Schumer Aims to Trick Us

            Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) says he is “cautiously optimistic” that he and his fellow amnesty supporters can pass a legalization and path to citizenship for most of the estimated 11 to 12 million illegal aliens residing in the U.S. Mindful of past mistakes, the amnesty backers are trying a new ploy.

            One reason amnesty failed in 2006 and 2007 was amnesty backers’ indifference as to whether the U.S. had any effective border control or internal enforcement to curtail illegal immigration—most specifically a new rush on the border that amnesty certainly would encourage. This indifference angered amnesty opponents and other patriotic Americans, and greatly strengthened their resistance.

            To get around this obstacle, Schumer and other amnesty backers are now dishonestly claiming that the border and internal enforcement are effective. As far as the border goes, it is true that crossings have declined during the past year. While enforcement has played a role in that, most observers believe that our current economic turndown, as it has restricted the U.S. job market, is the main reason for the decrease.

            Only when the economy improves will we really know how effective border control is. In any case, we can be sure that amnesty will increase the number of border crossers. It always has in the past, in keeping with the principle that if you reward a behavior, you’re bound to get more of it. As for interior enforcement, it is obvious that the Obama Administration is backing away from even the minimal enforcement effort begun during the last part of the Bush Administration.

            Devoid of any shame, Schumer says he will hold hearings during the remainder of the year to promote “immigration reform,” his phrase for amnesty. The path may not be as easy as he thinks. With so many Americans out of work, it would make sense to step up immigration law enforcement to free up jobs, now held by illegal aliens, for American citizens. And those Americans may not look with favor on Schumer’s shenanigans.

            Another obstacle too will be Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) the new top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Sessions, who led the fight against the 2006 and 2007 amnesty bills, will have some say-so new legislation. In response to Schumer’s “optimism” for this year, Sessions replied, “We’re not there yet.”

            To keep from “getting there,” Americans who support real immigration reform will have to keep an eye on Schumer and his ilk and not fall for their bluff, bluster and deception.

287 (g) Is a Valuable Program

            An outstanding tribute to the worth of the 287 (g) program is the vehement opposition to it by the illegal alien lobbies. The program allows state and local law enforcement agencies to assist federal immigration law enforcement, after receiving training from the U.S. Department of Justice.

            This arrangement is increasingly popular, which helps explain why it is so unpopular with the anti-enforcement crowd. The reason 287 (g) came into being was realization that federal authorities simply didn’t have the manpower to provide effective interior enforcement against illegal immigration. The 287 (g) program, by deputizing state and local officers, has the potential of providing the necessary manpower.

            The illegal alien lobbies are disturbed by this prospect because, as it is so blatantly obvious, they don’t believe in enforcement of immigration laws. One example is the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which seemingly has never encountered an immigration law it could support. Typical of immigration anarchy crowd, the ACLU played the race card against 287 (g), claiming in a report that it promoted “racial profiling.”

            In reply to this charge, Dr. James Taylor of the Civitas Institute in North Carolina observed, “It is telling that the ACLU’s report does not cite any definitive evidence that 287 (g) encourages racial profiling. . . .  [The ACLU’s] message here is that some groups should get a pass. Under the rule of law, however, no one gets a pass; everyone is treated the same, regardless of race or, even, immigration status.”

            Jim Pendergraph, a retired sheriff  who used the program successfully in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, had this to say, “It seems too many people are looking for excuses not to use a program that works, [by] crying profiling and racism. It is high time people, all people, were held accountable for bad decisions and illegal conduct.”

            Anyone interested in promoting 287 (g) in your state or locality would do well to read the booklet, State and Local Assistance: A Force Multiplier in Immigration Law Enforcement. The price is $3.00 per booklet, and is available from the American Immigration Control Foundation, Box 525, Monterey, VA 24465. To order by credit card, call (540) 468-2022.        

