Tom Tancredo is the only Republican in Congress who takes a consistent and unequivocal hard line against illegal immigration.
I gladly would have voted for this pro-immigration enforcement, pro-life opponent of homosexual “marriage” for president, but he’s too conservative for the Republican party. I have a better chance of marrying Denzel Washington than Tancredo has of becoming president of the United States. Ever.
At the Republican presidential debate last year, Tancredo debunked the “rounding up millions” myth. “We can’t round up millions of illegal aliens,” detractors say. We don’t have to, says Tancredo. Merely enforcing immigration laws would reduce illegal immigration.
That assertion has been proven correct over and over, as state and local governments take up the federal government’s slack and pass laws and ordinances that reduce economic incentives for illegal aliens and deter businesses from hiring them. These laws also give local law enforcement authority to question immigration status.
It happened in Northern Virginia and other localities. Local businesses are “suffering” because of the shortage of cheap labor, and there’s a noticeable decrease in hispanic students in schools. Illegal aliens, fearful of being asked immigration status, are packing up and going back to their home countries or moving to sanctuary cities and states.
Arizona has some of the toughest sanctions in the country against businesses that hire illegal aliens, signed by Democratic governor Janet Napolitano. Unethical business owners and so-called civil rights groups challenged the law penalizing businesses for knowingly hire illegal aliens.
Yesterday, the left-leaning 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law. (Source)
The ground is shifting in the “immigration enforcement is a federal matter” debate. Unscrupulous groups and cheapskate business owners will challenge the ruling, of course. If you can hire a group of below-the-radar, malleable people for whom a low hourly wage is a fortune compared to where they come from, why give it up? I’d like to see the case reach the right-leaning-for-now Supreme Court. America’s lax immigration enforcement is a national security issue, and I don’t understand how some people fail to see the connection.
Any desire to protect Americans from threats foreign and domestic and maintain a certain cultural and economic standard of living receded long ago, and our country is worse off for it. We’ll never know the extent to which we’ve allowed terrorist infiltration because of porous borders until another terrorist attack occurs. But who cares, right? All we want is to be entertained now. We’ll worry about terrorism later.
For more info, download the Federation for American Immigration Reform’s 14-page report in PDF, Immigration and National Security: A Checklist of Unfinished Reforms.
What has your town/city/state done to curb illegal “immigration?”
Related posts:
{ 19 comments }
Wow! That’s amazing that the 9th Circuit Court did ANYTHING even remotely resembling sensible. For them to do it on immigration enforcement laws is a gift from God!
Yes, SkyePuppy, it is a big deal, and I can’t understand why nobody’s talking about it.
To my knowledge, Pittsburgh has done absolutely nothing to stem the tide of illegal immigration. In fact, our local liberal newspapers and tv news outlets have run quite a few human interest stories on the “plight” of the “undocumented laborer”.
Pffft.
I don’t want this to go to the federal level. Let each state decide their own fate as per illegal immigration. We know that there are positive results for the states that have enacted tough enforcement. The rest will follow suit when they see how bad it will impact their economy.
The federal govt has made a mockery of the whole situation. Rather than make a decision they let the states enact laws and then they chime in only when it suits their political career. Very few in Washington care unless it costs them money or votes (in that order!).
The problem is, this is a Federal issue. It is among the FIRST responsibilities of the Federal government to protect and defend the borders of the nation. I would feel negligent as a voter not demanding they uphold their Constitutional duties. I do think it is important that the states and local governments fill the current gap in Federal action. But the Feds need to be held to account.
Let’s face it. Cities are in the pocket of the Chamber of Commerce all across this country. The Chambers bring new businesses to the towns and the cities get tax revenue from the businesses. It is a rare city, like Hazelton, Pa and a rare state, like Arizona, that stand up to the Chamber.
I went round for round with my Republican State Senator when Kansas tried to pass immigration laws this year. Before she was elected she promised to stop illegal immigration. After she got in office she caved to the Chamber and actually worked on a Senate committee that rewrote the proposed law so as to simply making it meaningless. They took all responsibility off the employers which is exactly what the Chamber wanted. The bill was so pathetic that it died in Committee which is exactly what the Chamber wanted.
