Sunday, November 22, 2009

'A spineless and brainless nation'

A guest column I wholeheartedly agree with from Yeh Ling-Ling executive director of the Alliance for a Sustainable USA, a national nonprofit organization based in California, about the rapid decline of the United States.

U.S. becoming 'spineless and brainless nation'

By Yeh Ling-Ling

The United States went from being the world's greatest creditor nation to being the world's greatest debtor nation in less than three decades. What happened?

While serving as comptroller general of the United States, David Walker urged our national leaders to learn from the fall of Rome. He warned that the U.S. budget deficits, extended wars abroad, health care and immigration are critical issues that require immediate actions.

Indeed, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan alone have cost American taxpayers more than $1 trillion, according to some estimates.

Our national debt has already exceeded $12 trillion, with no end in sight. American leaders should be told that most empires eventually fell due to the extended wars that bankrupted their treasuries.

If the above wars were to ensure our homeland security, why have our own borders remained so porous? Are most elected officials in Washington, D.C., not aware that many terrorists and criminal aliens live on U.S. soil?

Incredibly, most American leaders also lack courage and common sense in addressing other issues.

According to a Thomson Reuters report released Oct. 26, waste in the U.S. health-care system could total up to $850 billion a year.

Census data also show that recent immigrants and their U.S.-born children under 18 account for more than 70 percent of the growth of the uninsured population in the U.S.

Instead of working on trimming waste and reducing immigration as first steps to achieve sensible health-care reform, President Obama and Congress count on borrowing more from other countries to finance our needs.

The high costs of teen pregnancies, totaling 750,000 a year nationwide, have also been ignored.

Instead of enacting some sort of immigration moratorium so that we can put unemployed Americans, welfare recipients and nonviolent prisoners to work, Washington, D.C., has chosen to extend unemployment benefits and give out welfare costing taxpayers tens of billions of dollars yearly.

President Obama has spent hundreds of billions of dollars to create jobs for Americans. Yet he is promoting amnesty for possibly 20 million illegal aliens and massive numbers of "guest worker" visas. If his misleading "comprehensive immigration reform" is enacted, it will result in millions of new voters and an explosion of legal and illegal immigration!

Although some immigrants are assets to the U.S., most do not pay enough in taxes to cover the costs of social services rendered to their families due to their mostly low incomes.

Will our leaders ever realize that adding millions of people to the U.S. population every year essentially means more job seekers and patients as well as higher expenses for infrastructure?

Sadly, the United States, once the land of the free and the brave, is fast becoming a spineless and brainless nation.

Yeh Ling-Ling, a naturalized American citizen born in Vietnam of Chinese parents, is executive director of the Alliance for a Sustainable USA (www.asustainableusa.org), a national nonprofit organization based in Oakland, Calif.

Opinion: Ruben Navarrette Jr.: Immigrants, it's time to consider going home

By Ruben Navarrette Jr.

San Diego Union-Tribune

Posted: 11/21/2009 08:00:00 PM PST

SAN DIEGO — In the past, I've advised undocumented immigrants from Mexico to learn English, become legal, value education, refuse handouts, resist entitlement, and culturally assimilate. Now, given a disturbing trend tied to the wobbly U.S. economy — one that turns the immigration equation upside down — I have one more piece of advice: Consider going home.

Let me explain. It's not because they shouldn't be here in the first place. That's a given. Regular readers know that I don't support illegal immigration. In fact, I support speedy deportations, workplace raids, and tighter borders. I also support comprehensive immigration reform that gives illegal immigrants already here a pathway to earned legal status. There's no contradiction. You can't have conditional reform without enforcement. How would you handle those who didn't meet the conditions?

But don't expect me to sign on to the idealistic rhetoric from immigration restrictionists who think that all people in the country illegally should voluntarily return to where they came from because it's the right thing to do. Why should they? They have accomplices, after all — they came here because employers were willing to hire them. I would never be so naive as to make the argument that illegal immigrants should self-deport for moral reasons, any more than I would suggest employers turn themselves in to get right with the law.

Yet, given recent events, I am willing

---

Advertisement

---

to contemplate a completely different argument: that illegal immigrants should self-deport because of family reasons or, more precisely, because of family responsibility. They should leave not to please Americans but to alleviate some of the pressure that has come to weigh on relatives back home.

