The Real Immigration Solution

The Real Immigration Solution

Posted By Virgil Goode On April 30, 2010 @ 12:04 am In FrontPage | 56 Comments

In the wake of Arizona’s SB 1070, illegal immigration is at the forefront of national discussion for the first time since the defeat of amnesty in 2007.  Arizona’s law, which makes illegal presence a state crime, has rallied supporters of immigration enforcement.  The open borders lobby is pretending that the sky is falling and using the law to demand that the federal government grant an amnesty.

Lost in this debate is any discussion of lowering legal immigration levels.  In fact, many opponents of amnesty argue that while we need to stop illegal immigration, we should increase legal immigration.

Amnesty backers cannot deny that the 1986 amnesty failed to stop illegal immigration, so they now blame the problem on the fact that we did not increase legal immigration enough after the Act.  They argue we can prevent future illegal immigration by simply increasing legal immigration alongside an amnesty.  Luis Gutierrez’s amnesty bill includes a special visa to “prevent unauthorized migration” by simply increasing legal immigration from the country where illegal immigrants come from.

Most Americans do not know just how many legal immigrants we let in each year.  The Department of Homeland Security just issued their statistics for new legal permanent immigrants in 2009.  Last year, we issued 1,130,818 green cards, the fourth highest year since 1914.  From 2000-2009, we issued over 10 million green cards, the highest decade of American history.  Currently, there are 38 million immigrants, 24 million of whom are in the workforce.  This does not include temporary workers.  DHS did not release the 2009 figures yet, but they issued 912,735 temporary employment authorizations in 2008.

Most of these immigrants are low skilled and from the Third World.  Less than 10% of new green card holders are from Europe.  People of extraordinary ability, investors, and immigrants with advanced degrees made up less than 8% of the new immigrants.

Faced with these numbers, how can anyone argue with a straight face that we don’t admit enough immigrants?

Illegal immigration is a huge problem, and we need to step up enforcement and reject amnesty.  However, all the problems caused by illegal immigration are exacerbated by massive legal immigration.

Massive legal immigration undercuts the wages of American workers and causes unemployment.  Of the 1.1 million new green cards we issued last year, 808,478 were to working age immigrants.  During this same time period, over five million Americans lost their jobs.  With these numbers, there are no jobs Americans won’t do.  Harvard economist George Borjas estimates that American citizens’ wages go down 3-4% for every 10% increase of foreign workers—legal or illegal.

Massive legal immigration strains social services.  Illegal aliens are barred from most needs based welfare programs.  After being in this country for five years, legal immigrants are eligible for almost all government services.  Although there are loopholes and weak enforcement mechanisms, illegal aliens are still banned from receiving benefits in Obamacare.  However, the bill specifically eliminated the five year wait period in the public charge doctrine, which will allow legal immigrants access to government healthcare the moment they set foot on American soil.

Massive legal immigration endangers national security.   The vast majority Muslim legal immigrants do not support terrorism, but their large numbers allow terrorists to blend into the immigrant community.  The Center for Immigration Studies analyzed every Islamic extremist known to be involved in terrorist plots from 1993 through the September 11 attacks.  Of the 48 terrorists, 36% were naturalized citizens or had permanent green cards, 33% had temporary visas, 6% were asylum applicants, and only 25% were illegal aliens.

Finally, massive legal immigration causes massive illegal immigration.  As legal immigration has increased since Ted Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act, illegal immigration has risen alongside it.  The top sending countries for legal immigration are also the top sending countries for illegal immigration.  In another report by the Center for Immigration Studies, “Two Sides of the Same Coin: The Connection Between Legal and Illegal Immigration,” Jim Edwards explains that “The incentive to immigrate to the United States arises from opportunity, the experiences of relatives or peers, and other forces. Liberal family-based immigration preferences, along with myriad nonimmigrant visa classes from tourist to student to business investor, provide ample immigration opportunity to many more people. Whereas one might not otherwise have contemplated uprooting and moving halfway around the globe before, the existence of opportunity affects one’s decisions.”

