This is the page where you can find the true intentions of our socialist friends. I do give them credit, they are up front with their beliefs. Notice how it is we the people of the world... and not the U.S.
Global Resistance Network project.
Mission Statement
We the people of the world find ourselves in a state of war. We find ourselves being attacked from all quarters and on all fronts by the forces of greed, militarism, prejudice, and repression. We find ourselves having to fight for the most elementary democratic rights; we find ourselves fighting for the very right to live and make a life in the world, a place without having to bow down to the might of corporate subjugation and empire.
As a response to this war on all fronts, the Global Resistance Network was initiated. The network was formed as a coalition of a new type, created as a non-partisan popular front of everyday people and groups united in resistance! The coalition is made up of people from all backgrounds, political stripes, and from all walks of life, by people who have pledged not to stand idly by and see this world and its people pillaged and subjugated by the two-headed beast of war and repression. This network pledges to resist militarism, to resist corporate globalization, to resist attacks on workers' rights, to resist attacks on students' rights, to resist the curtailment of our civil liberties, to resist sex, race and gender discrimination, and to resist wars of aggression and the occupations of sovereign territories.
The Global Resistance Network is made up of individuals and groups as diverse in our ideologies and backgrounds as the causes we pledge to fight for, and the attacks we pledge to resist. We invite all progressively conscious individuals, groups, and political parties who share a passion for social justice and world peace to join us and become part of the global movement for a better world.
We the people of the world find ourselves under numerous attacks and we at the Global Resistance Network resolve to stand united in resistance against all of them!
http://www.globalresistancenetwork.com/IT_AgainstTheWarMachine.html
Friday, May 13, 2005
Ian Thompson's Crusade Against America Continues
From a talk given at the Jan 20 Counter-Inaugural protest in LA by Ian ThompsonCuba is under attack. It has been since its Revolution triumphed in 1959. U.S. sponsored terrorist attacks have killed over 3,500 Cubans and injured thousands more. The criminal U.S. blockade has been in place for over four decades and Bush tightened it in 2004. Unlike in Iraq, the U.S. military is not dropping bombs on Cuba, but that's not out of the question.The Bush administration was bad news for Cuba and the rest of the world during his first term, but the new anti-Cuba team he lined up for this term is even worse. It's full of neo-conservative ideologues bent on subjugating the world's people and its resources for profit.Newly anointed Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, and Cuban Americans Mel Martinez, Carlos Gutierrez and others are hard-line right wingers in the Bush administration. They would like nothing more than to see socialist Cuba reopened for exploitation by U.S. banks, corporations and gangsters.In her confirmation hearings this week, Condoleeza Rice singled out Cuba as a "tyranny that oppresses its people." This is false. Free healthcare, free education, jobs and respect for workers' rights isn't tyranny-it's freedom. Bush and his right wing cronies like Rice spread fear and vicious lies to divide working and oppressed people who share common interests. The people of Cuba are natural allies to workers in the U.S.Rice also threatened Venezuela, whose Bolivarian Revolution is deepening each day. Venezuela is very important to all progressives who seek broad social change. President Hugo Chávez just implemented a land law that redistributes land to peasant farmers. It expropriates rich, foreign owners who held large ranches and used them to exploit the labor of Venezuelans.Cuba's help to Venezuela has been critical in its revolutionary process. Cuba has 16,000 doctors and dentists working for free in the poorest areas of the country. We must defend Cuba and Venezuela and all peoples resisting U.S. imperialism at this crucial time.Cuba and Venezuela show us all what a world based on solidarity and cooperation can be. Let's unite and win, so we can build a better world.
Enemies Everywhere
This is the type of enemy we face in our own country. Get a load of the "Heroic popular resistance line." How anti Military can one be. This writer would not fight to save his own mother! Also take note of the "Defeat U.S. Imperialism" garbage. Make sure to send an e-mail to the anti American sites and ask them what great plans they have for protecting our nation.
I am sure flowers and flip-flops will be involved!
May 11, 2005 - Socialism and Liberation
Military Recruiters Face Youth and Student Resistance
Against the War Machine
by Ian Thompson
“We’ll give you up to $70,000 for college.” “You won’t have to go to Iraq.” “Your service will only last four years.”
Much of what recruiters promise is based on exaggeration, half-truths and outright lies. Recruiters have to fill quotas and will do almost anything to meet them, especially during wartime.
The U.S. military—the most powerful and destructive in the world—is growing increasingly desperate to fill its ranks.
In 2005 alone, the Army seeks to recruit 101,200 new active-duty regular Army and Reserve soldiers. But recruitment in nearly all branches of the military is down.
The National Guard missed its recruitment quota by 13 percent last year. The Army fell short of its goal by more than 27 percent in February 2005 and is more than six percent behind its year-to-date recruiting target. The Reserve is 10 percent behind its target and the Guard is 26 percent short. January through March 2005 was the first time in a decade that the Marines missed their monthly goals.
What is causing this sudden decline?
The Iraqi resistance is the biggest factor. The popular resistance to occupation in Iraq has fiercely and heroically opposed the U.S. presence from the beginning. Many young people do not want to join the military to die in an unpopular war.
The strength and depth of the massive global anti-war movement has also contributed. Over the past three years, tens of millions have participated in demonstrations opposing war and occupation. The protests have impacted millions more and reflect widespread opposition to the war.
One dynamic new element of the anti-war movement is the growing youth and student movement to stop military recruiters from infiltrating high school and college campuses. Young people all over the country are confronting recruiters, staging protests, and kicking them off campuses by legal means or through militant action.
In response to their dwindling numbers, the military recently added 1,200 recruiters to the field and said it would spend more than the $4 billion already allotted for advertising and recruitment in 2005. It is also increasing economic and educational incentives to entice young people to enter. The military is continuing to push its predatory tactics wherever it can.
Defeat U.S. imperialism
The most advanced sectors of the burgeoning student movement see the anti-recruitment drive as part of the larger fight to stop the war and, ultimately, defeat U.S. imperialism.
According to Aimee Hunter, an 18 year-old student at Mission College in Sylmar, California,
“We are against recruiters because we don’t want working-class people to fight in this imperialist army. Wars like this only benefit Wall Street and big corporations. Instead of fighting against workers in Iraq, we want youth and students to join the struggle here at home.”
Like all imperialist wars, the war and occupation of Iraq hurts working people in Iraq and the United States. This includes workers in uniform who are being used as cannon fodder by the ruling class.
Student activism to keep young people out of the U.S. military serves the worthy goals of diminishing military numbers and building resistance to its hegemonic aims. Those who do not enlist in the military because of these efforts should join the ranks of the people’s movement against imperialist war, racism and bigotry.
http://www.globalresistancenetwork.com/
IT_AgainstTheWarMachine.html
Ian Thompson's article was first published on Socialism and Liberation.
Ian Thompson is a writer and activist in the Los Angeles area. He can be reached at idthomp@yahoo.com
I am sure flowers and flip-flops will be involved!
May 11, 2005 - Socialism and Liberation
Military Recruiters Face Youth and Student Resistance
Against the War Machine
by Ian Thompson
“We’ll give you up to $70,000 for college.” “You won’t have to go to Iraq.” “Your service will only last four years.”
Much of what recruiters promise is based on exaggeration, half-truths and outright lies. Recruiters have to fill quotas and will do almost anything to meet them, especially during wartime.
The U.S. military—the most powerful and destructive in the world—is growing increasingly desperate to fill its ranks.
In 2005 alone, the Army seeks to recruit 101,200 new active-duty regular Army and Reserve soldiers. But recruitment in nearly all branches of the military is down.
The National Guard missed its recruitment quota by 13 percent last year. The Army fell short of its goal by more than 27 percent in February 2005 and is more than six percent behind its year-to-date recruiting target. The Reserve is 10 percent behind its target and the Guard is 26 percent short. January through March 2005 was the first time in a decade that the Marines missed their monthly goals.
What is causing this sudden decline?
The Iraqi resistance is the biggest factor. The popular resistance to occupation in Iraq has fiercely and heroically opposed the U.S. presence from the beginning. Many young people do not want to join the military to die in an unpopular war.
The strength and depth of the massive global anti-war movement has also contributed. Over the past three years, tens of millions have participated in demonstrations opposing war and occupation. The protests have impacted millions more and reflect widespread opposition to the war.
One dynamic new element of the anti-war movement is the growing youth and student movement to stop military recruiters from infiltrating high school and college campuses. Young people all over the country are confronting recruiters, staging protests, and kicking them off campuses by legal means or through militant action.
In response to their dwindling numbers, the military recently added 1,200 recruiters to the field and said it would spend more than the $4 billion already allotted for advertising and recruitment in 2005. It is also increasing economic and educational incentives to entice young people to enter. The military is continuing to push its predatory tactics wherever it can.
