Posts Tagged ‘Illegal’

The whole argument is political correctness gone to the level of emotional coddling.

Look!  It’s this simple:

If I drive a vehicle and if I do not have insurance or a drivers license, I am still a “driver”.  However, I am an undocumented driver and am not driving legally.  If I am not driving legally, then I am driving illegally.  I am an illegal driver.

It doesn’t matter whether I’m a nice person or not, or whether I work, have children, or am a genius.  If I hit your car and damage it, no matter how nice I am, you will find my illegal status problematic.

If I immigrate to this country and reside here, and if I do not have the appropriate visa or whatever papers I need, I am still a resident–I am still an immigrant.  However, I am an undocumented immigrant and did not immigrate here legally.  If I did not immigrate legally, then I am an illegal immigrant.

For those who don’t like the word “illegal”, you should understand that it means that something is not within the scope of what the law allows or prescribes.  More simply, not in accordance with applicable laws.

We can try to make those who are here illegally feel less outside the law by simply calling them undocumented, but that does not change the law.  And we can try to make ourselves look more progressive, compassionate, and accepting.  But stupidly arguing that black is not black, and that white is not white–well, it makes the person look plain stupid.


Read Full Post »

If I were Leigh Van Bryan or Emily Bunting, I’d be upset with the US!  Not only did they get shipped back to the UK after a run-in with authorities at LAX, but as a result, a lot of information about Leigh is open to the world!

Unless the post and photo are removed, you can see what I mean for yourself:  link

So here’s what we know about his case—and all without due process or recourse:

FINS:  1128413864

Subject ID:  342003068

Event No:  LAX1201000189

File No:  A200 247 649

Date of Birth:  12/31/1985

Foreign Address:  43 Upper Eastern Green Lane, Conventry, United Kingdom  CVS 7DA

US Address:  1615 N. Western Ave, Hollywood City Inn, Los Angeles, California

And we know that CBPO Edward Wahmann has a TERRIBLE signature!  And I thought my signature was bad!!!

But more importantly, aside from me perpetuating the offense, why is it OK for the government to release this information to the media and then for them to post it online?  OK, maybe the kid gave it to the media!  Still…

And more important still, what could I possibly say to get a one-way ticket to England?

Sadly, any anti-____ (you fill in the blank) sentiment I express will just get me negative attention, an investigation, maybe some jail time, and a lot of grief!  And this guy simply tweeted something that got misinterpreted!

Really!  Did they really think he was going to dig up Marilyn Monroe?  There are a lot crazier people already here!

For that matter, there are millions of illegal aliens here!  They don’t tweet their intentions—they simply come in quietly, get false documents, get jobs, get benefits, and suck the financial life out of the country.  Should we go after them and deport them?  No!  The Feds are too busy going after two British tourists over a stupid tweet!

Washington and specifically Homeland Security have their priorities wrong!  Give me a job in DC and I’ll fix things!  First priority will be to instill a sense of Common Sense!  Second will be to enforce the laws that are already on the books.  And third will be to get Homeland focused on the tweets from the guys who seriously want to “destroy America”—not the two Brits who misused the phrase and got caught!


Read Full Post »

I found it!!!

The Secret Answer!!!

OK, so it’s not so secret, and I didn’t find it.  It’s been there for millenia.

The United States would do well to learn the lessons of this smaller nation.  Unfortunately, this smaller nation is hated by most of its neighbors and home to a group of people who have been feared and loathed for those same millenia.

The basis for that fear and loathing could be argued but I suggest its envy more than anything else.  Let God show favor on one and others will envy.  Let God bless one and others will covet.  And so it is and has been with Israel.

So on to the “Secret”:

There was a recipe for financial independence and blessing that is worth noting.  In Deuteronomy 15, it reads:

” 1 At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. 2 This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel any loan they have made to a fellow Israelite. They shall not require payment from anyone among their own people, because the LORD’s time for canceling debts has been proclaimed. 3 You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your fellow Israelite owes you. 4 However, there need be no poor people among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, 5 if only you fully obey the LORD your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today. 6 For the LORD your God will bless you as he has promised, and you will lend to many nations but will borrow from none. You will rule over many nations but none will rule over you.”

I’ll suggest that the old way of keeping credit records was based on this same seven-year concept.  On that same point, I’d argue that our secular leaders and the financial industry looked at the root of the concept and chose to depart from it for two reasons:  (1) Distance from Biblical perspective in which far away is not far enough, and (2) the ability to profit more from the longer suffering of the affected masses.