After all, in large part, Mexican migration is an expression of family values. The main reason that most Mexicans are here in the first place isn't for freedom or a fresh start, but simply to make enough money to send home to their relatives so that their lives in Mexico might be a little easier.

And guess what's happening now? According to the New York Times, there's a kind of reverse remittance going on where, instead of illegal immigrants sending money to Mexico, more and more poor people in Mexico are scraping together whatever they can to send funds to unemployed sons and daughters in the United States. Reporters interviewed Mexican government officials, bankers, money-transfer operators, immigration experts and Mexicans with out-of-work relatives in the United States. What they found was that, more and more often, these binational transfers of wealth are headed north instead of south.

This trend sounds counterintuitive, but it makes perfect sense in human terms. The parents quoted in the article want to do what most parents do when their kids are struggling financially — send money, at least enough for them to get a bite to eat. It doesn't matter whether those kids are under the same roof or 1,000 miles to the north.

But, as the article points out, the trouble is that most Mexicans are not in a position to be anyone's fairy godmother. Poised to lose as many as 735,000 jobs this year and with an economy that could decline as much as 7.5 percent, Mexico could be one of the countries hardest hit by the global recession. Remittances from relatives in the United States, while still a leading source of foreign revenue, have also suffered a steep decline.

In many Mexican villages, all you find are older people — many of them now working harder to earn a few extra pesos to send to children in the United States. This is, at best, a temporary solution. Folks on both sides of the border are treading water and trying to buy enough time for the U.S. economy to bounce back and for the jobs to return. At that point, they hope things will go back to the way they used to be — money flowing south.

But until that happens, why remain here? For pride? For hubris? To avoid accepting failure? For that, they're allowing their elderly parents — many of whom have worked their entire lives — to continue to work long hours, perhaps putting their own health in jeopardy? What if something happens to them in the process? It's not worth it. Life is short enough as it is.

If the immigrants who are in the United States can't afford to live here, then remaining is a luxury they also can't afford. They might not be better off at home. But their families might be. If so, time to go.

Illegal Immigrants: Amazingly, Conservatives Don't Want These People In America

Full story: startthinkingright.wordpress.com

A story that is becoming increasingly passe just over our southern border: “Women, Children Raped In County’s ‘Most Dangerous Area‘” Here are my thoughts about this: build a wall. Build it tall and strong. And patrol our side of it. Keep these people the hell out of our country.

And in so doing prevent helpless women and children from trusting these human-suit-wearing-cockroaches to illegally bring them here in the first place.

La Raza-types would argue that my opposing illegal immigration qualifies me as a racist, to which I shout, “What a racist thing of you to say!” They don’t bother to make a distinction between legal and illegal immigration. If I oppose illegal immigration I’m a racist. But they’re the racists. And why should anyone care what they say?

La Raza may not give a damn about these Mexican women and young girls being raped by Coyotes within sight of the U.S. border, but I sure do.

Conservatives are all in favor of immigration – from ALL over the world, and not just from Mexico or Latin America – as long as it is a) legal and b) benefits the United States. Now, very little of either occurs.

Allow me to elaborate on how we severed the improvement of the United States from our immigration policy to show how we got to this point.

This country used to have the best interest of the nation and its own people as a core value. But in 1965, championed by Democrat President Lyndon Johnson and Senator Ted Kennedy, that changed with the passage of the Hart-Celler Act. Democrats assured the country that our borders would never be flooded with waves of immigrants.

The Hart-Celler Act repealed our previous immigration laws – which Democrats attacked as favoring Europeans and immigrants with job skills – and replaced our previous sane policy with one of chain immigration. Instead of bringing in people with the job skills this country needed, the agenda became bringing in relatives of immigrants [Source: Mark Levin, Liberty And Tyranny, pp 150-151, and his citation from the Center for Immigration Studies, Sept. 1995].

We have continued to see wave after wave of unskilled immigrants flow into our country, along with their unskilled relatives, ever since. We have attracted them with all the welfare benefits that a Great Society could provide. And we have encouraged illegal immigration by these means, and by refusing to deal with the crisis our own elected representatives have foisted upon us.

Republican Representative William Miller understood the ramifications quite well. He said, “We estimate that if the President gets his way, and the current immigration laws are repealed, the number of immigrants next year will increase threefold and in subsequent years will increase even more.”

