Kennedy Deserves No Tribute

            Passing “immigration reform” [a k a amnesty] would be a “fitting tribute” to the late Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), says columnist and mass immigration advocate Morton Kondracke. Certainly Kennedy was a leader in promoting mass immigration, both legal and illegal. But for that he certainly deserves no tribute.

            Kennedy was a man of low personal character and ethics, and his dishonesty was most evident in his advocacy of immigration bills. Of the infamous 1965 immigration act, which he spearheaded, Kennedy promised: “First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same. . . . Secondly, the ethnic mix of the country will not be upset. . . . [and the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country. . . .” Nevertheless, these consequences were exactly what the 1965 act initiated.

            When Congress first debated amnesty for illegal aliens, which culminated in the 1986 amnesty—and legal status and the path to citizenship for 3 million illegal aliens, Kennedy promised that granting legal status for illegals would only happen once, and never be repeated. It was a promise not kept. Indeed, Kennedy led the failed attempts to pass amnesty in 2006 and 2007.

            Kennedy’s indifference to our country’s laws and interests have led some to question his basic loyalty to the United States. In point of fact, during the Cold War Kennedy made contact with the government of the Soviet Union and offered to assist the Soviets in making their case against the Reagan Administration on the issue of missile deployment.

            Truly today, one has reason to question the basic loyalty of illegal immigration advocates. Their indifference to the importance of our borders and the value of our citizenship suggests agendas other than allegiance to the United States. Also, as with Kennedy, we have reason to question their honesty. Some, such as Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) are claiming that we should now have amnesty because the border is not significantly under control. The reality is that it is not, while at the same time the Obama Administration seems inclined to cut back on what little internal enforcement we have.

            No, we owe no tribute to the likes of Ted Kennedy. Tribute belongs to those patriotic Americans who innundated Congress with phone calls and stopped the 2006 and 2007 pushes for amnesty. May they rise to the occasion when amnesty comes up again.           

    Care for Illegals Is No Myth

            “It’s a myth” say defenders of the House health care proposal, HR 3200, that the measure would provide coverage to illegal aliens. One congressman making this claim at a Town Hall meeting was Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA). He maintained that the bill specifically excludes illegals.

            The part of the measure he referred to was Section 246 which states, “Nothing in this subtitle shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”

            Does that statement prove that Frank and the other defenders of the bill are correct? Not at all. Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV) rightly concluded that Section 246 is just so much window dressing if the bill “does not require the tools necessary to make sure illegal immigrants do not access taxpayer-funded health care benefits.” With this thought in mind Rep. Heller proposed an amendment to HR 3200 during the House Ways and Means mark-up to provide those tools.

            Specifically he proposed use of the Income Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) and the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program to screen out illegal aliens applying for benefits. The amendment was defeated by 26 Democrats on the committee. Given that IEVS and SAVE are effective screening tools, one must conclude that the nay-sayers didn’t want effective screening.

            So is Section 246, which calls for exclusion of illegals, worth any more than the paper it’s written on? It’s a question someone should ask Barney Frank at one of his upcoming Town Hall meetings.

            The tactic of passing legislation against illegal aliens, without effective means of enforcement, is old and favorite ploy of pro-alien politicians—such as Barney Frank. Since passage of the first amnesty in 1986, bill after bill promised border control and internal enforcement. But much more often than not, these measures had no funding and no real teeth.

            When the pro-alien politicians begin their drive for amnesty, they will make many promises to soothe the American public. Look at what they do, not what they say.                     It is truly a myth to believe that we can trust them.

A New Case Against (Mass) Immigration

            Those who defend mass immigration, legal and illegal, claim that immigration worked out in the past, even though people worried about it. Therefore, they soothingly try to persuade us, America has nothing to worry about now.

            The fact of the matter is that the circumstances of immigration are far different than in the past. A very good summary of the reason is Mark Krikorian’s recently published book, The New Case Against Immigration: Both Legal and Illegal. Krikorian is executive director of the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and a frequent guest on national TV shows.

            His basic point is that the immigration policies we have now are inappropriate, given the kind of “modern” society most Americans want to have. It consists of a country where social harmony prevails, where most people have are middle-class, and where infrastructure and the environment are not under stress.

            If for no other reason, current immigration undermines these goals with its massive numbers, a net total of 1.3 million a year. To put the total influx into perspective, Krikorian notes that “Fully one-third of all the people ever to move to the United States, starting from the first Siberian to cross the Bering land bridge in search of game, have arrived since 1965.” These overwhelming numbers under the best of circumstances would pose considerable problems for our social vision.

            Assimilation is just one example. In the past, our society generally agreed on what it meant to be an American and insisted that newcomers conform to this standard. That is hardly the case today with “post American” elites in government, the media and elsewhere sabotaging assimilation with their cult of multiculturalism. Economically, as a post industrial country, we no longer have the factory jobs that provided upward mobility to earlier generations of immigrants. Budgets are constrained for infrastructure, and we no longer have the wide-open spaces that once invited more population.

