in a situation that would require years to rebuild. And the day after, you would no longer be in any position to offer aid to those with genuine need.

But the matter is more complex. With the advent of civil rights and affirmative action, the migrant of color has far reaching advantages over the European. You could be an illegal immigrant, with phoney ID's, perhaps a criminal record in your country of origin, a carrier of AIDS or other diseases, perhaps an addiction to drugs or alcohol, but if you are from Latin America, the Caribbean or Africa, you'd still be eligible for many benefits in education, housing and employment that are denied to your European brothers. This accelerates an already troublesome pattern, further reducing European immigration while the incoming flow of blacks and Hispanics breaks new records every year.

Why is that troublesome? In and of itself, it is troubling enough. But it doesn't stop there.

Look at the statistics on crime, on street gangs, on the drug trade, on divorce, on rape, on murder. Even in the heyday of the Mafia in Chicago and New York, my Italian forefathers could never hold a candle to those numbers.

Without the proper acclimation to the culture, the existing culture weakens. See this in action when you try to find someone to help you in a store, a medical facility, a government agency, and try to find someone who speaks GOOD English. Go into any college admissions or financial aid office and see what you're up against if you wish to apply for Government aid for tuition--then check out how many of the newest Doctors, Engineers and Lawyers have English as their primary language. Walk into the best colleges and universities, look at the student body and you will see the same thing.

And no one has to say a word about the precipitous drop in the quality of education in our public schools. Even a European American, born and raised here, now often graduates high school as a functional illiterate.

* * *Personal experience: I brought my own wife to a hospital once for unexplained and increasing chest pain. The doctor, one of Caribbean origin, checked her out briefly and prescribed ZINC supplements. He did not order a chest X-ray. Several days later, she was admitted (because I demanded an X-ray on a visit to a different hospital) with double pneumonia. On another occasion, she was mis-diagnosed with bacterial pneumonia, prescribed antibiotics, and I was forced to bring her in again 24 hours later to a different hospital with a gall bladder that was about to rupture.

Communication is critical in some areas of business. When you deal with the public, as a sales clerk, law-enforcement officer or as a doctor, for instance, knowledge of English is of critical importance and lives can sometimes hang in the balance. So, if I go into a hospital with a critical condition and demand a doctor that spoke English, am I being unreasonable?Then again, how much longer will I be able to FIND a doctor that speaks English?

Most hospitals provide interpreter services for those who do not speak English for these very reasons. Patients must be able to describe their symptoms, communicate well during treatment and follow their discharge instructions. Yet, where is the protection for those who speak English and are assigned a Doctor whose English skills began when they arrived at their University?* *

Every year, the percentage of people in this country that don't speak English--and have no intentions of changing that--increases. A few years ago, one town in the deep south passed a referendum to make Spanish the official language for their town. Fortunately, the law was overturned by the supreme court.

With the percentages rising, no lawmaker will put themselves on the line to make laws restricting immigration, or to increase the security of our borders. We could seal the borders tomorrow using the military, but the population already here that has immigrated and gotten their citizenship and their rights to vote would knock anyone out of office who tried it.

So the flood will continue. And with the continuation of that flood, the quality of life here, the standard of living here, will continue to deteriorate. Eventually, our economy will be affected to the extent that we will no longer be able to feed the many countries from which those immigrants have come. But long before that happens, we are more likely to be overtaken in power--by the European Union if we're lucky--or by either a united Muslim front or the mainland Chinese if we are not.

The threat is real. A state of war exists in this country, a war in which the enemy walks in unopposed, receives the protection of our own government and dominates the country by sheer numbers. A similar war is being waged on Israel now by the Palestinians, and Israel is fighting for its life to maintain a numerical advantage in their own country.

Racism? Look at a good example--South Africa. There has been a constant flood of propaganda against the white minority in that country since long before Nelson Mandella's Soviet-sponsored African National Congress took over the country. Much of it was true--Apartheid was ugly and bigoted. But the entire story never got to the mainstream press. What was left out was that South Africa, in spite of its many problems, had an immigration problem. Droves of people were coming IN to that country from all its neighbors, because all the neighboring countries, run by black dictators, were far worse for their citizens than anything Apartheid could throw at them.