Defeat U.S. imperialism
The most advanced sectors of the burgeoning student movement see the anti-recruitment drive as part of the larger fight to stop the war and, ultimately, defeat U.S. imperialism.
According to Aimee Hunter, an 18 year-old student at Mission College in Sylmar, California,
“We are against recruiters because we don’t want working-class people to fight in this imperialist army. Wars like this only benefit Wall Street and big corporations. Instead of fighting against workers in Iraq, we want youth and students to join the struggle here at home.”
Like all imperialist wars, the war and occupation of Iraq hurts working people in Iraq and the United States. This includes workers in uniform who are being used as cannon fodder by the ruling class.
Student activism to keep young people out of the U.S. military serves the worthy goals of diminishing military numbers and building resistance to its hegemonic aims. Those who do not enlist in the military because of these efforts should join the ranks of the people’s movement against imperialist war, racism and bigotry.
http://www.globalresistancenetwork.com/
IT_AgainstTheWarMachine.html
Ian Thompson's article was first published on Socialism and Liberation.
Ian Thompson is a writer and activist in the Los Angeles area. He can be reached at idthomp@yahoo.com
Send in the Troops, Arizona Under Siege.
Read this, it is better than three cups of coffee!
U.S. Border Patrol agents have been ordered not to arrest illegal aliens along the section of the Arizona border where protesters patrolled last month because an increase in apprehensions there would prove the effectiveness of Minuteman volunteers, The Washington Times has learned.
More than a dozen agents, all of whom asked not to be identified for fear of retribution, said orders relayed by Border Patrol supervisors at the Naco, Ariz., station made it clear that arrests were "not to go up" along the 23-mile section of border that the volunteers monitored to protest illegal immigration.
"It was clear to everyone here what was being said and why," said one veteran agent. "The apprehensions were not to increase after the Minuteman volunteers left. It was as simple as that."
Another agent said the Naco supervisors "were clear in their intention" to keep new arrests to an "absolute minimum" to offset the effect of the Minuteman vigil, adding that patrols along the border have been severely limited.
Border Patrol Chief David V. Aguilar at the agency's Washington headquarters called the accusations "outright wrong," saying that supervisors at the Naco station had not blocked agents from making arrests and that the station's 350 agents were being "supported in carrying out" their duties.
"Border Patrol agents are the front line of defense against terrorism," Chief Aguilar said, adding that the 11,000 agents nationwide are "meeting that challenge, head-on ... as daunting a task as that may sound."
The chief -- a former head of the agency's Tucson sector, which includes the Naco station -- said that with the world watching the Arizona border because of the Minuteman Project, agents in Naco "demonstrated flexibility and resilience in carrying out their critical homeland security duties and responsibilities."
But Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican, yesterday said "credible sources" within the Border Patrol also had told him of the decision by Naco supervisors to keep new arrests to a minimum, saying he was angry but not surprised.
"It's like telling a cop to stand by and watch burglars loot a store but don't arrest any of them," he said. "This is another example of decisions being made at the highest levels of the Border Patrol that are hurting morale and helping to rot the agency from within.
"I worry about our efforts in Congress to increase the number of agents," he said. "Based on these kinds of orders, we could spend the equivalent of the national debt and never have secure borders."
Mr. Tancredo, chairman of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, blamed the Bush administration for setting an immigration enforcement tone that suggests to those enforcing the law that he is not serious about secure borders.
"We need to get the president to come to grips with the seriousness of the problem," he said. "I know he doesn't like to utter the words, 'I was wrong,' but if we have another incident like September 11 by people who came through our borders without permission, I hope he doesn't have to say 'I'm sorry.' "
During the Minuteman vigil, Border Patrol supervisors in Arizona discounted their efforts, saying a drop in apprehensions during their protest was because of the Mexican government's deployment of military and police south of the targeted area and a new federal program known as the Arizona Border Control Initiative that brought manpower increases to the state.
The Naco supervisors blamed the volunteers for unnecessarily tripping sensors, disturbing draglines and interfering with the normal operations of the agents. They said that their impact on illegals was "negligible" and that civilians should leave immigration enforcement "to the professionals."
Several field agents credited the volunteers with cutting the flow of illegal aliens in the targeted Naco area, saying the number of apprehended illegals dropped from an average of 500 a day to less than 15 a day.
More than 850 volunteers, in a protest of the lax immigration enforcement policies of the White House and Congress, sought to reduce the flow of illegal aliens along a popular immigration corridor on the Arizona-Mexico border near Naco by reporting illegals to the Border Patrol as they crossed into the United States.
Their goal was to show that increased manpower on the border would effectively deter illegal immigration. Organizers said the protest resulted in Border Patrol arrests of 349 illegal aliens.
Area residents, in a half-page ad in the Sunday edition of the Sierra Vista Herald, told the volunteers: "Thanks for doing what our government won't -- close the border to illegal aliens. It was the quietest month we've had in many years ... You made us feel safe because the border was closed."
U.S. Border Patrol agents have been ordered not to arrest illegal aliens along the section of the Arizona border where protesters patrolled last month because an increase in apprehensions there would prove the effectiveness of Minuteman volunteers, The Washington Times has learned.
More than a dozen agents, all of whom asked not to be identified for fear of retribution, said orders relayed by Border Patrol supervisors at the Naco, Ariz., station made it clear that arrests were "not to go up" along the 23-mile section of border that the volunteers monitored to protest illegal immigration.
"It was clear to everyone here what was being said and why," said one veteran agent. "The apprehensions were not to increase after the Minuteman volunteers left. It was as simple as that."
Another agent said the Naco supervisors "were clear in their intention" to keep new arrests to an "absolute minimum" to offset the effect of the Minuteman vigil, adding that patrols along the border have been severely limited.
Border Patrol Chief David V. Aguilar at the agency's Washington headquarters called the accusations "outright wrong," saying that supervisors at the Naco station had not blocked agents from making arrests and that the station's 350 agents were being "supported in carrying out" their duties.
"Border Patrol agents are the front line of defense against terrorism," Chief Aguilar said, adding that the 11,000 agents nationwide are "meeting that challenge, head-on ... as daunting a task as that may sound."
The chief -- a former head of the agency's Tucson sector, which includes the Naco station -- said that with the world watching the Arizona border because of the Minuteman Project, agents in Naco "demonstrated flexibility and resilience in carrying out their critical homeland security duties and responsibilities."
But Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican, yesterday said "credible sources" within the Border Patrol also had told him of the decision by Naco supervisors to keep new arrests to a minimum, saying he was angry but not surprised.
"It's like telling a cop to stand by and watch burglars loot a store but don't arrest any of them," he said. "This is another example of decisions being made at the highest levels of the Border Patrol that are hurting morale and helping to rot the agency from within.
"I worry about our efforts in Congress to increase the number of agents," he said. "Based on these kinds of orders, we could spend the equivalent of the national debt and never have secure borders."
Mr. Tancredo, chairman of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, blamed the Bush administration for setting an immigration enforcement tone that suggests to those enforcing the law that he is not serious about secure borders.
"We need to get the president to come to grips with the seriousness of the problem," he said. "I know he doesn't like to utter the words, 'I was wrong,' but if we have another incident like September 11 by people who came through our borders without permission, I hope he doesn't have to say 'I'm sorry.' "
During the Minuteman vigil, Border Patrol supervisors in Arizona discounted their efforts, saying a drop in apprehensions during their protest was because of the Mexican government's deployment of military and police south of the targeted area and a new federal program known as the Arizona Border Control Initiative that brought manpower increases to the state.
The Naco supervisors blamed the volunteers for unnecessarily tripping sensors, disturbing draglines and interfering with the normal operations of the agents. They said that their impact on illegals was "negligible" and that civilians should leave immigration enforcement "to the professionals."
Several field agents credited the volunteers with cutting the flow of illegal aliens in the targeted Naco area, saying the number of apprehended illegals dropped from an average of 500 a day to less than 15 a day.
More than 850 volunteers, in a protest of the lax immigration enforcement policies of the White House and Congress, sought to reduce the flow of illegal aliens along a popular immigration corridor on the Arizona-Mexico border near Naco by reporting illegals to the Border Patrol as they crossed into the United States.
Their goal was to show that increased manpower on the border would effectively deter illegal immigration. Organizers said the protest resulted in Border Patrol arrests of 349 illegal aliens.
Area residents, in a half-page ad in the Sunday edition of the Sierra Vista Herald, told the volunteers: "Thanks for doing what our government won't -- close the border to illegal aliens. It was the quietest month we've had in many years ... You made us feel safe because the border was closed."
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Great!