            In response claim that diversity is “enriching” us, Krikorian points out that immigration is decidedly un-diverse, with most of it coming from Mexico and other Spanish-speaking countries. This again retards assimilation, by making it easier for these newcomers to cluster together in their large numbers and not change. It also fosters the cause of Latino radicals and their ethnic/racial agendas.

            Krikorian’s book is a valuable rebuke to the ignorance, dishonesty, and maudlin sentimentalism that prevent reasonable discussion of immigration.                     

When Amnesty Comes Up, Speak Out!

            The elites of America are very concerned that ordinary Americans are making their views known to congressmen at public Town Hall meetings. They are outraged that ordinary people are so brash and uppity as to question the health care plans now before Congress. Admittedly some at the meetings may have been too shrill, but in the main, people have simply expressed their heart-felt concerns about the plan. One of them is that the House health proposal, for all practical purposes, will allow illegal aliens to participate in the program.

            This public uproar, seemingly, is what representative government is all about. But one not too comfortable with that concept is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). She claims that this kind of populist upsurge does not represent grass roots America—as if this wealthy insular politico would have even a clue about average Americans. According to Pelosi, the critics at the meetings are “Un-American.” What irony! This is the same person who once praised the “patriotism” of illegal aliens. Pelosi probably wouldn’t know a real American if she stepped on one. (And step on them she does.)

            In any event, President Obama made it known during his recent trip to Mexico that once the health bill is finished, he’s going to move full speed ahead on his “comprehensive,” immigration legislation, i.e., amnesty for illegal aliens. In what Congress Daily PM called “his strongest commitment yet” to the plan, Obama stated that he hoped that it could be passed next year.

            Said the president, “This is going to be difficult. It is going to require bipartisan cooperation. There are going to be demagogues out there who [will] try to suggest that any form of legalization for those who are already in the United States is unacceptable.”

            There you have it. Those of us who believe in the rule of law and oppose reward for those who break our laws are “demagogues.” Well, we demagogues should prepare to borrow a page from the health care critics, and prepare to meet our congressmen at the Town Halls—as well as communicate with them by letter, phone and e-mail.

            Let there be no threats or insults, or any other violation of basic courtesy, but let the congressmen know in no uncertain terms that amnesty is unacceptable. Popular outrage toward misgovernment is as American as apple pie.    

Lou Dobbs Deserves Our Support

Lou Dobbs, the CNN commentator, is a man that open border fanatics love to hate. Ironically, they call him a “hater” for loving his country enough to expose the problems caused by illegal immigration—a situation that most other “mainstream” commentators prefer to ignore.

      A while back, Dobbs drew the wrath of the National Council of La Raza (The Race), an alleged “civil rights” group which resists every effective effort to stem illegal immigration—presumably to build the power and clout of “La Raza” at the expense of other Americans.

            A spokeswoman for this organization even suggested that CNN should fire Dobbs for his commentary. Illegal alien advocates show themselves to be un-American when they disregard the significance of our borders and our laws. La Raza further shows its lack of love for our country by stifling the free exchange of ideas, a principle upheld by all true Americans.

            Now joining La Raza in the fray against Dobbs is the radical-left Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), another strident proponent of illegal aliens. Hate hype is their stock in trade too, and according to them the major organizations opposed to illegal immigration are “hate groups” or groups related to “haters.” The supreme irony here is a so-called “law center” working to undermine the rule of law as it pertains to immigration.

            Dobbs has challenged the SPLC on its pro-illegal alien bias, and it bears a bitter grudge against him for doing so. Now it too, is calling on CNN to fire Dobbs. The pretext is that the commentator is a “racist” for discussing the issue of President Obama being a “natural born” citizen. This is irresponsible, according to the “law center.”

            To set the record straight, Dobbs believes that Obama is a natural born citizen. His point is that a good way for Obama to dispel the rumors that he isn’t is to reveal his birth certificate and other personal documents. To call this “racism” is itself  irresponsible.

            If you, the reader, are a fan of Lou Dobbs, take a stand for freedom of speech by supporting him. Specifically, e-mail the officers of CNN listed below, tell them that you want Dobbs to stay on the air. Don’t let the un-Americans win.

• Jim.Walton@turner.com (president of CNN Worldwide)
• Susan.Grant@turner.com (executive vice president of CNN News Services)
• Jon.Klein@turner.com (president of CNN/US)
• Rena.Golden@turner.com (senior vice president and executive producer of CNN.com)
• David.Payne@turner.com (senior vice president and general manager of CNN.com)
• Mitch.Gelman@turner.com (senior vice president and senior executive producer of CNN.com)