He was right. The Democrats were terribly wrong – other than the fact that they have – at the expense of the nation and the American people – successfully created a new pro-Democrat special interest/constituency group.

We need to end the process by which unskilled Latin American immigrants flood into this country either illegally or legally, and return to the system – based on fair international quotas and job skills – in which the most qualified people from all over the world come here to start new lives as Americans. We need to encourage immigrants who will leave their cultures behind and embrace American values, rather than our current system which encourages our immigrants to march against the clear national interests of the American people on a communist holiday (May Day) carrying a Mexican flag rather than the American flag – or even worse:

For what it’s worth, I’m not opposed to qualified, skilled immigrants legally coming here from Mexico or the Latin American hemisphere. Quite the contrary. I would gladly welcome such new Americans to this country. But you can count on me being much less gracious and welcoming to people who come and demand welfare benefits while flying a foreign flag.

Opinion

Commentary>Opinion from the July 06, 2006 edition How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico By John Dillin WASHINGTON – George W. Bush isn't the first Republican president to face a full-blown immigration crisis on the US-Mexican border. Fifty-three years ago, when newly elected Dwight Eisenhower moved into the White House, America's southern frontier was as porous as a spaghetti sieve. As many as 3 million illegal migrants had walked and waded northward over a period of several years for jobs in California, Arizona, Texas, and points beyond. President Eisenhower cut off this illegal traffic. He did it quickly and decisively with only 1,075 United States Border Patrol agents - less than one-tenth of today's force. The operation is still highly praised among veterans of the Border Patrol. Although there is little to no record of this operation in Ike's official papers, one piece of historic evidence indicates how he felt. In 1951, Ike wrote a letter to Sen. William Fulbright (D) of Arkansas. The senator had just proposed that a special commission be created by Congress to examine unethical conduct by government officials who accepted gifts and favors in exchange for special treatment of private individuals. General Eisenhower, who was gearing up for his run for the presidency, said "Amen" to Senator Fulbright's proposal. He then quoted a report in The New York Times, highlighting one paragraph that said: "The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican 'wetbacks' to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government." Years later, the late Herbert Brownell Jr., Eisenhower's first attorney general, said in an interview with this writer that the president had a sense of urgency about illegal immigration when he took office. America "was faced with a breakdown in law enforcement on a very large scale," Mr. Brownell said. "When I say large scale, I mean hundreds of thousands were coming in from Mexico [every year] without restraint." Although an on-and-off guest-worker program for Mexicans was operating at the time, farmers and ranchers in the Southwest had become dependent on an additional low-cost, docile, illegal labor force of up to 3 million, mostly Mexican, laborers. According to the Handbook of Texas Online, published by the University of Texas at Austin and the Texas State Historical Association, this illegal workforce had a severe impact on the wages of ordinary working Americans. The Handbook Online reports that a study by the President's Commission on Migratory Labor in Texas in 1950 found that cotton growers in the Rio Grande Valley, where most illegal aliens in Texas worked, paid wages that were "approximately half" the farm wages paid elsewhere in the state. Profits from illegal labor led to the kind of corruption that apparently worried Eisenhower. Joseph White, a retired 21-year veteran of the Border Patrol, says that in the early 1950s, some senior US officials overseeing immigration enforcement "had friends among the ranchers," and agents "did not dare" arrest their illegal workers. Walt Edwards, who joined the Border Patrol in 1951, tells a similar story. He says: "When we caught illegal aliens on farms and ranches, the farmer or rancher would often call and complain [to officials in El Paso]. And depending on how politically connected they were, there would be political intervention. That is how we got into this mess we are in now." Bill Chambers, who worked for a combined 33 years for the Border Patrol and the then-called US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), says politically powerful people are still fueling the flow of illegals. During the 1950s, however, this "Good Old Boy" system changed under Eisenhower - if only for about 10 years. In 1954, Ike appointed retired Gen. Joseph "Jumpin' Joe" Swing, a former West Point classmate and veteran of the 101st Airborne, as the new INS commissioner. Influential politicians, including Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D) of Texas and Sen. Pat McCarran (D) of Nevada, favored open borders, and were dead set against strong border enforcement, Brownell said. But