Imagine a country where:

1.  Every seven years, debt was cancelled for its citizens

2.  Illegal immigrants and foreigners would still have to pay THEIR debts

3.  The Poor would no longer exist

4.  There was no national debt

5.  Other countries were the borrowers

6.  No other country ruled over it

Can it happen?  Sure.

Will it happen?  Not if man has anything to say about it.

Cancelling debt is something only a bankruptcy court does these days and that process has become costly, lengthy, and more difficult.  Too many people have skipped out on their debts, leaving others holding the bag and cutting into the profits of those who have gotten fat off of the suffering of others.  Not likely.

What?  Make illegal immigrants PAY rather than receive benefits for doing nothing?  Not as long as liberals are in any elected office.  Besides, the ACLU would sue, saying the concept is discriminatory.

No more Poor?  How would any Democrat ever get elected again???

No national debt.  Hmm… The US would thrive and China would collapse.  Then where would we buy all of our plastic stuff from?

Other countries would be happy to borrow from us but when we give them so much for free in foreign aid, why would they want to?

And finally, no other country would rule over the US.  Heck, another term in the White House for Obama and I expect to see the red and yellow of China flying atop it.

God had a plan and sadly, not even the chosen of Israel could keep it.  But imagine how different the world could be if people followed God’s guidance, even if it was for the Jews only at one time:  No crime!  No sin!  No depravity!  No long-term debt!  No exploitation! The end of sick headlines on the TV and in the paper!  No more kids snatched or women abused.  No more nonsense that makes this world the sick place it is.

And maybe best of all, no Democrats!  Heck, no Politicians!!!

Might as well wait for the new heaven and new earth!

Read Full Post »

Jorge Ramos is a journalist and works for the Spanish-language news organization, Univision.  He was interviewed on NPR following President Obama’s decision to push for immigration reform.

According to Señor Ramos, the jobs held predominantly by immigrants, both legal and illegal, are jobs that Americans are not necessarily clamoring for.  It’s a sentiment expressed by former Mexican President Vicente Fox that got him in trouble a few years ago:

Vicente Fox

There is no doubt that Mexicans, filled with dignity, willingness and ability to work, are doing jobs that not even blacks want to do there in the United States.” (May 2005)

In his example, Jorge Ramos cited tomato and orange pickers, presumably referring to the high number of migrant farm workers in California.  He supports a path to citizenship which is pretty clearly based on the immigrants’ sense of entitlement.  What I hear in his words (and the words of others) is a philosophy that they were entitled to enter this country to seek a better life and that if they had to do so illegally, never mind that.  They’re here, they’re entitled to stay, and we should all get over it and make it happen for them.  It’s like saying robbing a bank is illegal but if you can make it out the bank without killing anyone or being killed, and you can make it back to your house with the loot, the police should let you keep the money and say “nice job!”  It’s literally a sense of “safe at home” being applied to crossing the Rio Grande.

Well, here is where I think Señor Jorge Ramos esta muy incorrecto:

1. Non-US citizens are not entitled to move to this country.  If that were so, I’m sure there would be thousands if not millions of poor and destitute, persecuted, and entrepreneurial spirits around the world who would love to be here tomorrow.  But because Mexico shares a largely indefensible border with the US—or perhaps because so much of our country used to belong to Mexico—there seems to be this idea that crossing the border into the US should be as casual as crossing a street.  Not so and the laws of this country prohibit that undocumented immigration.  Shame on illegals for feeling entitled, and shame on the Federal government for doing nothing to uphold the law of the land—except in those instances when it’s easier— or convenient—like holding a few hundred passengers on a plane on the tarmac because Customs and Immigration officials aren’t available.

2. Illegal immigrants need to acknowledge their illegal status and face the consequences under the law, whether there are 12 of them or 12 million of them.  The numbers should not sway the legal process but rather should intensify the need for a solution.