I found this on the Michael Savage web site
TUESDAY
MAY 10
2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INVASION USA
Feds pay $5.8 billion to jail criminal aliens
Government study over past 3 years reveals burden borne by taxpayers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 10, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
The U.S. federal government spent $5.8 billion over the past three years to incarcerate criminal aliens – nonresidents who are in the country illegally or legally and convicted of a crime.
The report by the General Accounting Office – the investigative arm of Congress – shows the number of criminal aliens in federal prisons increased from about 42,000 at the end of 2001 to about 49,000 at the end of last year.
The direct federal costs during the study's time frame were estimated to be $4.2 billion, with federal reimbursements to state and local governments totalling $1.6 billion through the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, or SCAAP.
The majority of criminal aliens were identified as citizens of Mexico.
In addition, state prisons in fiscal 2003 housed about 74,000 criminal aliens. About 80 percent were in just five states -- Arizona, California, Florida, New York and Texas.
Also, about 147,000 criminal aliens were jailed in 698 local jurisdictions that received SCAAP reimbursement in 2003.
About 30 percent of those criminals were in five municipal and country jails -- Los Angeles County, California; New York City, New York; Orange County, California; Harris County, Texas; and Maricopa County, Arizona.
As WorldNetDaily reported, an analysis of census data earlier this year by the Federation for American Immigration Reform showed Texas' illegal immigrant population is costing the state's taxpayers more than $4.7 billion per year for education, medical care and incarceration.
The uncompensated cost of incarcerating illegal aliens in Texas' state and county prisons amounts to about $150 million a year -- not including local jail detention costs or related law enforcement and judicial expenditures or the monetary costs of the crimes that led to their incarceration.
Last year, the Center for Immigration Studies used Census Bureau data from 2002 to determine that the fiscal impact of illegal aliens across the nation was $10 billion. The figure was derived from subtracting taxes paid by illegals from the value of services they enjoy.
TUESDAY
MAY 10
2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INVASION USA
Feds pay $5.8 billion to jail criminal aliens
Government study over past 3 years reveals burden borne by taxpayers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 10, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
The U.S. federal government spent $5.8 billion over the past three years to incarcerate criminal aliens – nonresidents who are in the country illegally or legally and convicted of a crime.
The report by the General Accounting Office – the investigative arm of Congress – shows the number of criminal aliens in federal prisons increased from about 42,000 at the end of 2001 to about 49,000 at the end of last year.
The direct federal costs during the study's time frame were estimated to be $4.2 billion, with federal reimbursements to state and local governments totalling $1.6 billion through the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, or SCAAP.
The majority of criminal aliens were identified as citizens of Mexico.
In addition, state prisons in fiscal 2003 housed about 74,000 criminal aliens. About 80 percent were in just five states -- Arizona, California, Florida, New York and Texas.
Also, about 147,000 criminal aliens were jailed in 698 local jurisdictions that received SCAAP reimbursement in 2003.
About 30 percent of those criminals were in five municipal and country jails -- Los Angeles County, California; New York City, New York; Orange County, California; Harris County, Texas; and Maricopa County, Arizona.
As WorldNetDaily reported, an analysis of census data earlier this year by the Federation for American Immigration Reform showed Texas' illegal immigrant population is costing the state's taxpayers more than $4.7 billion per year for education, medical care and incarceration.
The uncompensated cost of incarcerating illegal aliens in Texas' state and county prisons amounts to about $150 million a year -- not including local jail detention costs or related law enforcement and judicial expenditures or the monetary costs of the crimes that led to their incarceration.
Last year, the Center for Immigration Studies used Census Bureau data from 2002 to determine that the fiscal impact of illegal aliens across the nation was $10 billion. The figure was derived from subtracting taxes paid by illegals from the value of services they enjoy.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Read and Enjoy
This is a wonderful article and web site. You will want to add it to your favorites
Back peddling on immigration issues ho-hum . . . what else is new?
Kaye Grogan
April 22, 2005
http://www.renewamerica.us/
Let's look at the potential catastrophe that could break out at any moment if the border intensities keep on escalating. War between Mexico can't be ruled out entirely, with so much hatred and contention already brewing at the lax borders. And the Bush Administration is not helping matters as many continue to be pro-active with subverting the will of the people while making rash decisions to allow Mexican immigrants to come and go at their own discretion. Something is definitely wrong with the whole picture here, and nobody has to poke holes in the picture to see the dangers lurking inside.
For some "ungodly" reason, Mexico's President Fox is under the assumption that the United States is obligated to let his people invade the country, and we are expected to roll out the red carpet for them, and to heck with the needs of our own people in the undue wicked process.
When I brought to the forefront in a recent article about the difference in the wages between Mexico and America, it was pointed out to me in an email, about how (supposedly) the low wages Mexicans earn in Mexico go a lot further there than the higher wages they make here in America go in buying the same merchandise here. Yeah, I was scratching my head too, trying to figure out what the real reasons may be for the onslaught of illegal immigration to America — if this is accurate information.
Since the biggest majority of the American people are against allowing the staggering number of fixated migrants to cross our borders daily, why is the will of the people being ignored? It's simple: you're expected to accept everything the government wishes to ram down your throats and be quiet.
Yes, I know they pretend to know what's best for you and me, but they can't even keep their own lives straight, much less the lives of others — so naturally, all they usually end up creating is a bunch of disproportionate chaos.
I think it's time the haggling and rhetoric be muted and get on with doing something positive about securing our borders. The hardworking "legal"taxpayers have been ripped off for years to make America wealthy — and now we are seeing it going down the drain or down Mehico's way.
President Fox wants his cake and eat it too — at the expense of Americans. Well, I say it's time to give him a sour pickle instead. He needs to take responsibility for his own people and quit expecting the United States to keep them and their families up.
Here are a few "stats" and rewards (for what — is anybody's guess), you the taxpayer will be expected to fund and educate illegal immigrants from in-state tuition costs in many states, otherwise known as the Dream Act program. This bill is supported by Senator Orrin Hatch and Rep. Chris Cannon, both Republicans. Now keep this in mind: these rewards are for "upstanding" illegal immigrants. Show me anybody upstanding who is breaking the law, and I'll eat a whole rack of hats! Thump...thump — is there anybody home up there in those hard heads?
Thank goodness the in-state tuition for illegal immigrants was voted down in my state.
Congress is doling out your money like there is tomorrow! Hello...shouldn't you be the ones benefitting from your hard labor? By the way — the big spending Dream Act party to reward illegal entrants into your country, is only going to cost you around $90 billion over the next decade and benefit 46,000 illegal immigrants — who in turn are supposed to benefit the economy. The truth of the matter is: there is no way on God's green earth — 46,000 illegal immigrants are going to return back $90 billion back into the economy — no matter how educated they are.
To put everything in context and bluntly my fellow Americans...you've been sold out!
And that's just my opinion!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaye Grogan is a freelance writer who lives in Virginia. She writes, produces, and hosts a daily commentary called "Viewpoint" on her local radio station. She has written op-eds and articles for the Daily Republican newspaper. She also writes editorials for online newspapers and local papers.
Back peddling on immigration issues ho-hum . . . what else is new?
Kaye Grogan
April 22, 2005
http://www.renewamerica.us/
Let's look at the potential catastrophe that could break out at any moment if the border intensities keep on escalating. War between Mexico can't be ruled out entirely, with so much hatred and contention already brewing at the lax borders. And the Bush Administration is not helping matters as many continue to be pro-active with subverting the will of the people while making rash decisions to allow Mexican immigrants to come and go at their own discretion. Something is definitely wrong with the whole picture here, and nobody has to poke holes in the picture to see the dangers lurking inside.
For some "ungodly" reason, Mexico's President Fox is under the assumption that the United States is obligated to let his people invade the country, and we are expected to roll out the red carpet for them, and to heck with the needs of our own people in the undue wicked process.
When I brought to the forefront in a recent article about the difference in the wages between Mexico and America, it was pointed out to me in an email, about how (supposedly) the low wages Mexicans earn in Mexico go a lot further there than the higher wages they make here in America go in buying the same merchandise here. Yeah, I was scratching my head too, trying to figure out what the real reasons may be for the onslaught of illegal immigration to America — if this is accurate information.
Since the biggest majority of the American people are against allowing the staggering number of fixated migrants to cross our borders daily, why is the will of the people being ignored? It's simple: you're expected to accept everything the government wishes to ram down your throats and be quiet.
Yes, I know they pretend to know what's best for you and me, but they can't even keep their own lives straight, much less the lives of others — so naturally, all they usually end up creating is a bunch of disproportionate chaos.
I think it's time the haggling and rhetoric be muted and get on with doing something positive about securing our borders. The hardworking "legal"taxpayers have been ripped off for years to make America wealthy — and now we are seeing it going down the drain or down Mehico's way.