General Swing's close connections to the president shielded him - and the Border Patrol - from meddling by powerful political and corporate interests. One of Swing's first decisive acts was to transfer certain entrenched immigration officials out of the border area to other regions of the country where their political connections with people such as Senator Johnson would have no effect. Then on June 17, 1954, what was called "Operation Wetback" began. Because political resistance was lower in California and Arizona, the roundup of aliens began there. Some 750 agents swept northward through agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 aliens were caught in the two states. Another 488,000, fearing arrest, had fled the country. By mid-July, the crackdown extended northward into Utah, Nevada, and Idaho, and eastward to Texas. By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and an estimated 500,000 to 700,000 illegals had left the Lone Star State voluntarily. Unlike today, Mexicans caught in the roundup were not simply released at the border, where they could easily reenter the US. To discourage their return, Swing arranged for buses and trains to take many aliens deep within Mexico before being set free. Tens of thousands more were put aboard two hired ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried the aliens from Port Isabel, Texas, to Vera Cruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles south. The sea voyage was "a rough trip, and they did not like it," says Don Coppock, who worked his way up from Border Patrolman in 1941 to eventually head the Border Patrol from 1960 to 1973. Mr. Coppock says he "cannot understand why [President] Bush let [today's] problem get away from him as it has. I guess it was his compassionate conservatism, and trying to please [Mexican President] Vincente Fox." There are now said to be 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the US. Of the Mexicans who live here, an estimated 85 percent are here illegally. Border Patrol vets offer tips on curbing illegal immigration One day in 1954, Border Patrol agent Walt Edwards picked up a newspaper in Big Spring, Texas, and saw some startling news. The government was launching an all-out drive to oust illegal aliens from the United States. The orders came straight from the top, where the new president, Dwight Eisenhower, had put a former West Point classmate, Gen. Joseph Swing, in charge of immigration enforcement. General Swing's fast-moving campaign soon secured America's borders - an accomplishment no other president has since equaled. Illegal migration had dropped 95 percent by the late 1950s. Several retired Border Patrol agents who took part in the 1950s effort, including Mr. Edwards, say much of what Swing did could be repeated today. "Some say we cannot send 12 million illegals now in the United States back where they came from. Of course we can!" Edwards says. Donald Coppock, who headed the Patrol from 1960 to 1973, says that if Swing and Ike were still running immigration enforcement, "they'd be on top of this in a minute." William Chambers, another '50s veteran, agrees. "They could do a pretty good job" sealing the border. Edwards says: "When we start enforcing the law, these various businesses are, on their own, going to replace their [illegal] workforce with a legal workforce." While Congress debates building a fence on the border, these veterans say other actions should have higher priority. 1. End the current practice of taking captured Mexican aliens to the border and releasing them. Instead, deport them deep into Mexico, where return to the US would be more costly. 2. Crack down hard on employers who hire illegals. Without jobs, the aliens won't come. 3. End "catch and release" for non-Mexican aliens. It is common for illegal migrants not from Mexico to be set free after their arrest if they promise to appear later before a judge. Few show up. The Patrol veterans say enforcement could also be aided by a legalized guest- worker program that permits Mexicans to register in their country for temporary jobs in the US. Eisenhower's team ran such a program. It permitted up to 400,000 Mexicans a year to enter the US for various agriculture jobs that lasted for 12 to 52 weeks. • John Dillin is former managing editor of the Monitor.

Greg Schneider, CEO, on the mission and methods of 3BL Media

No amnesty: "Compensate ILLEGALS to return home

November 14, 7:28 AMBay Area Moderate Conservative ExaminerDwight L. Schwab Jr.

It’s not such a silly question.  

With all the ideas being thrown around Washington about to do with theL ILLEGAL alien problem, “compensating” them to go home is probably the best idea yet.

  Think about it.  There is no real plan that can be passed which will curtail the influx of ILLEGALS.  Politicians from both parties have been arguing back and forth for years about the problem with no tangible results.  Any real solution to the problem will require billions and billions of taxpayer dollars one way or another, right? 

So instead of being accused of breaking up families or other horrid things that are arguments put forth by the liberal crowd, why not do what we do best?  Let’s just offer “compensation” to those already here to return voluntarily to their country with a stern reminder NOT to come back ILLEGALLY or next time will mean prison time.