3. It may be so that immigrants take the low-paying and menial jobs that many Americans would not want.  But why is that?

a. For one, it’s because the jobs are low paying.  And the jobs are naturally low paying because of the low skill level required to accomplish the job—and because of the high numbers of eligible workers.

b. Being undocumented, illegal immigrants become easy targets for those who prey on the illegal labor pool for their own financial gain.  These business owners will pay the illegals lower-than-market wages because they can.  The exploited illegal has no choice but to accept whatever pay he or she gets and cannot go to the local labor office and complain.  Being illegal, they have no voice or advocate for higher wages or better conditions.

c. You should realize that once these workers become legalized (if and when), they no longer fall into the same cheap labor pool.  Because businesses cannot take advantage of them, they become less of a victim and are no longer attractive laborers.  If a business has to pay them minimum wage and/or provide benefits, there’s no advantage in hiring them over any other American who wants a job.  Their competitive advantage in that job is gone.

d. On the point of wages being higher if there were fewer available workers, it’s an economic fact that when demand is high and supply is low, the value of that supply goes up.  The more eligible workers there are in the illegal workforce, the lower their pay will be.  The fewer there are, the higher the demand and the higher their pay.  When pay for illegals achieves parity with pay for legals, the advantage is gone and the attraction for undocumented workers goes away with it.

e. In communities where immigrant labor is not rampant, businesses exist and employ non-immigrant labor in menial and low-paying jobs.  One cannot support an argument that Americans (by birth or naturalization) do not hold jobs as roofers, landscapers, cleaners, and pickers.  What can be supported is that businesses that use legal laborers have a financial disadvantage when competing with those that use illegal laborers to the point that they do suffer financially.  Illegal and undocumented workers DO hurt the American economy.   <STORY>

My position is that Jorge Ramos misunderstands something about the American economy and workforce dynamics.  Making the immigrants legal and trying to put them to work in the same jobs they’re in today is not realistic.  There’s a flaw in his logic that overlooks the economic differences and realities when employing documented and undocumented workers.

He might also enjoy reading The Grapes of Wrath.  Not that I did but then again I was in 9th grade at the time.  Anyway, he would do well to remember that there was a time in this country when the typical White American formed a good portion of the labor pool in migrant farming, yes, even in California.  I believe that if such jobs were once again available under good labor conditions including good wages, we’d see Americans happy to take them.  But in a depressed market where an illegal can come along and do it for half the money and be happy, why would business owners hire a documented worker with his/her high demands for good pay and fair treatment?

Illegal and undocumented workers DO hurt the American economy.





Read Full Post »

It’s unbelievable that a state, city, or other municipality would choose to and call for the boycotting of a state because its laws were objectionable. 

What business is it of the City of Los Angeles what the State of Arizona does?  So what if people decide they don’t like a California law?  There are plenty of them to object to… should people boycott the state?  It amounts to extortion and all those who support a boycott or participate in the boycott of Arizona should themselves be boycotted.  Polls have shown the SB1070 is hugely popular but unfortunately, the silent majority is living up to its name.

Well, a family member sent me something a few minutes ago and while I don’t normally pass on emails, this one made me stop and think.  Feel free to pass it on.  Of course, referring people to this site to read it or to get their own copy would be cool too.  Stats, you know!

This is not original—it’s been out there since 2009 at least.  Worth a read.  No hate here, just something to think about.

Imagine asking the police to ENFORCE the LAW and having your state attacked!


You have two families: “Joe Legal” and “Jose Illegal”.  Both families have two parents, two children, and live in California .  

  • Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.  
  • Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash “under the table”.

 Ready? Now pay attention…  

  • Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has $31,231.00.  
  • Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.  
  • Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $24,031.00.  
  • Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.  
  • Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.  
  • Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps and welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
  •  Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $9,631.00.  
  • Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy. Jose Illegal pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $ 31,200.00.  
  • Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for non-medical insurance. Joe Legal now has $7,231.00.
  • Jose Illegal says, “We don’t need no stinkin’ insurance!” and still has $31,200.00.  
  • Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.  
  • Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.  
  • Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part-time job after work.  
  • Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.  
  • Joe Legal’s and Jose Illegal’s children both attend the same school.
  • Joe Legal pays for his children’s lunches while Jose Illegal’s children get a government sponsored lunch.
  • Jose Illegal’s children have an after school ESL program.
  • Joe Legal’s children go home.  
  • Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.  

Do you get it now?   If you vote for or support any politician that supports illegal aliens, you are part of the problem!

   It’s way PAST time to take a stand for America and Americans !

Read Full Post »

Before people get bent out of shape over this new Arizona law, maybe they should read it.  Really!

I had lunch with a friend today and as we discussed it, we both had to admit not knowing what it really says.  Without that knowledge, we can only debate what we think it says or what we think it should/should not say.