When told the facts, the American people almost unanimously support cutting back on immigration.  In February, a Zogby poll asked, “putting aside the question of legal status for a moment and focusing only on the totals, is the number of immigrants entering the country each year too high, too low, or just right.”  67% said the number was too high, 14% said it was just right, and only 4% said it was too low.

Individual legal immigrants are not to blame for these problems.  They came here in search of a better life and played by the rules.  The real culprits are the politicians who put cheap labor ahead of the interests of the American people.  With 25 million out of work, it’s time to put the American citizens first by issuing a moratorium on legal immigration.

Virgil Goode served as a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives from 1997-2009, representing the 5th congressional district of Virginia.


US to abandon Israel at the UN

US to abandon Israel at the UN

Rick Moran

The Obama administration plans to abstain from a Security Council motion that would condemn Israel for building 1600 houses in east Jerusalem.

The abandonment of our ally in favor of pandering to the Palestinians on the eve of an attempt at shuttle diplomacy with Special Mid East Envoy George Mitchell acting as go-between is more proof of the naivete of Obama and his advisors. Do they really think it makes a bit of difference to Hamas what course we take in the United Nations? Obama apparently thinks they can negotiate with Abbas while leaving Hamas on the sidelines. Good luck with that.

And as far as appeasing Mr. Abbas, watch how quickly his demands escalate now that we’ve caved at the UN.

Mark Landler of the New York Times:

On Friday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton confirmed that next week, the United States would start indirect talks, in which the administration’s special envoy, George J. Mitchell, would ferry proposals between the Israelis and the Palestinians.”Ultimately, we want to see the parties in direct negotiations and working out all the difficult issues that they must,” Mrs. Clinton said to reporters at the State Department, after meeting with Kuwait’s deputy prime minister, Muhammad al-Sabah. “They’ve been close a few times before.”

Mr. Sabah said he expected Arab states to support the talks, despite Israel’s announcement in March of plans to build new Jewish housing in East Jerusalem. The announcement opened a rift between Israel and the United States and temporarily derailed the peace process.

The Arab League is expected to endorse the decision of the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, to return to the bargaining table, when the organization meets on Saturday in Cairo.

Mr. Abbas’s change of heart, administration officials said, came after reassurances from the United States, including a letter from Mr. Obama prodding the Palestinian leader to re-enter talks with Israel.

Separately, these officials said, Mr. Mitchell’s deputy, David Hale, indicated to the Palestinians that if Israel proceeded with the construction of 1,600 housing units in Jerusalem’s ultra-orthodox neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo, the United States would abstain from, rather than veto, a resolution in the United Nations Security Council condemning the move.

We have used our veto at the Security Council more than any other permanent member, largely in support of Israel. If not for the US, Zionism would be the equivalent of racism, Israel would largely be prevented from defending itself from the frequent attacks by first, the PLO and now the Palestinian Authority, and several other damaging resolutions attacking the Jewish state would be in effect.

That history has now been tossed under the bus. The order of the day is to force Israel into an agreement it feels would be a threat to its security. And hanging our ally out to dry at the UN facilitates the day when the Palestinians and their allies will feel emboldened enough to start another war.

Obama’s policies are virtually guaranteeing  it.

Obama overstretch

Obama overstretch

Thomas Lifson

Will President Obama’s attempt to bring “fundamental change” to America backfire and ultimately push America to the right? Although far from certain,  the possibility grows, as the tea parties symbolize a growing public awareness that government is expanding rapidly, at the expense of individual liberty, the private sector, and our standard of living.

Richard Viguerie helped invent the modern conservative political movement with his pioneering use of targeted direct mail lists, and has watched political dynamics in this country as closely as anyone. In today’s Washington Post, he writes:
…with the emergence of the “tea party” movement, for the first time in my life I sense that it may be possible for conservatives to actually shrink the federal government.
He sees, as do I, that the essence of the tea party movement is the return to constitutional limited governance, restoring the legacy that our wise and divinely-inspired founders bequeathed us. But how to translate this vision into reality, given a movement that is largely leaderless?
Viguerie offers five excellent suggestions for tea partiers.
Be independent.
Most important, tea partiers must remain distinct from both political parties. The GOP would like nothing better than to co-opt the movement and control the independent conservatives…. [snip]
Go on a policy offensive.