Think about it.  We spend billions upon billions on foreign aid every year to help nations all over the globe.  Yet a major problem such as ILLEGAL ALIENS is an endless debate while millions remain here ILLEGALLY and unwanted.  They’re by definition “foreigners”, why not foreign aid for this problem?

The amount for departure can be decided on an individual or family basis depending on the situation.  But it is imperative that some sort of documentation be provided proving the ILLEGAL(S) being compensated have resided in the U.S. for a certain amount of time for payment.

All others will be deported in the usual fashion as quickly as the newly enforced and funded laws can provide.

Even the most liberal of politicians knows there’s going to come a time when this country cannot afford the ILLEGAL masses already here.  They know it but are too afraid of offending their electorate and being kicked out of a job.  They’re not thinking of what‘s best for America and its people.  They claim to be “compassionate” while millions live in fear and poverty. Is that compassion? 

Take Lou Dobbs, the commentator for almost 30 years at CNN.  He resigned the other day on air stating irreconcilable differences between him and management. He was clearly asked to leave because of special interest groups that now have enough say to sway a news network. Every day that passes draws the lines deeper into the sand with a problem that has no real solution that will satisfy everyone.

So why not pay ILLEGALS to leave our country with dignity and a nest egg to restart their lives compliments of the American taxpayer.  Again, the most compassionate country in the history of the world.  It’s an idea that has legs for all involved and a finale that only the most strident advocate of ILLEGAL activity can argue against...

Ever since 9/11, the politicians have been screaming for better security and tighter reins on ILLEGAL ALIENS. But at the same time, other voices scream for compassion and human rights for millions here with no LEGAL status and little chance to find the “American dream” within the shadows they are forced to live in.

  Why not give them this opportunity to walk away with a second chance to restart a life in their own country.  This is an opportunity where they can live without fear and start a life worth living.  If their native countries won’t assist in repatriation, we’ll use foreign aid monies to get the job done. Let’s face it, why can’t we apply “foreign aid” to ILLEGAL aliens that are foreigners in reality?

This is not a new idea.

The other day, Denmark (the most liberal country in Europe) offered immigrants from “non-Western countries” $20,000 to leave Denmark if they “can’t or won’t assimilate into Danish society” Again, we’re talking about liberal Denmark.

It’s the perfect way for every congressman to vote for an easy solution.  Call it “Cash for Departure” or whatever, but it is exactly what will bring all politicians together once and for all.

So the probable argument will be that the ILLEGALS will just go over the border and turn right around, right?

That will not happen because a majority of those here ILLEGALLY will more than likely see a better future being paid to leave now rather than being hunted down after laws are enforced and funded. And that’s what will happen when ALL Washington politicians can agree that this is the best way to end a bad situation.

Then, after the American taxpayer funds all those ILLEGALS who choose to leave by a chosen date without persecution, the new and tougher laws will be enforced with real teeth and punishments that are real and followed.  Those laws will be used to find far less numbers refusing the “Cash for Departure” program for resettlement in their native country. 

Likely, this country will not tolerate ILLEGALS caught on our soil. They will be immediately deported with no excuses accepted.  Those convicted of smuggling will be given strict and long-term prison sentences and then deported.

IF these measures are taken and enforced, word will travel fast that America is no longer an easy mark for welfare and government handouts.  And their native countries will come to know that the United States of America no longer tolerates such criminal and blatant behavior by any peoples of the world.  Come here legally or face criminal prosecution and/or deportation without exception. 

And the first of the new laws against ILLEGAL aliens will be the “anchor baby law”.  No more will ILLEGAL aliens be able to use a child born in the United States as a stepping stone for entire families to stay in this country.

If this doesn’t sound like a fiscally solid idea to the conservative minded, think about this:

  One trip by an ILLEGAL alien to an emergency room that is paid by the American taxpayer costs an average of $1200.00.  Health care reform funded by taxpayers for ILLEGALS makes “compensating” ILLEGALS to depart a pittance.

Is this REALLY such a crazy idea in a country like America?  It seems to be working just fine in liberal Denmark.

Are the Danish people “racists”, simply not compassionate?  I wait with anticipation letters critical of the Danish position.  Are they “irresponsible” protecting their sovereign rights as a nation?