This Rep of mine will NOT get my vote this fall when she is up for reelection. That’s the only voice we have. Vote !
My town/city/state is Los Angeles, its a Sanctuary City. So instead of discouraging illegal immigration it actually encourages illegal immigration. Its obvious to the naked eye.
My hometown of Newark, NJ has done NOTHING.
This baffles me because just last year 3 college students were killed by illegals last year. A fourth one survived a shot to the head.
I’m not saying that only illegals commit murder, but one of them was already on probation for child molestation.
Why are these lawbreaking trespassers going through our courts BUT NOT getting deported the moment it is confirmed that they are illegal citizens??
When I lived in San Diego, some of the lefties there used to go to Tijuana and pass out leaflets (in Spanish, of course)urging people to sneak across the border so that they could go on welfare.
One of the members of the wealthiest families in Tijuana(yes, I know “wealthiest” is a relative term, but she was rich, not poor), in fact did (legally) come to San Diego and have her baby there courtesy of Medicaid.
just curious…LaShawn, I apologize for the threadjack but I was just watching Colmes hyperventilate that Gingrich would laugh at the notion that one’s patriotism is defined by the taxes they throw down the blackk hole.
Is it just me or is Alan Colmes a mean little man? While Hannity gets unrelenting criticism from the left for being harsh, Alan spews far more venom.Further, his venom has a vicious edge to it and is often personally directed.
where i live, you can watch them playing soccer everyday at our local park. on sunday mornings, there are league games and they gather around the entire field; you’ll count anywhere b/n 100-175 spectators easily.
it’s “funny” how our neighbor to the south has a law that states any person entering their country illegally will be arrested and yet here…
I visited a friend in Manila once. Words fail me, a warren, a maze of alleys. No phone. Bare electric bulb. Bed a pile of blankets. They asked me if i wanted a coke and without thinking i said yes. And so little kid went out to go buy one. For me, fat old me who spends more per day on snacks than that family will spend this week. Maybe this month.
Not to mention try taking a walk in some of those hill sides you see in TJ.
I am a righty, really I am, but I just cheer when I see someone escaping that kind of hell hole to live some place half way compassionate and decent.
Maybe we can do something with these people the idiots running their home countries couldn’t.
john: I do not think the vast majority of conservatives are against immigration at all
What they, and I, a non-American non-resident, are against, however, is
(a)unrestricted (i.e. no reasonable limit on numbers)
(b)unchecked (i.e. no background scrutiny)
(c)illegal (i.e. quieue-jumping)
immigration. If you have already broken the law just by being here, then chances are you will break the law in other ways. This is not necessarily true, of course, but that’s a fair enough issue.
1. If your country is broken, and you are in a majority position, then do something about it!
2. If your country is broken, and you feel you cannot do something about it, move! But in a legal fashion.
Now, here’s the thing about amnesty. I would actually (somewhat reluctantly, true) allow amnesty on the following grounds;
- Absolute priority given to political and religious refugees. As long as they renounce all previous loyalties.
- High priority given to legal applicants. If applying for green card, greenlit for green card. If already a PR, greenlit for citizen. Subject to background check, of course.
- Illegals given legal residency status only. And time-limited. If they wanna stay longer, they gotta renew their work permit. After 5-10 years, say, the slate is wiped clean, and they can then apply for green card.
Gregory you may be right that most conservatives may not be against immigration completely, but by far the most vocal segment are those who hold racial prejudice and seek to gain support stemming from fear of a loss of “white,american” culture.
To those citing that economic drain on a welfare system is the reason immigrants should be kicked out, there have been studies by groups wanting to reduce immigration that come to the conclusion that it is a net gain to the country.
Gregory i would approve of an immigration policy that you have described, but i am not hopeful that it would come to pass because of the outcry of the racial ideologues
Illegals given legal residency status only. And time-limited. If they wanna stay longer, they gotta renew their work permit. After 5-10 years, say, the slate is wiped clean, and they can then apply for green card.