President Fox wants his cake and eat it too — at the expense of Americans. Well, I say it's time to give him a sour pickle instead. He needs to take responsibility for his own people and quit expecting the United States to keep them and their families up.
Here are a few "stats" and rewards (for what — is anybody's guess), you the taxpayer will be expected to fund and educate illegal immigrants from in-state tuition costs in many states, otherwise known as the Dream Act program. This bill is supported by Senator Orrin Hatch and Rep. Chris Cannon, both Republicans. Now keep this in mind: these rewards are for "upstanding" illegal immigrants. Show me anybody upstanding who is breaking the law, and I'll eat a whole rack of hats! Thump...thump — is there anybody home up there in those hard heads?
Thank goodness the in-state tuition for illegal immigrants was voted down in my state.
Congress is doling out your money like there is tomorrow! Hello...shouldn't you be the ones benefitting from your hard labor? By the way — the big spending Dream Act party to reward illegal entrants into your country, is only going to cost you around $90 billion over the next decade and benefit 46,000 illegal immigrants — who in turn are supposed to benefit the economy. The truth of the matter is: there is no way on God's green earth — 46,000 illegal immigrants are going to return back $90 billion back into the economy — no matter how educated they are.
To put everything in context and bluntly my fellow Americans...you've been sold out!
And that's just my opinion!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaye Grogan is a freelance writer who lives in Virginia. She writes, produces, and hosts a daily commentary called "Viewpoint" on her local radio station. She has written op-eds and articles for the Daily Republican newspaper. She also writes editorials for online newspapers and local papers.
Saturday, May 07, 2005
This Guy Gets It!
This is a letter that was published recently in the Modesto Bee. This guy sounds like a truly great American. I believe this fine man would make a wonderful president!
Secure borders — we're at war
Last Updated: May 7, 2005, 05:12:59 AM PDT
It is simply unbelievable that our state and national politicians refuse to lock down our borders during a time of war. This is a black-and-white issue: Entering the United States without permission makes you a criminal. When the government and the president refuse to uphold the Constitution, then we, the people, must act. Placing American citizens on the Mexican border to observe and report illegal activities is legal and moral. Those politicians who continue to allow this invasion are nothing more than traitors and should be punished.
JOHN D. HEATON III
Turlock
Secure borders — we're at war
Last Updated: May 7, 2005, 05:12:59 AM PDT
It is simply unbelievable that our state and national politicians refuse to lock down our borders during a time of war. This is a black-and-white issue: Entering the United States without permission makes you a criminal. When the government and the president refuse to uphold the Constitution, then we, the people, must act. Placing American citizens on the Mexican border to observe and report illegal activities is legal and moral. Those politicians who continue to allow this invasion are nothing more than traitors and should be punished.
JOHN D. HEATON III
Turlock
Friday, May 06, 2005
JANET ALBRECHTSEN
You can be for the truth or with the terrorists
One sobering reminder of life under the former Iraqi dictator also failed to make the cut at most Australian newspapers. Late last week it was revealed that 113 Kurds – all but five of them women and children – were found in mass graves near the southern city of Samawah. There is a skeleton of a teenage girl clutching a bag of possessions. Many women were wearing their best clothes, like the shiny gold and purple dress found in one of the 18 trenches. Ten were babies. Since the fall of Saddam Hussein, more than 290 mass graves have been found, filled with at least 300,000 people believed to have been executed by the Baathist regime.
The Australian and The Daily Telegraph reported the story yesterday. But where was the rest of our press on this important story? Ignoring it, perhaps, because they are loath to remind us that the Iraqi people are free from such tyranny.
The media is a player in modern warfare. The more they inform us about hostages, the more hostages are taken. This is the deadly, inevitable, side to the information age. But if the media would more often lift their head above the ruck and look to the longer view as well as today's disaster, the distinction between journalism and history may not be quite so stark as it is now.
It is nice to see we have a friend somewhere!
You can be for the truth or with the terrorists
One sobering reminder of life under the former Iraqi dictator also failed to make the cut at most Australian newspapers. Late last week it was revealed that 113 Kurds – all but five of them women and children – were found in mass graves near the southern city of Samawah. There is a skeleton of a teenage girl clutching a bag of possessions. Many women were wearing their best clothes, like the shiny gold and purple dress found in one of the 18 trenches. Ten were babies. Since the fall of Saddam Hussein, more than 290 mass graves have been found, filled with at least 300,000 people believed to have been executed by the Baathist regime.
The Australian and The Daily Telegraph reported the story yesterday. But where was the rest of our press on this important story? Ignoring it, perhaps, because they are loath to remind us that the Iraqi people are free from such tyranny.
The media is a player in modern warfare. The more they inform us about hostages, the more hostages are taken. This is the deadly, inevitable, side to the information age. But if the media would more often lift their head above the ruck and look to the longer view as well as today's disaster, the distinction between journalism and history may not be quite so stark as it is now.
It is nice to see we have a friend somewhere!
Notice the back handed insult, "unlikely Marine."
Hell's Kitchen - Pantano made it out of a tough neighborhood 9/11 reactivated his inner warrior
New York Metro ^ | April 25, 2005 | Steve Fishman
Posted on 04/20/2005 11:05:41 PM PDT by Former Military Chick
Pantano is, in most every way, an unlikely Marine. He was a Manhattan preppy—his mother is a literary agent—who graduated from Horace Mann and New York University. He’d charged into Goldman Sachs, rising quickly, and then into a film company, the Shooting Gallery. If he set his sights on conquest, it seemed to be in the business world, as many ambitious New Yorkers did. And yet, it turned out that what he truly dreamed of was to be a warrior—a real one....Now, a few weeks after arriving in Iraq, Pantano’s platoon had been dispatched to a dusty house along a dirt road near Mahmudiya, in the Sunni triangle. It was an ordinary house—one story, concrete. According to intelligence, it had been taken over by “Ali Baba,” as Pantano’s young Marines called the insurgents."
Just gotta love the political incorrectness of our Hereos!
Hell's Kitchen - Pantano made it out of a tough neighborhood 9/11 reactivated his inner warrior
New York Metro ^ | April 25, 2005 | Steve Fishman
Posted on 04/20/2005 11:05:41 PM PDT by Former Military Chick
Pantano is, in most every way, an unlikely Marine. He was a Manhattan preppy—his mother is a literary agent—who graduated from Horace Mann and New York University. He’d charged into Goldman Sachs, rising quickly, and then into a film company, the Shooting Gallery. If he set his sights on conquest, it seemed to be in the business world, as many ambitious New Yorkers did. And yet, it turned out that what he truly dreamed of was to be a warrior—a real one....Now, a few weeks after arriving in Iraq, Pantano’s platoon had been dispatched to a dusty house along a dirt road near Mahmudiya, in the Sunni triangle. It was an ordinary house—one story, concrete. According to intelligence, it had been taken over by “Ali Baba,” as Pantano’s young Marines called the insurgents."
Just gotta love the political incorrectness of our Hereos!
They Can Catch US, But We Can't Catch Them!
So the Mexican government can capture suspected criminals from the United States, but we can't or will not do the same with illegals from Mexico? Maybe we should pay off the Mexican police for every Mexican they stop from entering our country.
By Olga R. RodriguezASSOCIATED PRESS
10:55 a.m. May 3, 2005
MONTERREY, Mexico – Mexico detained two U.S. border patrol agents during a routine border check that uncovered a box filled with illegal ammunition in their car, the Mexican federal attorney general's office said Tuesday.
U.S. Border Patrol agents German Verdugo and David Allen Navarro were arrested late Friday in Mexicali, across from Calexico, California, U.S. Border Patrol spokesman Miguel Hernandez said._"He said the agents were off-duty and driving a private vehicle when they were arrested. Hernandez did not know why they were carrying the ammunition, the same assigned to other border patrol agents for use while on-duty.
"We're cooperating fully with Mexican law enforcement agents in their investigation," Hernandez said.
Verdugo and Allen Navarro crossed into Mexico in a lane assigned to vehicles with nothing to declare but were selected for inspection, Mexican federal prosecutors said in a statement.
Customs inspector found a box in the backseat of their car containing 1,286 .40-caliber and 10 .223-caliber Winchester rifle bullets, the statement said. Mexican law restricts that ammuniation to use by only the Mexican military.
The agents, both assigned to the U.S. Border Patrol in El Centro, California, are being held at a Mexicali prison and face weapon possesion charges.
The Mexican federal attorney general's office said the Border Patrol agents were unable to show that they could legally import the ammunition and didn't have a permit by Mexico's Defense Department.