As a service to those who like to debate intelligently, I’m providing a link to the bill.

What I find missing is any language that helps the reader understand how this law will be enforced.  If the method of enforcement means a “peace officer” can simply stand on a street corner and challenge passers-by, I have a problem with that.  If the enforcement is in conjunction with other activities such as a traffic stop, arrest, question for other matters, etc., then I don’t see a problem.

The difference between the two is a delicate balance between a  police state and law enforcement in America.  My vision follows the way in which states used to enforce seatbelt laws.  Officers could not stop you simply because of not wearing a seatbelt but could cite you if you were found to be in noncompliance during another stop.  That has changed in some states and one has to believe that the Arizona law may change one day as well.  If that happens, then I would certainly object but then again, I can’t believe law enforcement officials in Arizona really have the time or resources to enforce it at that level.



Read Full Post »

Hero?  Villain?  Daugther of Hitler?

Governor Jan Brewer (Sonoran Weekly)

While her performance ratings are up–a double-digit increase over the past few weeks, there are many who hold her in high contempt.  Their rhetoric drips with hatred and has a very uncivil tone that otherwise would not be accepted.  Daughter of Hitler?  Wow!  Invoking the name of the infamous German dictator is enough to cause offense but attributing his tactics and thinking to a duly elected government official in the United States?  Unbelievable!  Even more unbelievable that there is not an outcry against the hate-mongers who are attacking the governor.

It’s not as if she’s pulled a Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi on anyone.  No, the law was properly passed and enacted and is the official law in Arizona.

The need for such a law is apparent.   A 2008 Pew Research report estimated 11.9 million illegal immigrants in the US.  Others estimate that number to be closer to 20 million by now but that can’t be confirmed.  The US Department of Labor reports 15 million Americans are out of work.  Going with the smaller Pew number of 11.9 million and assuming that all or most of those illegally here are working, imagine:

  • Only 3.1 million Americans out of work rather than 15 million
  • Income tax from an additional 11.9 million workers and the impact on local, state, and national economies
  • A higher national GDP and a stronger American economy

I would suggest that  Governor Brewer is more a patriot than hero or villain.  Her state sits at the main gateway to the US and that gate is open rather widely.  Isn’t it about time that someone does something?

While opponents say it’s the Fed’s job to police immigration issues, Washington sits by and plays backroom politics, skirting the issue.  President Obama’s administration has just this one thing to enforce to improve the job situation for Americans—yet nothing is being done.

On the other hand, the man in the White House hasn’t satisfactorily shown proof of his birth here either.  No, that 2007 laser printed document from Hawai’i means nothing.  Point is that if we can’t expect Washington to demand proof of citizenship for the highest office in the land, why would we expect documentation for the roofer, landscaper, migrant farm worker, etc., etc.?

OK, in the spirit of fair and equal representation, we have a Constitution for a reason.  It guarantees that we won’t be stopped and searched without just cause.  Maybe that’s not exactly the wording, but close enough.  We cannot trash the 4th Amendment to help bolster the economy.  That begs the question:   What is “unreasonable search”?

If a person was stopped for driving a vehicle in a reckless manner—perhaps weaving in and out of lanes—and the officer observed that the person spoke with a foreign accent and was not dressed in a style common to that area, would it be unreasonable for the officer to suspect that the person is not a local resident?  Probably not.  Now, let the stopped driver not speak a word of English.  OK, add to that either no American drivers license or a license that looks suspiciously fake.  The person has no passport (not many people drive around with one in the car).  Would it be unreasonable for the officer to try to determine who the person is or where he might be from?  Again, probably not.

So this person is in Bangor, Maine, and speaks Russian.  Problem?

How about an Iranian in Pocatello, Idaho?

Now, how about a Mexican in Phoenix, Arizona?

President Barack Obama (Getty Images)

Should the accent, apparent nationality, or location matter?  I suggest not.  But if the problem is in Arizona—and there’s no doubt that there is a problem there—should the government there turn a blind eye?

Should the government turn a blind eye to ANY illegality that it has within its powers to observe, question, and resolve?

Obviously a rhetorical question on my part but Governor Brewer is there in Arizona and knows what’s going on.  The other 49 states and their residents may want to consider how what she’s doing there benefits all of us AND upholds some sense of law and order before anyone condemns her.

We shall see.



Read Full Post »

Older Posts »