Skip to comments.LAURA INGRAHAM'S WEEKLY E-BLAST - IMMIGRATION
Posted on 11/19/2002 9:30:47 AM PST by madfly
Nov. 18, 2002
By Laura Ingraham
When most people think about the "American Dream," family, hard work, God, love of country come to mind. But if "immigrant rights" groups and their supporters in Washington have their way, the dream will also include law-breaking.
With Republicans poised to take control of both house of Congress in January, a legislative quandary awaits them -- a bill called the "Dream Act," the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act. Introduced by Utah Senator Orrin Hatch earlier this year, it would make it easier for states to offer in-state tuition rates at state colleges, and also would grant students lawful residency upon graduation from high school if they had lived in the country at least five years. (They could file for a conditional green card, and thus could legally drive and work.)
Why do conservatives like Hatch, and his House colleague Rep. Chris Cannon, support a bill that would reward illegality? Colorado's Rep. Tom Tancredo, a bulldog for enforcing our immigration laws, thinks it's a combination of politics (attracting Latino votes) and money (insuring business-owners a constant source of cheap labor). Hatch insists that the undocumented students -- by some estimates as many 600,000 in our high schools-"are assimilated into American culture and grow up to be contributors to society."
That the majority of the illegal immigrant students want to work hard and better their lives is not in question. The problem is that for each slot an illegal immigrant takes at a state college or university, it is one less spot for American students or for immigrants who have followed immigration laws and procedures. (Illegals can also apply in the category of "international admissions.") And let's not forget, our new Homeland Security Department will have enough on its hands with 8 million illegals here, along with the 300,000 subject to deportation but on the loose.
For some outlandish reason, there is no specific federal prohibition against colleges and universities enrolling illegal immigrants. However, federal law places some restrictions on allowing such students to pay in-state tuition rates, and it prohibits them from receiving federal financial aid.
The pending Hatch-Cannon legislation will be a test for Republicans, who are ever-mindful of the growing influence Hispanics have in elections coast to coast. In the 2002 mid-term elections, many Republican candidates nationwide did better than expected among Hispanic voters. New York Governor George Pataki improved his support among Hispanic voters, chiefly due to his support for legalizing some illegals in the state. Governor Jeb Bush won a majority of the Latino vote, receiving strong support from Cuban-Americans.
Fearful of reprisals at the voting booth, the GOP has largely avoided taking on such these immigration-related issues. "When it comes to immigration, the president's approach is guided by compassion and fairness," said Sharon Castillo, an RNC spokesperson.
But isn't fairness supposed to be ensured by following the rule of law? President Bush's message on everything from fighting terror to corporate corruption is grounded in respecting the laws of the land. When people who set out to thwart our legal system are rewarded with benefits that are designated for law-abiding Americans and immigrants, why should we expect any would-be immigrants to go through the hassle of following our immigration laws?
Some states such as California, New York and Texas are already dangling carrots along the border. All passed bills allowing admission and in-state tuition for illegals. Several other states are considering similar measures.
Yet if there is a national trend toward bending the rules to allow greater access to education for illegals, Virginia's Republican Attorney General Jerry Kilgore wants no part of it. To the great consternation and outrage of groups like the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, he recently directed his state's public colleges not to enroll illegals. And get this-he also told the institutions to report illegals they discover on campus to federal authorities. (The horror!)
Kilgore is right. Since September 11th, all universities nationwide should be doing everything they can to help the INS track foreign students, not create problems by looking the other way when illegals attempt to take advantage of benefits designated for those here lawfully. Yet our federal government is on the verge of giving state universities the green light to do just that with the so-called Dream Act. It is already a nightmare for our understaffed, under-funded Border Patrol to enforce our borders, it will only get worse with the beacon of more benefits for law-breakers.
WORD OF THE DAY
Avatar, noun. 1.The incarnation of a Hindu deity, especially Vishnu, in human or animal form. 2. An embodiment, as of a quality or concept; an archetype: the very avatar of cunning. 3. A temporary manifestation or aspect of a continuing entity. As in--
Yoga is in its present avatar, with studios popping up coast to coast.
The nerve of that guy, actually believing that, as governor, he should enforce the law. Next thing you know someone will say that a president who has lied under oath should be removed from office.
LOL, but seriously, when is Duhhbya gonna send her the memo?
Do the wishes of the majority of Americans mean anything to these people?
You are among the only group that can be racist and politically incorrect. I bet your family owns guns too. The horror! I know all about this new oppression -- I am a straight, white, conservative male from the South -- the most reviled creature possible for the "let 'em all in, diversity is our strength, kumbyya crowd". Of course, I pay full price for everything, as well as about 40+% of my income in taxes. Guess I am just 'fortunate' in that regard.
I am hoping that all the focus on immigration lately will force politicians to clearly state their positions. I hope that more like Jerry Kilgore will step up and enforce the law.
But I am not holding my breath. Bush, Racicot, and Rove are calling the shots now, and they are for amnesty and doing anything but discussing immigration in a way that indicates that there is a problem.
I will not vote for anyone that plans on replacing me with the vote of an illegal. Bush and the Republican party have had their last vote from me, my family, my friends and co-workers.
This is a pretty strong statement. I can't argue with it. The fact is our Constitution and national laws (and interests) are being sold out to pander to millions of foreign nationals which are occupying our territory. Our infrastructure cannot continue to handle the flood coming across our borders.
They all had better hope they have swung enough illegals to make up the difference. I'll write in Tancredo for President, but I will not vote for Cornyn, Perry, et al, ever again.
So it becomes clear that the President and other Republicans are willing to pander to a few million foreign nationals in hopes of pleasing them, in deference to the well being and political stability of our nation and it's legal citizens.