By Olga R. RodriguezASSOCIATED PRESS
10:55 a.m. May 3, 2005
MONTERREY, Mexico – Mexico detained two U.S. border patrol agents during a routine border check that uncovered a box filled with illegal ammunition in their car, the Mexican federal attorney general's office said Tuesday.
U.S. Border Patrol agents German Verdugo and David Allen Navarro were arrested late Friday in Mexicali, across from Calexico, California, U.S. Border Patrol spokesman Miguel Hernandez said._"He said the agents were off-duty and driving a private vehicle when they were arrested. Hernandez did not know why they were carrying the ammunition, the same assigned to other border patrol agents for use while on-duty.
"We're cooperating fully with Mexican law enforcement agents in their investigation," Hernandez said.
Verdugo and Allen Navarro crossed into Mexico in a lane assigned to vehicles with nothing to declare but were selected for inspection, Mexican federal prosecutors said in a statement.
Customs inspector found a box in the backseat of their car containing 1,286 .40-caliber and 10 .223-caliber Winchester rifle bullets, the statement said. Mexican law restricts that ammuniation to use by only the Mexican military.
The agents, both assigned to the U.S. Border Patrol in El Centro, California, are being held at a Mexicali prison and face weapon possesion charges.
The Mexican federal attorney general's office said the Border Patrol agents were unable to show that they could legally import the ammunition and didn't have a permit by Mexico's Defense Department.
Lock it Down, Arnie!
California state-run Mexico border patrol proposed
the May 5, 2005 04:30 PM ET
Printer Friendly Email Article Reprints RSS
By Jim Christie
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Saying the U.S. government has failed to secure the border with Mexico, California activists who helped recall former Gov. Gray Davis said on Thursday they would promote a ballot measure calling for the state to fund its own border patrol.
They unveiled the measure, the California Border Police Act, as the Minutemen citizens' group that patrolled Arizona's border with Mexico in April prepares for a similar effort this summer south of San Diego along California's border with Mexico.
"California has been trying to pressure the feds for 20 years to do a better job and they haven't," said Dave Gilliard, the measure's political strategist.
The campaign took its first major step on Wednesday by filing a draft of its measure with California's attorney general with the aim of placing it on the June 2006 ballot.
That step came amid last-minute preparations for Cinco de Mayo festivities. Mexican-Americans each year on May 5 commemorate an 1862 battle in Puebla, Mexico in which Mexican soldiers defeated invading French forces.
Cinco de Mayo is not an official holiday in Mexico or California, but it has become both a popular occasion and celebration of Mexican culture.
The timing of the measure's unveiling a day ahead of Cinco de Mayo was "purely coincidental," Gilliard said, noting he wanted to seize on the attention to illegal immigration generated in recent weeks by the Minutemen.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger raised the profile of the issue of illegal immigration by recently endorsing the Minutemen, raising the ire of Latino elected officials already disappointed by his opposition to granting drivers' licenses for undocumented migrants.
His comments also revived hard feelings from the mid-1990s aroused by former Gov. Pete Wilson's tough stand on illegal immigration and support for a ballot measure aimed at deterring it. Voters backed the measure and he rode it to a second term.
Despite their widespread employment of undocumented workers -- as field hands, gardeners, laborers, domestics and in other jobs -- Californians have chafed at their state serving as a magnet for illegal immigration.
A state border patrol, which would be a first, would cut the costs to taxpayers from an estimated 3 million illegal immigrants in California, Gilliard said: "We estimate it would to save $5 billion to $7 billion (annually). California currently spends $9 billion to $10 billion for services, or for incarceration costs, on illegal immigrants."
The new state police agency, allowed by 1996 federal law, would employ more than 2,000 officers at a cost of $300 million to $400 million annually, Gilliard said. "Because they gave the states the authority to do this, there is no reason California shouldn't do it on its own," he said.
A spokesman for Schwarzenegger said the governor has not taken a stand on the measure. The American Civil Liberties Union, which had described his remarks on the Minutemen as irresponsible, said the measure would be socially divisive and complicate law enforcement along the California-Mexico border.
"Border security is a federal issue and immigration is a federal issue," said Ranjana Natarajan, a staff attorney for the ACLU of Southern California. "The last thing we need is more layers of bureaucracy ... Nothing shows this would improve the effectiveness of border policing."
I love the "Socially devisive" line. What is devisive is the fact that Mexico is allowing there undesirables to invade our country and drain our social services!
the May 5, 2005 04:30 PM ET
Printer Friendly Email Article Reprints RSS
By Jim Christie
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Saying the U.S. government has failed to secure the border with Mexico, California activists who helped recall former Gov. Gray Davis said on Thursday they would promote a ballot measure calling for the state to fund its own border patrol.
They unveiled the measure, the California Border Police Act, as the Minutemen citizens' group that patrolled Arizona's border with Mexico in April prepares for a similar effort this summer south of San Diego along California's border with Mexico.
"California has been trying to pressure the feds for 20 years to do a better job and they haven't," said Dave Gilliard, the measure's political strategist.
The campaign took its first major step on Wednesday by filing a draft of its measure with California's attorney general with the aim of placing it on the June 2006 ballot.
That step came amid last-minute preparations for Cinco de Mayo festivities. Mexican-Americans each year on May 5 commemorate an 1862 battle in Puebla, Mexico in which Mexican soldiers defeated invading French forces.
Cinco de Mayo is not an official holiday in Mexico or California, but it has become both a popular occasion and celebration of Mexican culture.
The timing of the measure's unveiling a day ahead of Cinco de Mayo was "purely coincidental," Gilliard said, noting he wanted to seize on the attention to illegal immigration generated in recent weeks by the Minutemen.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger raised the profile of the issue of illegal immigration by recently endorsing the Minutemen, raising the ire of Latino elected officials already disappointed by his opposition to granting drivers' licenses for undocumented migrants.
His comments also revived hard feelings from the mid-1990s aroused by former Gov. Pete Wilson's tough stand on illegal immigration and support for a ballot measure aimed at deterring it. Voters backed the measure and he rode it to a second term.
Despite their widespread employment of undocumented workers -- as field hands, gardeners, laborers, domestics and in other jobs -- Californians have chafed at their state serving as a magnet for illegal immigration.
A state border patrol, which would be a first, would cut the costs to taxpayers from an estimated 3 million illegal immigrants in California, Gilliard said: "We estimate it would to save $5 billion to $7 billion (annually). California currently spends $9 billion to $10 billion for services, or for incarceration costs, on illegal immigrants."
The new state police agency, allowed by 1996 federal law, would employ more than 2,000 officers at a cost of $300 million to $400 million annually, Gilliard said. "Because they gave the states the authority to do this, there is no reason California shouldn't do it on its own," he said.
A spokesman for Schwarzenegger said the governor has not taken a stand on the measure. The American Civil Liberties Union, which had described his remarks on the Minutemen as irresponsible, said the measure would be socially divisive and complicate law enforcement along the California-Mexico border.
"Border security is a federal issue and immigration is a federal issue," said Ranjana Natarajan, a staff attorney for the ACLU of Southern California. "The last thing we need is more layers of bureaucracy ... Nothing shows this would improve the effectiveness of border policing."
I love the "Socially devisive" line. What is devisive is the fact that Mexico is allowing there undesirables to invade our country and drain our social services!
Great Letter to the Editor of the Modesto Bee
I have to hand it to the staff of The Bee — you are courageous! At a time when many major newspapers are seeing a significant loss in subscribers for trying to spin the news, you people continue to soldier on! I see you are still spinning the news by printing anti-Christian letters (there were three on April 28). You are still trying to convince your readers that Christians are bad and being colonized by Mexico is good.
PAT BIRD
Manteca
This appeared on 5-6-05. Maybe people are starting see through the socialist smoke screen.
PAT BIRD
Manteca
This appeared on 5-6-05. Maybe people are starting see through the socialist smoke screen.
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Gotta Love It
Gen. George Patton Jr., "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
Douglas MacArthur.,
"I am concerned for the security of our great Nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within. "
In war there is no substitute for victory."
It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived. George S. Patton
Keep these words in mind while you read a paper or watch a news broadcast.
Douglas MacArthur.,
"I am concerned for the security of our great Nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within. "
In war there is no substitute for victory."
It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived. George S. Patton
Keep these words in mind while you read a paper or watch a news broadcast.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Nice Constitution Vincrape'
Article 11. Everyone has the right to enter and leave the Republic, to travel through its territory and to change his residence without necessity of a letter of security, passport, safe-conduct or any other similar requirement. The exercise of this right shall be subordinated to the powers of the judiciary, in cases of civil or criminal liability, and to those of the administrative authorities insofar as concerns the limitations imposed by the laws regarding emigration, immigration and public health of the CohnArticle.