Today, Italy has a problem with excessive immigration of refugees from Albania. Australia has a problem with people coming in from Indonesia. Germany is coping with immigration from Bosnia. For the extreme example, this time one executed by design with genocidal implications, look at Tibet--taken over militarily by the Chinese, it has been flooded by Chinese nationals who threaten to wipe out Tibetan blood and culture forever.

Were it my own Italian people who were causing this problem, nothing would change. If Italians immigrated here today legally and illegally, refused in great part to learn and use the English language, were willing to work in numbers for wages that undercut union scale, flooded the cities pushing up the cost of rental housing, sent large amounts of cash back to Italy to support their families there, brought in half a dozen family members for every one that immigrated here legally, then looked down their noses with collective disdain at anyone not speaking their own Italian language, the situation would be identical. The only difference would be the affirmative action protections that favor people of color.

Look at the demographics. Every year, Europeans are becoming a smaller and smaller majority in this country. And with the numbers comes an increasing denial of benefits to anyone who is part of that majority. European-Americans are working under a handicap now, one caused by their own guilt for what they did to Africans under the slavery era here, and this in spite of the fact that during that same period, Southern Europeans were simultaneously being enslaved by the North Africans--and none of us has ever asked for "Reparations" from Algeria, Morocco, Libya, Tunisia, Ethiopia, Egypt or Sudan.

The only solution is one that will be hard for us to swallow as a country, because it goes against the grain of all we have been taught. We have to seal our borders and stop the flood in its tracks.

We have to document the aliens that are already here, deport those who will not acclimate to

our culture, laws and economic structure, and severely restrict the numbers of those who come in in the future.

Should we fail to do that immediately, we will continue to be overrun and will fall as a nation in twenty years or less.If that happens, we will all be speaking Spanish--for about a year or two.

And then, Chinese.

Tony D'Andrea
Copyright © 1999

posted by Moe Lauzier  # 9:30 AM 1 comments

Below is a satirical letter to President Bush from a WRKO listener and reader of Issues of the Day. Your comments may be posted by using the comment line below the letter. Your thoughts are at the heart of this new site......Moe Lauzier

From: Dick and Karen

President George W. Bush
White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500-0001

Subject: I'm going to Mexico

Dear President Bush:

I'm planning a trip with my family and extended family,and would like to ask you to assist me. I'm going to walk acrossthe border from the U.S. into Mexico, and I need to make a fewarrangements. I know you can help with this.Our plan is to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports,immigration quotas and laws. I'm sure Mexico handles those things thesame way we do here.So, would you mind telling your buddy, President Vicente Fox, thatwe’re on my way? Please let him know that we will be expectingthe following:

1. Free medical care for my entire family.

2. English-speaking government bureaucrats for all services we mightneed, whether we use them or not.

3. All government forms need to be printed in English.

4. I want my kids to be taught by English-speaking teachers.

5. Schools need to include classes on American culture and history.

6. I want my kids to see the American flag flying on the top of theflag pole at their school with the Mexican flag flying lower down.

7. Please plan to feed my kids at school for both breakfast andlunch.

8. I will need a local Mexican driver's license so I can get easyaccess to government services.

9. I do not plan to have any car insurance, and I won't make anyeffort to learn local traffic laws.

10. In case one of the Mexican police officers does not get thememo from Pres. Fox to leave me alone, please be sure that allpolice officers speak English.

11. I plan to fly the U.S. flag from my house top, put flag decalson my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th. I do notwant any complaints or negative comments from the neighbors.

12. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes,and don't enforce any labor laws or tax laws.

13. Please tell all the people in the Mexico to be extremely niceand never say a critical word about me, or about the strain I mightplace on the economy.

14. Eventually I want to be able to vote and have all election materials
and notices sent to me in English with Spanish as a second language.

I know this is an easy request because you already do all thesethings for all the people who come to the U.S. from Mexico.

I am sure that Pres. Fox won't mind returning the favor if you ask himnicely. However, if he gives you any trouble, just invite him to go quailhunting with Vice-President Dick Cheney or a car ride with Senator Ted Kennedy.

Sincerely,

Dick and Karen
American Citizen

You may wish to pass this letter and site address along to the White House. They must hear the voice of Americans who feel enough is enough. The First Amendment has not been altered yet, so citizen comments and complaints are in our tradition. Please use it while we still can.

comments@whitehouse.gov

Please add any comments below and/or email me at mvl270@yahoo.com ........Ciao....Moe

posted by Moe Lauzier  # 7:05 AM 1 comments