The future of conservatism, the demographics of the country, taxes, and the constitution hang in the balance on this one issue. Bush has spit on his oath, he is attempting to rip the Constitution in half and destroy the most important laws in the land regarding our sovereignty.
A nation that doesn't have borders, is no longer a nation.
11 posted on 11/19/2002 9:48 AM PST by MissAmericanPie
Bienvenue a Free State Project
On balance, I don't think it's a partisan issue because the same could be said of the democraps. Looking at the long-term agenda, it could only be a continuance of plans to dispense with borders. This should have become evident to everyone on 9/12/01 when the first thing we should have done was seal the borders, as any nation under attack with any sense of survival should have done. Mexico, Canada and the U.S. must already be linked on the drawing board as a single political/economic entity in the minds of the 'planners.'
Sovereignty? An archaic expression once used by fledgling republics back in the 20th Century.
I could be wrong, but I believe there are penalties if you end up owing too much. If that's not the case, then it's a great plan.
I don't believe the feds allow that.
At least that's what I plan to do. As far as I can tell it's legal. As long as you pay the taxes on or before the 15th of April then I don't think they can do anything.
First of all, self-employed people are required to pay their taxes on a quarterly basis. And second, if you are significantly under-withheld, the feds can assess a penalty.
I would get some better tax advice before departing on the course of action you are proposing here.
I agree and sympathize with you but you should check this out with a tax accountant. Depending on how much you make, you could by liable for IRS penalties if you earn a certain amount over last year's income. I was on the treadmill with the IRS for years with estimated taxes that I had to pay up-front for the current tax year because my prior year's income was not fully paid until April 15th.
If the Republicans can take a vote away from the Dems to replace yours, they still gain...as long as you (evil anti-immigration pro-life extremist that you are) don't vote or vote for a party that isn't trying to win.
In Massachusetts for Governor this time we had Shannon O'Brien (D) saying 16 year olds didn't need parental permission for an abortion. We had "conservative" Mitt Romney (R) saying that he would of course support abortion rights, but only for those 18 or older.
I voted Green. If I didn't have an option to save baby's lives, I figured I'd at least vote to save trees and walruses or whatever.
This immigration thing...it must be a ratings winner. All of the talk folk are beginning to sound like anti-illegal, secure border freepers. Keep emailing them and praising any show they do that highlights the issue.
Nice choice ain't it, either Brownback or Kennedy.
When will Washington ever get it?
There's been a distinct increase in the talk-traffic about this issue within the last month. The transition was almost overnight. Like you said, someone got a serious eyeful of a ratings winner.
I have always said that in my next lifetime I am coming back as an illegal alien so I can break laws and get all the freebies while dumb Americans pay for it.
We need a strong President that will enforce our existing laws and quotas instead of Bush.
There I go dreaming again!!
Since Hatch is a Mormon and follows the Church's instructions to store a year's worth of food (to cope with the famines that the Church prophesizes are heading for this country) -- I hope he is happy when those awful days come to pass and his children and grandchildren are forced to stand in long lines and compete with all these illegals for for their daily ration of bread and water. He can take comfort in that he had a hand in their suffering.
"God-fearing" politicians like Bush and Hatch are going to have to answer for their deeds on Judgment Day...sadly, all of us have to live in the here and now with the consequences of their corrupt actions.
Presented at Freedom Drive 2002, The National Mall, Washington DC November 14, 2002
Acknowledgement: Bob Schulz wishes to acknowledge and thank Anthony Hargis for his fine research paper, "The Lost Right, Redress of Grievances." (undated). Bob's speech draws heavily on that research and the underlying documents.
The founding fathers, in an act of the Continental Congress in 1774, said, "If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, [the People] may retain [their money] until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility."
This very American Right of Redress of Grievances Before Taxes is deeply embedded in our law.
The founding fathers could hardly have used words more clear when they declared, "the people . . . may retain [their money] until their grievances are [remedied]."
By these words, the founding fathers fully recognized and clearly stated: that the Right of Redress of Grievances includes the right of Redress Before payment of Taxes, that this Right of Redress Before Taxes lies in the hands of the People, that this Right is the People's non-violent, peaceful means to procuring a remedy to their grievances without having depend on -- or place their trust in -- the government's willingness to respond to the People's petitions and without having to resort to violence.
Before going further, I'd like to clarify two points: first, the question we are dealing with here is not whether the government has the power to tax, but whether the government is abusing its constitutionally limited power to tax; and second, there is the question of whether the government is using the tax revenue to effect other abuses of its authority.
The founding fathers were well acquainted with the fact that government is the enemy of Freedom, that those wielding governmental power despise petitions from the People; the representatives of the People, in a popular assembly, seem sometimes to fancy that they are the People themselves and exhibit strong symptoms of impatience and disgust at the least sign of opposition from any quarter.
The founding fathers knew that it was possible for the institutions of the Congress, the Executive and the Courts to someday begin to fail in their duty to protect the people from tyranny. They knew that unless the People had the right to withhold their money from the government their grievances might fall on deaf ears and Liberty would give way to tyranny, despotism and involuntary servitude.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states clearly and unambiguously, "Congress shall make NO law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people . . . to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
While some Rights are reserved with qualifications . . . (continued)
This is a real eye opener!
As long as the govenment continues to keep the doors and windows wide open to our house, there will be no Home Land Security....
I doubt if many of these students are alone here in the US. They probably live with at least 1 illegal parent. Maybe there are are 2 illegal parents, maybe 1 or more illegal siblings and maybe illegal relatives. What does Hatch propose to do about them?
If the student gets in-statue tuition breaks and lawful residency upon graduation, what happens to these relatives? I doubt if Hatch is for deporting them, even though they probably are illegal and are not the ones graduating from high school. In effect this will be an amnesty for anyone who has a kid in school, because of course, "you cannot split up the family".