This is directly from the Mexican constitution. Mexican's, per their constitution can cross the border. Now read this;Chapter IV
Mexican Citizens
Article 34. Men and women who, having the status of Mexicans, likewise meet the following requirements are citizens of the Republic:
Having reached eighteen years of age, if married, or twenty-one years of age if unmarried;
Having an honest means of livelihood.
So if a Mexican does not have a legal job i.e. drug dealer, unemployed, you are not a citizen?
It is no wonder Vincrape' Fox encourages migration; it is illegal in the U.S. not Mexico!
When was the last time a doctor or engineer crossed the border? Apparently there are no more lawns to mow in Mexico!
This is directly from the Mexican constitution. Mexican's, per their constitution can cross the border. Now read this;Chapter IV
Mexican Citizens
Article 34. Men and women who, having the status of Mexicans, likewise meet the following requirements are citizens of the Republic:
Having reached eighteen years of age, if married, or twenty-one years of age if unmarried;
Having an honest means of livelihood.
So if a Mexican does not have a legal job i.e. drug dealer, unemployed, you are not a citizen?
It is no wonder Vincrape' Fox encourages migration; it is illegal in the U.S. not Mexico!
When was the last time a doctor or engineer crossed the border? Apparently there are no more lawns to mow in Mexico!
Sunday, May 01, 2005
Some People Just Don't Get It!
I was speaking with an acquaintance the other night about illegal aliens entering the country. His first response was to describe the Minutemen as a bunch of " White racist rednecks." I had to remind him of the fact he was a legal immigrant from Africa. His family had sent him here to attend college. His father paid a great deal of money for the education he had received. His response is that illegal immigrants are needed for the manual labor jobs that "whites" refuse to do! Taking a deep breath and a large drink of my beer I told him that regardless of a man's skin, he will do any job if he his hungry enough. Cut off all entitlements and let us return to the days of The Grapes of Wrath. As I was engaged in this conversation a thought had struck me; This African immigrant blames the white man for our border woes. It is our fault we refuse to pick crops. It is Uncle Sam's fault that illegal aliens are sucking every social program dry. But by gosh it is America where everybody wants to send Jr. to college! The very country that welcomed this ingrate is the same one that he wants changed. Why did his father choose the U.S. and not Mexico, Chile, Canada... Any place but here? And here is the root of the problem... This African man does not see himself as an American. Instead he is an African living in America, and this country owes him something. America, thanks to the likes of ACLU, Hollywood and every other American socialist portrays America as "White Racist Rednecks."
Here is our wonderful Mr. Waxman's opinions from On The Issues which so plainly illustrates the "It is our fault mentality."
Encourage Immigration and Offer Amnesty POSITIONS
Strongly Support means you believe: Immigration restrictions are basically racist because they keep out Hispanics and other non-whites. We should reform US immigration laws and use them to increase our diversity and cultural tolerance. Social services should be offered to all residents of the United States regardless of immigration status. Illegal aliens should be offered amnesty if they prove themselves as productive members of society.
Support means you believe: The government should make few restrictions on immigration. If the number of immigrants is too high, establish an immigration fee and raise it until the number of immigrants is acceptable. Or change the immigration quotas by some other method.
Oppose means you believe: Maintain legal immigration while enforcing against illegal immigration. Tighten our borders - decrease substantially or stop all immigration so we can address domestic problems.
Strongly Oppose means you believe: We should strictly enforce our immigration laws by increasing border patrols, and we should crack down on illegal immigrants already in the US by deportation and by removing all their social benefits. In the long run, we should decrease immigration.
This question is looking for your views on both legal and illegal immigration; whether we should open our borders or patrol them more tightly and lower the legal immigrant count. However you answer the above question would be similar to your response to these statements:
Legal immigration should be increased
We spend enough on patrolling the Mexican border
Grant amnesty to illegal immigrants who have resided here for 5 yearsHow do you decide between "Support" and "Strongly Support" when you agree with both the descriptions above? (Or between "Oppose" and "Strongly Oppose"). The strong positions are generally based on matters of PRINCIPLES where the regular support and oppose positions are based on PRACTICAL matters. If you answer "No Opinion," this question is not counted in the VoteMatch answers for any candidate. So it's more important to give a general answer of support versus oppose, than to get the strength of your answer exactly refined, or to think too hard about the exact wording of the question.
Strongly Support means you believe in the principle of free immigration: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," as inscribed on the Statue of Liberty.
Support means you believe in practical reforms but not in treating illegal aliens as criminals.
Oppose means you believe in practical limitations like increased border security.
Strongly Oppose means you believe in the principle that illegal aliens are criminals.
Diversity and cultural tolerance... Should instead read "perversity and cultural ignorance!
Here is our wonderful Mr. Waxman's opinions from On The Issues which so plainly illustrates the "It is our fault mentality."
Encourage Immigration and Offer Amnesty POSITIONS
Strongly Support means you believe: Immigration restrictions are basically racist because they keep out Hispanics and other non-whites. We should reform US immigration laws and use them to increase our diversity and cultural tolerance. Social services should be offered to all residents of the United States regardless of immigration status. Illegal aliens should be offered amnesty if they prove themselves as productive members of society.
Support means you believe: The government should make few restrictions on immigration. If the number of immigrants is too high, establish an immigration fee and raise it until the number of immigrants is acceptable. Or change the immigration quotas by some other method.
Oppose means you believe: Maintain legal immigration while enforcing against illegal immigration. Tighten our borders - decrease substantially or stop all immigration so we can address domestic problems.
Strongly Oppose means you believe: We should strictly enforce our immigration laws by increasing border patrols, and we should crack down on illegal immigrants already in the US by deportation and by removing all their social benefits. In the long run, we should decrease immigration.
This question is looking for your views on both legal and illegal immigration; whether we should open our borders or patrol them more tightly and lower the legal immigrant count. However you answer the above question would be similar to your response to these statements:
Legal immigration should be increased
We spend enough on patrolling the Mexican border
Grant amnesty to illegal immigrants who have resided here for 5 yearsHow do you decide between "Support" and "Strongly Support" when you agree with both the descriptions above? (Or between "Oppose" and "Strongly Oppose"). The strong positions are generally based on matters of PRINCIPLES where the regular support and oppose positions are based on PRACTICAL matters. If you answer "No Opinion," this question is not counted in the VoteMatch answers for any candidate. So it's more important to give a general answer of support versus oppose, than to get the strength of your answer exactly refined, or to think too hard about the exact wording of the question.
Strongly Support means you believe in the principle of free immigration: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," as inscribed on the Statue of Liberty.
Support means you believe in practical reforms but not in treating illegal aliens as criminals.
Oppose means you believe in practical limitations like increased border security.
Strongly Oppose means you believe in the principle that illegal aliens are criminals.
Diversity and cultural tolerance... Should instead read "perversity and cultural ignorance!
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Columbia University Study
This is a wonderful piece of in depth work. Go to their homepage and click on immigrant studies.
United States Technological Superiority and the Losses From Migration
February 2005
By Donald R. Davis and David E. Weinstein
Download the .pdf version
Coverage in The Washington Times
This study employs a new approach to examine the impact of immigration on the U.S. economy. Unlike earlier studies, we do not treat the movement of immigrant labor into this country in isolation. Older studies assumed that abundant resources and demand for labor was the primary reason for immigration, assumptions more appropriate to the 19th century. We start by assuming that the technological superiority of the modern American economy and resulting high standard of living is the primary factor motivating immigration. The study also takes into account the new global economy, including the movement of capital as well as trade. Our findings show that immigration creates a net loss for natives of nearly $70 billion annually. Among the report’s findings:
In 2002, the net loss to U.S. natives from immigration was $68 billion.
This $68 billion annual loss represents a $14 billion increase just since 1998. As the size of the immigrant population has continued to increase, so has the loss.
The decline in wages is relative to the price of goods and services, so the study takes into account any change in consumer prices brought about by immigration.
The negative effect comes from increases in the supply of labor and not the legal status of immigrants.
While natives lose from immigration, the findings show that immigrants themselves benefit substantially by coming to America.
Those who remain behind in their home countries also benefit from the migration of their countrymen.