Hate Crime Law Intended to Silence Free Speech

            It is scarcely a secret that many immigration enthusiasts don’t want to hear anyone criticize their point of view. Often they call any disagreement with that view “hate speech,” which means that it is speech they hate and want to censor. Some would even like to make such “hate speech” a hate crime. For them, our Constitution’s First Amendment guaranteeing free expression is a terrible burden to endure. It’s a burden they would like to be rid of.

            One possibility for doing so may be the so-called “hate crime” legislation, S. 909, now before the Senate. Its companion bill, H.R. 1913, has already passed the House. These measures would make it easier for the federal government to step in to states and localities to prosecute alleged “hate crimes” under an existing statute. It maintains that someone who “counsels” a hate crime is as liable to prosecution as the person who committed the act.

            How supporters of these bills may interpret “counsels” is certainly cause for concern for any American with an appreciation of civil liberties. A common propaganda line of open border zealots is that criticism of illegal immigration creates a “climate of hate” which causes crimes against illegal aliens. Thus would they define commentary against illegal immigration as “counsel” for crimes against illegal aliens that might take place?

            Supporters of these bills say no, and point to language in H.R. 1913 which affirms free speech, as guaranteed by the Constitution. Yet, keep in mind that many of their persuasion do not regard “hate speech” (as they call it) as free speech.

            Most troubling was the statement made by Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), a prominent supporter of H.R. 1913 during debate on the measure. She stated, “We also need to protect those potential victims who may be recipients of hateful words or hateful acts, or even violent acts.” Thus she suggests that “hateful words” are cause for legal action. Most troubling too, in this context, is Jackson-Lee’s well-known hostility to immigration restriction and people who support it.

            We already have adequate laws on the books to give equal protection against crime. Consequently, we don’t need a special category of “hate crime” laws, which can be easily twisted to criminalize legitimate commentary and expression. Call your senators’ offices and tell them to oppose S. 909. To reach them, dial the Capitol Hill Switchboard at (202) 224-3121. Do it soon.            

Mass Immigration Threatens Middle Class America

            Marie Cocco of the Washington Post Writers Group recently penned an article entitled, “The End of the Middle Class as We Know It.” In the article she noted various forces which are making it harder for middle class Americans to stay in the middle class and harder for lower income Americans to enter it. Conspicuous by its absence was mention of immigration.

            At its current massive levels, immigration cuts middle incomes and lower incomes alike. As an example of the former, recall the claim of “free traders” back in the early nineties that new “high tech” jobs would sustain middle class employment, even as we lost industries as a consequence to free trade. But what happened was that high tech companies, in pursuit of cheap labor, decided to import foreign workers in place of Americans. Job opportunities for Americans declined as well as high tech wages.

            One who supported this trend was immigration cheerleader Alan Greenspan, formerly the head of the Federal Reserve. When in that position he once stated that immigration was a good thing for the economy by lowering the wages of American professionals. At the same time, there was no record of Greenspan offering to lead by example by accepting a lower salary to head the Fed.

            As the author of the easy credit polices that helped to push the economy into the debacle it’s in now, one would think that the former Federal Reserve honcho would have enough shame not to show himself in public. No such luck. Just the other day he testified as a friendly witness at Sen. Arlen Spector’s kangaroo hearing to promote an amnesty (legal status with the pathway to citizenship) for the millions of illegal aliens now residing in the U.S.

            Evidently Greenspan wants to promote for lower wage American workers what he promoted for higher-income citizens. Each time in the past when we have granted amnesty, we have had more illegal immigration. Should it be any surprise that you get more of a behavior when you reward it?

            As documented by Harvard economist George Borjas, this continuing flow of illegal immigration (as well as legal immigration) has cut the wages and opportunities of our less skilled and educated citizens. What we are moving toward is a classic Third World situation, with a small elite at the top and masses of poor at the bottom.

            Immigration enthusiasts often claim that immigration is what America is all about. To the contrary, through our history, our middle class society has been our great distinction and accomplishment. If we lose it, Specter, Greenspan and the rest of their ilk will feel no loss. They’re sure to keep their wealth and privileges.