We must take on policy initiatives that will fundamentally change America but that, because of crony politics, neither political party will touch.
For example, push hard on the 10th Amendment, reserving those powers not expressly delegated to the federal government to the states and the people, and auditing the Federal Reserve.
Get involved, then stay involved.
Tea partiers must make ourselves a constant presence and conscience in the lives of those we elect. Once politicians get into office, they are surrounded by lobbyists and special interests that want more, not less.
This is the hardest of his points to implement, because sustaining enthusiasm and activism is always a challenge. Regrettably, the seriousness of the economic crisis (for example, the pending massive tax increases), and the growing probability of a military/terror crisis arising out of Obama’s projection of weakness and appeasement, may be the painful “solution” to the problem of maintaining intensity among the opposition.
Pressure institutions to change.
We must expand our cause beyond anger at politicians. [snip] … we also need to train a spotlight on the failed leaders of other major American institutions from Hollywood to Wall Street, including big business, banks, mainstream media, labor unions and organized religion (notably my own Catholic Church).

Avoid the third-party trap.

Just as the tea party movement must not be co-opted by either of the major parties, nor can it yield to the temptation to start a third party. In 2008, Republicans lost three Senate races because of conservative third-party candidates.

I am greatly heartened that there is little visible enthusiasm for third parties on the right. Charlie Crist is not exactly igniting enthusiasm from the tea partiers. I am personally hopeful that the tea parties’ emphasis on limited government may end up inducing many libertarians to support tea party-endorsed candidates cartrying the GOP label who are also committed to limiting government.

Barack Obama and his allies on the left — the serious left which seeks structural transformation of the United States into a state-dominated society, and a non-superpower — thought they could bamboozle the media and the public long enough to kick out of place key foundations of American life as it has been. Because they have contempt for those foundations (capitalism, constitutionalism, our military, and Judeo Christian values), the underestimated their power, and the attachment of the people to them.
It is worthwhile reading Viguerie’s advice, as we head toward midterm elections, and contemplate 2012.

The crux of Islam’s hatred against the Jews

The crux of Islam’s hatred against the Jews

Jerry Philipson

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the United States and Egypt are discussing an agreement which would see the Middle East, including Israel and Iran, become a nuclear free zone. The Daily Telegraph newspaper in England reports that President Obama is threatening to turn the peace process over to the international community if it remains deadlocked until the fall. In the meantime there may or may not be a resumption of talks on Monday, depending on who you’re listening to.

All of this ignores the most salient factor of all.

Peace between Israel and the Palestinians is not possible because Islam won’t permit it and militates against it.

Islam is a religion of intolerance toward unbelievers, with perhaps the most hatred reserved for Jews because of their ancient refusal to recognize Muhammad as the last and greatest prophet and Allah as the supreme being.

This hatred of Jews translates into a hatred of Israel, which in turn translates into an obligation to obliterate it and remove it from the face of the earth. When Palestinians and other Muslims demonize, vilify, attack and kill Israelis, Jews, they are really doing so in the name of Islam and because Islam commands them to. Israelis, Jews, are infidels and are seen as occupiers and interlopers at best with no right to the land they live on, historical or otherwise. Their presence is viewed as an affront and an insult.

Nothing will change until these misguided beliefs do. Since they go back 1400 years, are rooted in the Koran and are basic to Islamic thought and action peace is not going to come soon, if it ever does. The best we can hope for is some sort of grudging ceasefire, enforced by a third party that isn’t the United Nations. Islam itself is the cause of the conflict in the Middle East and there is no possibility of peace until Islamic countries recognize and accept Israel’s legitimate right to exist and stop trying to annihilate it. That is a contradiction of terms so don’t hold your breath.

Israel ignores or glosses over this at her peril and so does the U.S. Israel is the Little Satan but America is the Great Satan and also in the line of fire.

Peace? Forget it in this day and age. Maybe in another 1400 years though…