The model used in this study can be summarized as follows: High U.S. productivity motivates the entry of foreign workers and capital. As a consequence, the movement of foreign labor and capital into the United States expands U.S. exports and reduces exports by foreign countries who now have fewer workers and less capital. This depresses the prices of U.S. exports while raising the price of its imports, which is bad for U.S. natives. While the addition of immigrant workers makes the overall U.S. economy larger, natives in the United States are worse off because immigrants take not just the increase in income, but other income as well. This is because American workers are now competing with foreign workers who, because they have entered the United States, now have access to superior American technology, which is the primary source of American workers’ competitive advantage in the international economy. In other words, American workers are better off competing with foreigners if the foreign workers stay in their own countries and don’t have access to American technology. By allowing the foreign workers into the United States, Americans face competition with foreigners equipped with American technology. The Economic Costs of ImmigrationAmerica is often described as a nation of immigrants. And so it is. One reason for immigration has been the promise of liberty. However, even from the start, a second very powerful reason has been the opportunity America provides for prosperity. Waves of immigrants have come, particularly from Europe, Asia, and the Americas (especially Mexico) to enjoy the high wages available here and escape the relative penury of their native lands. Through the end of the 19th century and into the 20th century, a prime advantage of America that allowed it to deliver these high wages was its great abundance of land and natural resources. Increasingly, though, in the last half of the 20th century, the principal advantage of America has not been its resources, but rather its leadership of the world in technology or productivity. Economists have long been interested in the consequences of immigration. A large and highly varied theoretical literature has developed that considers potential sources of gains and losses for a country experiencing immigration. Surprisingly, these theoretical models almost never have a word to say about the role of technological advantage as a motive for migration—even though this is surely the most important reason for the wage advantage in America that is the proximate reason for most migration. The empirical literature on immigration has considered a wide variety of questions regarding the impact of immigration on America. In recent years, an important strand of this has considered the overall impact of this immigration on the American economy.1 Here, again, the analysis has treated immigration as if it were motivated principally by an abundance of resources, as would have been appropriate in the 17th, 18th, 19th, or even early 20th centuries, but that is not appropriate to 21st century America. The choice of an intellectual framework within which to examine the consequences of immigration is not a purely academic squabble. By choosing the traditional framework, where immigration is motivated by relative labor scarcity, one has also pre-determined in qualitative terms the outcome of any empirical study. Such studies necessarily conclude that the principal national consequence of immigration is the redistribution of income between natives similar to the immigrants and other factors of production. Likewise, as a matter of theory, the traditional framework concludes that the economic consequences for the receiving country as a whole are positive, though negligible. Empirical work in this conventional tradition cannot alter these conclusions, only quantify them.In this essay, we summarize the conclusions of a paper that provides a new approach to studying the economic consequences of immigration.2 The starting point for the analysis is that immigration to America is ultimately motivated by American technological superiority. Once we accept this as a starting point, though, it is no longer appropriate to study the movement of labor in isolation. High American productivity does provide a motive for the immigration of labor. But it also provides an incentive for the inflow of productive capital. That is, high productivity yields high returns for all factors of production, which suggests that these inflows should be studied jointly. This is precisely what our study does
United States Technological Superiority and the Losses From Migration
February 2005
By Donald R. Davis and David E. Weinstein
Download the .pdf version
Coverage in The Washington Times
This study employs a new approach to examine the impact of immigration on the U.S. economy. Unlike earlier studies, we do not treat the movement of immigrant labor into this country in isolation. Older studies assumed that abundant resources and demand for labor was the primary reason for immigration, assumptions more appropriate to the 19th century. We start by assuming that the technological superiority of the modern American economy and resulting high standard of living is the primary factor motivating immigration. The study also takes into account the new global economy, including the movement of capital as well as trade. Our findings show that immigration creates a net loss for natives of nearly $70 billion annually. Among the report’s findings:
In 2002, the net loss to U.S. natives from immigration was $68 billion.
This $68 billion annual loss represents a $14 billion increase just since 1998. As the size of the immigrant population has continued to increase, so has the loss.
The decline in wages is relative to the price of goods and services, so the study takes into account any change in consumer prices brought about by immigration.
The negative effect comes from increases in the supply of labor and not the legal status of immigrants.
While natives lose from immigration, the findings show that immigrants themselves benefit substantially by coming to America.
Those who remain behind in their home countries also benefit from the migration of their countrymen.
The model used in this study can be summarized as follows: High U.S. productivity motivates the entry of foreign workers and capital. As a consequence, the movement of foreign labor and capital into the United States expands U.S. exports and reduces exports by foreign countries who now have fewer workers and less capital. This depresses the prices of U.S. exports while raising the price of its imports, which is bad for U.S. natives. While the addition of immigrant workers makes the overall U.S. economy larger, natives in the United States are worse off because immigrants take not just the increase in income, but other income as well. This is because American workers are now competing with foreign workers who, because they have entered the United States, now have access to superior American technology, which is the primary source of American workers’ competitive advantage in the international economy. In other words, American workers are better off competing with foreigners if the foreign workers stay in their own countries and don’t have access to American technology. By allowing the foreign workers into the United States, Americans face competition with foreigners equipped with American technology. The Economic Costs of ImmigrationAmerica is often described as a nation of immigrants. And so it is. One reason for immigration has been the promise of liberty. However, even from the start, a second very powerful reason has been the opportunity America provides for prosperity. Waves of immigrants have come, particularly from Europe, Asia, and the Americas (especially Mexico) to enjoy the high wages available here and escape the relative penury of their native lands. Through the end of the 19th century and into the 20th century, a prime advantage of America that allowed it to deliver these high wages was its great abundance of land and natural resources. Increasingly, though, in the last half of the 20th century, the principal advantage of America has not been its resources, but rather its leadership of the world in technology or productivity. Economists have long been interested in the consequences of immigration. A large and highly varied theoretical literature has developed that considers potential sources of gains and losses for a country experiencing immigration. Surprisingly, these theoretical models almost never have a word to say about the role of technological advantage as a motive for migration—even though this is surely the most important reason for the wage advantage in America that is the proximate reason for most migration. The empirical literature on immigration has considered a wide variety of questions regarding the impact of immigration on America. In recent years, an important strand of this has considered the overall impact of this immigration on the American economy.1 Here, again, the analysis has treated immigration as if it were motivated principally by an abundance of resources, as would have been appropriate in the 17th, 18th, 19th, or even early 20th centuries, but that is not appropriate to 21st century America. The choice of an intellectual framework within which to examine the consequences of immigration is not a purely academic squabble. By choosing the traditional framework, where immigration is motivated by relative labor scarcity, one has also pre-determined in qualitative terms the outcome of any empirical study. Such studies necessarily conclude that the principal national consequence of immigration is the redistribution of income between natives similar to the immigrants and other factors of production. Likewise, as a matter of theory, the traditional framework concludes that the economic consequences for the receiving country as a whole are positive, though negligible. Empirical work in this conventional tradition cannot alter these conclusions, only quantify them.In this essay, we summarize the conclusions of a paper that provides a new approach to studying the economic consequences of immigration.2 The starting point for the analysis is that immigration to America is ultimately motivated by American technological superiority. Once we accept this as a starting point, though, it is no longer appropriate to study the movement of labor in isolation. High American productivity does provide a motive for the immigration of labor. But it also provides an incentive for the inflow of productive capital. That is, high productivity yields high returns for all factors of production, which suggests that these inflows should be studied jointly. This is precisely what our study does
Saturday, April 23, 2005
Why Does the ACLU Hate America?
This article can be found on the ACLU web site. As you read the article, ask yourself a question: Where in the U.S. Constitution does it give invading illegal aliens, drug dealers and criminals constitutional rights? Notice how there is no mention of "illegal immigrants" only illegal behavior of the Minuteman. The ACLU is careful not to say the Minuteman themselves are involved in illegal activities, but rather they are inciting the general public. The Minuteman Project represents a huge problem for the ACLU. They are bringing national attention to a problem that is a black and white issue: Constitutional rights are for Americans and legal immigrants only. These heroes called Minutemen have placed the spotlight on our political cockroaches, and they are members of both the Republican and Democrat parties.
ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project Staff Travels to Arizona to Support Monitoring Efforts by ACLU of Arizona
April 16, 2005
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: media@aclu.org
NEW YORK -- The Immigrants’ Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union today announced that it has sent two national staff members to Arizona to support the Legal Observer Project organized by the ACLU of Arizona.
Since April 1, armed private individuals under the so-called "Minuteman project" have come to Arizona for the purported purpose of spotting and reporting individuals who the Minutemen claim are violating federal immigration law. In fact, there have been growing reports and allegations of abuse of immigrants as a result of the Minutemen’s activities. Increasingly, it appears that private citizens near the Arizona border are engaging in illegal treatment of immigrants.
"Under the Constitution, every person regardless of immigration status is entitled to due process, and private vigilantes are not permitted to take the law into their own hands," said Lucas Guttentag, Director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Right Project. "The Immigrants’ Rights Project will participate in the legal observer project to assess the situation in Arizona first-hand, to support the efforts of the ACLU of Arizona and to underscore that the rule of law applies equally to all."