My wife is a legal immigrant from Africa. The State Department the USCIS repeatedly botched her application for a visa and residency respectively. Not once did the system work without being badgered by someone in authority. It took the intervention of two different Members of Congress to finally get my wife’s visa and then her “green card” – and hers was as close to an open-and-shut case of legal immigration as you will ever see.
Plus I have just a teensy-weensy itty-bitty little problem with rewarding law-breakers with legal residency, while those who abide by the law go on getting screwed. My wife’s sister does not have a snowball’s hope in Hades of coming to this country to visit us. Why? She is considered a “risk” of failing to leave the USA when her visa is up. But if someone sneaks across the border and manages to elude Immigration long enough, then legal residency can be theirs if such a law is passed. It stinks.
Let’s be honest. The present screwed-up system is neither an accident nor the result of incompetence. It is a deliberate policy of those who believe themselves above the laws the little people must obey. Some politicians in both parties look at the 10-20 million illegals, and what they see are 10-20 potential eternally grateful future voters for their side. After all – if legal residency can be had just by illegals thumbing their noses at the law long enough, why not full-blown US citizenship and the chance to reward partners in crime at re-election time? What’s to stop it?
I’d vote for Tancredo, with a side of Demint.
The problem is, the left has hijacked the terminology. By calling illegals “immigrants,” they can claim anyone who opposes illegal entry is against “immigration” and is being a hypocrite because America is a “nation of immigrants.”
Conservatives welcome those who come here legally. It’s sneaking around we’re not too happy with.
It would be interesting to survey the Mexican-American population that was born in the USA in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s on this issue. Both of my parents were born in Texas in the 1920’s, their parents had either immigrated to the USA or had also been born in the USA.
If my my family (both sides) is representative of this demographic slice of the larger “Hispanic” population, then I can defintely affirm that no one is more vehemently opposed to the unchecked tide of illegal immigrants than us. In fact, there is outright anger and a perception that as loyal citzens that we have been screwed.
Growing up I heard the opinions of my parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles on this topic. Here is a historical lesson on the list of grievances that they collectively voiced and that their offspring learned.
1. “We” have been in this country for close to a century. “We” came legally and started at the bottom.
2. “We” endured 2nd class status and outright discrimination but “we” persevered and never shirked from our duties as citizens and were proud to be Americans. There was no “Viva Mexico” sentiment in my family.
3. “We” have served our country in war and peace. On my dad’s side of the family beginning with him in 1945, there have been 26 members that have served in the armed forces. Some were drafted (5 cousins in Vietnam for example) and some volunteer and keep volunteering. I volunteered, so did a brother and a sister. We are proud that a family member has served in every conflict that the USA ever took part in.
4. “We” think we have reason for our collective anger. Who did the “bracero” program hurt, for example? My parents and relatives that had to compete against this cheap labor. Who did the hiring of illegals hurt? Again, my parents and relatives that started out at the bottom rung of the labor force.
5. Those of us that went on to higher education paid for it every step of the way; no special breaks for us. Nor, did we think we were entitled to one.
6. When the media goes around interviewing “illegal immigrants” we are angry that we don’t get asked our opinions.
7. “We” don’t want anyone “rounded up” nor do we want anyone to suffer some of the indignities that happened in the past. We want application of the law fairly and equitably. We know from historical experience that illegal immigration hurts those at the bottom the most. Been there, done that, better if it didn’t have to happen to anyone else.
8. “We” never took a handout nor did we go looking for one. We’re outraged that our taxes go for freebies are so easily dispensed.
9. “We” are angry that our little slice of American history has been so easily overlooked and ignored.
Send a reporter to my family’s 4th of July get-togethers and he/she will get an earful.
Israel
Hey! Hey! Hey! Just a shout out.
La Shawn, glad to see you blogging on the Christian vs Politics front again and looks like most of the gang is still around.
Unfortunately, I won’t be commenting much — a week left on my R&R before I go back to Iraq. I do promise to drop in when I can.
In any case, I’ve gone back thru your archives for the past few weeks and it warms the cockles of my heart to see that you haven’t lost your touch. Even when “controversial”, you’re still spot on!
Comments on this entry are closed.