Eleanor Eisenberg, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arizona, added, "The Minuteman project has created a powder-keg situation with the potential to go beyond harassment and false imprisonment to real violence. We hope that our observer project will continue to shed light on the activities of the Minutemen and will ensure that private citizens do not detain, harass or humiliate others in violation of the law."
The Legal Observer Project was conceived by Ray Ybarra, Ira Glasser Fellow at the ACLU of Arizona. More than 80 monitors have observed the Minutemen actions since the beginning of April and more are coming. "We believe that the monitoring has played a crucial role in preventing abuses and in documenting the activities of the Minutemen," said Ybarra. He added: "The presence of ACLU national staff highlights that we will continue to monitor private individuals who want to take the law into their own hands as well as law enforcement agencies who have the responsibility to prevent illegal vigilante action."
ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project Staff Travels to Arizona to Support Monitoring Efforts by ACLU of Arizona
April 16, 2005
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: media@aclu.org
NEW YORK -- The Immigrants’ Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union today announced that it has sent two national staff members to Arizona to support the Legal Observer Project organized by the ACLU of Arizona.
Since April 1, armed private individuals under the so-called "Minuteman project" have come to Arizona for the purported purpose of spotting and reporting individuals who the Minutemen claim are violating federal immigration law. In fact, there have been growing reports and allegations of abuse of immigrants as a result of the Minutemen’s activities. Increasingly, it appears that private citizens near the Arizona border are engaging in illegal treatment of immigrants.
"Under the Constitution, every person regardless of immigration status is entitled to due process, and private vigilantes are not permitted to take the law into their own hands," said Lucas Guttentag, Director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Right Project. "The Immigrants’ Rights Project will participate in the legal observer project to assess the situation in Arizona first-hand, to support the efforts of the ACLU of Arizona and to underscore that the rule of law applies equally to all."
Eleanor Eisenberg, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arizona, added, "The Minuteman project has created a powder-keg situation with the potential to go beyond harassment and false imprisonment to real violence. We hope that our observer project will continue to shed light on the activities of the Minutemen and will ensure that private citizens do not detain, harass or humiliate others in violation of the law."
The Legal Observer Project was conceived by Ray Ybarra, Ira Glasser Fellow at the ACLU of Arizona. More than 80 monitors have observed the Minutemen actions since the beginning of April and more are coming. "We believe that the monitoring has played a crucial role in preventing abuses and in documenting the activities of the Minutemen," said Ybarra. He added: "The presence of ACLU national staff highlights that we will continue to monitor private individuals who want to take the law into their own hands as well as law enforcement agencies who have the responsibility to prevent illegal vigilante action."
Friday, April 22, 2005
One Fight We would Like to See
Gang will target Minuteman vigil on Mexico border
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
NACO, Ariz. -- Members of a violent Central America-based gang have been sent to Arizona to target Minuteman Project volunteers, who will begin a monthlong border vigil this weekend to find and report foreigner sneaking into the United States, project officials say.
James Gilchrist, a Vietnam veteran who helped organize the vigil to protest the federal government's failure to control illegal immigration, said he has been told that California and Texas leaders of Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13, have issued orders to teach "a lesson" to the Minuteman volunteers.
"We're not worried because half of our recruits are retired trained combat soldiers," Mr. Gilchrist said. "And those guys are just a bunch of punks."
Guess who the ACLU will back?
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
NACO, Ariz. -- Members of a violent Central America-based gang have been sent to Arizona to target Minuteman Project volunteers, who will begin a monthlong border vigil this weekend to find and report foreigner sneaking into the United States, project officials say.
James Gilchrist, a Vietnam veteran who helped organize the vigil to protest the federal government's failure to control illegal immigration, said he has been told that California and Texas leaders of Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13, have issued orders to teach "a lesson" to the Minuteman volunteers.
"We're not worried because half of our recruits are retired trained combat soldiers," Mr. Gilchrist said. "And those guys are just a bunch of punks."
Guess who the ACLU will back?
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Give Us Your Tired..Poor... and Your Filth
Miguel Angel Castro, a 19-year-old El Salvador native, is charged with capital murder in the April 12 death of Aiden Naquin, who would have been 2 in August.
Castro is accused of firing on a car driven by the boy's father as it pulled into the Huffman trailer park in the 2700 block of Third where the family lives. One of the bullets struck the toddler in the head.
Castro indelibly marked his body with tattoos indicating he is a member of the Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13, gang, said detectives with the Harris County Sheriff's Department. Mara Salvatrucha, which was started by Salvadoran refugees in the Los Angeles area in the early 1980s and now reaches into 31 other states, has been the target of a federal crackdown that last month swept six U.S. cities, netting the arrests of 103 gang members.
"The biggest groupings have been in L.A., New York and northern Virginia, but the cliques seem to be growing quickly now in Providence, Rhode Island; Charlotte, North Carolina; and Houston," said Bob Clifford, who heads the MS-13 National Task Force that formed in January.
He said the task force is keenly aware of the latest killing in Houston. Houston police want to question other suspects, who they say were with Castro during a recent standoff, about possible connections to nine other homicides
By Michelle Malkin 4-21-05. MS-13 Watch
Michelle Malkin's web site is chalked full of info about how dangerous our open borders have become. The sub-human gang known as MS-13 is coming to a town near you.
They are intelligent and well organized. We will post more information in the following days...
Castro is accused of firing on a car driven by the boy's father as it pulled into the Huffman trailer park in the 2700 block of Third where the family lives. One of the bullets struck the toddler in the head.
Castro indelibly marked his body with tattoos indicating he is a member of the Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13, gang, said detectives with the Harris County Sheriff's Department. Mara Salvatrucha, which was started by Salvadoran refugees in the Los Angeles area in the early 1980s and now reaches into 31 other states, has been the target of a federal crackdown that last month swept six U.S. cities, netting the arrests of 103 gang members.
"The biggest groupings have been in L.A., New York and northern Virginia, but the cliques seem to be growing quickly now in Providence, Rhode Island; Charlotte, North Carolina; and Houston," said Bob Clifford, who heads the MS-13 National Task Force that formed in January.
He said the task force is keenly aware of the latest killing in Houston. Houston police want to question other suspects, who they say were with Castro during a recent standoff, about possible connections to nine other homicides
By Michelle Malkin 4-21-05. MS-13 Watch
Michelle Malkin's web site is chalked full of info about how dangerous our open borders have become. The sub-human gang known as MS-13 is coming to a town near you.
They are intelligent and well organized. We will post more information in the following days...
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Rusty Shackelford...Presidential Nominee 2008?
This guy is a lock for the Uncle Sam's Golden Boot award!
Presidential Blue Print for America.
Eliminate federal Departments of; Transportation, Education, Interior, Housing, A.T.F., Health and Human Services, Energy, and Labor for starters
Also Eliminate funding for: Arts and public broadcasting.
Eliminate Federal Programs Entitlements: Medicare, Medicare and Social Security. (Everyone over the age of 45 will be paid what they have paid into it. Everyone else will not). Short-term losses to the government will be offset by future savings of not paying for the programs.
Taxes: All taxes must support the defense of the country and the people who or unable to help themselves and any other surviving federal departments.
Boarders: All boarders sealed ( Through the use of U.S. troops) with states being responsible for "customs" check.
Pull out of the United Nations.
Illegal Aliens: Will be deported to home country unless emanate harm can be proved. This will include children born to illegal alien parents.
Reversal of Roe v Wade.
Trade with China. Import to and export from China must be equal dollar for dollar.
Federal law banning any national medical insurance.
English language is "official" language of the U.S.
Only marriage between a man and a woman is legal.
The Boot has also been informed that Rusty is also working on a plan for judicial reform...updating...
Presidential Blue Print for America.
Eliminate federal Departments of; Transportation, Education, Interior, Housing, A.T.F., Health and Human Services, Energy, and Labor for starters
Also Eliminate funding for: Arts and public broadcasting.
Eliminate Federal Programs Entitlements: Medicare, Medicare and Social Security. (Everyone over the age of 45 will be paid what they have paid into it. Everyone else will not). Short-term losses to the government will be offset by future savings of not paying for the programs.
Taxes: All taxes must support the defense of the country and the people who or unable to help themselves and any other surviving federal departments.
Boarders: All boarders sealed ( Through the use of U.S. troops) with states being responsible for "customs" check.
Pull out of the United Nations.
Illegal Aliens: Will be deported to home country unless emanate harm can be proved. This will include children born to illegal alien parents.
Reversal of Roe v Wade.
Trade with China. Import to and export from China must be equal dollar for dollar.
Federal law banning any national medical insurance.
English language is "official" language of the U.S.
Only marriage between a man and a woman is legal.
The Boot has also been informed that Rusty is also working on a plan for judicial reform...updating...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)