An article on the Breitbart website reports “President Barack Obama will present plans for immigration reform this year, Hispanic lawmakers said Wednesday after strategic talks at the White House. Obama ‘was clear and eloquent and determinate to let us know that we are all together in the route of comprehensive immigration reform,’ Democratic lawmaker Luis Gutierrez told reporters after the discussion between the president and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC).”
In other words, the President of the United States sat down with Mexicans in the White House and conspired with them to destroy the country. What Republican traitors George Bush and John McCain tried to do in 2007 is now being done by a Democrat. Maybe if the Republicans offered us someone DIFFERENT from the Democrats in a meaningful way, we would not have a Socialist African in the White House, eager to sign the document that will destroy White America.
The article notes “Obama will convene a public forum on the issue probably in two months, according to New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez. The White House said in a statement that the meeting was robust and strategic and that Obama will work with CHC members to address immigration reform in both the short and long term.”
In other words the Democrats are going to try to ram Amnesty down our throats, and they’ve got their “Brown Messiah” throwing his weight behind this attempt. Well, people, this is it.
Bush and McCain tried Amnesty in 2006 and 2007, and both times White people managed to scream and curse and shout so loudly that they backed off, much like a wounded man lying all alone in the wilderness can sometimes manage to scare off a scavenger by showing that he’s alive and able to put up a fight.
We can either make a gallant stand against Obama’s Amnesty plan or allow America to become a Third World nation. Obama has been throwing out conservative-sounding phrases about illegal immigration just prior to the Big Betrayal. He wants us to lower our guard. The Senate will almost certainly betray us, but we have a chance of getting the House to vote against this Amnesty Bill. The House Representatives are much closer to the people than the arrogant scum in the Senate, where Obama came from.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Friday, August 6, 2010
Anchor Babies: Part of the Immigration-Related American Lexicon
The term “anchor baby” may be unfamiliar to most Americans but it succinctly describes a troubling aspect of American immigration.
An anchor baby is defined as an offspring of an illegal immigrant or other non-citizen, who under current legal interpretation becomes a United States citizen at birth. These children may instantly qualify for welfare and other state and local benefit programs. Additionally with the passage of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, the child may sponsor other family members for entry into the United States when he or she reaches the age of twenty-one. The sheer numbers are staggering. In Stockton, California (2003), 70 percent of the 2,300 babies, born in San Joaquin General Hospital’s maternity ward were anchor babies
Interpreting the 14th Amendment
According to the Constitution's 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 to ensure citizenship for the newly emancipated African Americans, "all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude from automatic citizenship American-born persons whose allegiance to the United States was incomplete. For example, Native Americans were excluded from American citizenship because of their tribal jurisdiction. Also not subject to American jurisdiction were foreign visitors, ambassadors, consuls, and their babies born here. In the case of illegal aliens, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Therefore, some Constitutional scholars argue that the completeness of the allegiance to the United States is impaired and logically precludes automatic citizenship. However, this issue has never been directly decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Price We Pay
The nation's school system faces the economic burden of providing services to the millions of children born to illegal immigrants. In a 2004 United States General Accounting Office report, three states submitted their annual cost estimates of educating illegal children. The estimates provided ranged from 50 million dollars to 87.5 million in Pennsylvania and 932 million to 1.04 billion dollars in Texas. [i]
FAIR estimates there are currently more than 425,000 children born to illegal aliens each year. This figure is based on the crude birth rate of the total foreign-born population (33 births per 1000) and the size of the illegal alien population (13 million in 2008). In 1994, California paid for 74,987 deliveries to illegal alien mothers, at a total cost of $215.2 million (an average of $2,842 per delivery). Illegal alien mothers accounted for 36 percent of all Medi-Cal funded births in California that year and now count substantially more than half.
What Does This Mean?
Higher Taxes: The federal government has control over immigration law for the United States. By not correcting this mis-application of the 14th Amendment, the funds that state and local governments must provide to anchor babies amounts to a virtual tax on U.S. citizens to subsidize illegal aliens.
Disrespect for the rule of law: Congress, by failing to act on legislation aimed at correcting the interpretation of citizenship by birth, in effect rewards law-breakers and punishes those who have chosen to follow the rules and immigrate legally.
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. The United States is unusual in its offer to extend citizenship to anyone born on its soil. Other developed countries have changed their citizenship practice to eliminate the problems caused by the practice of birthright citizenship. [1] The anchor baby problem has grown to such large proportions that the United States can no longer afford to ignore it. The logical first step for correcting the problem is for Congress to adopt legislation clarifying the meaning of the 14th amendment.
Make no mistake, Americans are happy to welcome immigrants who follow our immigration laws and see a better lifer here. America is far more welcoming and tolerant of newcomers than any virtually any nation on earth. But our modern welfare state creates pervasive incentives for immigrants, incentives that cloud the issue of why people chose to come here. We cannot afford to open our pocketbooks to the rest of the world. We must end the pervasive incentives that encourage immigrants to come here illegally, including the anchor baby incentive. "
An anchor baby is defined as an offspring of an illegal immigrant or other non-citizen, who under current legal interpretation becomes a United States citizen at birth. These children may instantly qualify for welfare and other state and local benefit programs. Additionally with the passage of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, the child may sponsor other family members for entry into the United States when he or she reaches the age of twenty-one. The sheer numbers are staggering. In Stockton, California (2003), 70 percent of the 2,300 babies, born in San Joaquin General Hospital’s maternity ward were anchor babies
Interpreting the 14th Amendment
According to the Constitution's 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 to ensure citizenship for the newly emancipated African Americans, "all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude from automatic citizenship American-born persons whose allegiance to the United States was incomplete. For example, Native Americans were excluded from American citizenship because of their tribal jurisdiction. Also not subject to American jurisdiction were foreign visitors, ambassadors, consuls, and their babies born here. In the case of illegal aliens, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Therefore, some Constitutional scholars argue that the completeness of the allegiance to the United States is impaired and logically precludes automatic citizenship. However, this issue has never been directly decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Price We Pay
The nation's school system faces the economic burden of providing services to the millions of children born to illegal immigrants. In a 2004 United States General Accounting Office report, three states submitted their annual cost estimates of educating illegal children. The estimates provided ranged from 50 million dollars to 87.5 million in Pennsylvania and 932 million to 1.04 billion dollars in Texas. [i]
FAIR estimates there are currently more than 425,000 children born to illegal aliens each year. This figure is based on the crude birth rate of the total foreign-born population (33 births per 1000) and the size of the illegal alien population (13 million in 2008). In 1994, California paid for 74,987 deliveries to illegal alien mothers, at a total cost of $215.2 million (an average of $2,842 per delivery). Illegal alien mothers accounted for 36 percent of all Medi-Cal funded births in California that year and now count substantially more than half.
What Does This Mean?
Higher Taxes: The federal government has control over immigration law for the United States. By not correcting this mis-application of the 14th Amendment, the funds that state and local governments must provide to anchor babies amounts to a virtual tax on U.S. citizens to subsidize illegal aliens.
Disrespect for the rule of law: Congress, by failing to act on legislation aimed at correcting the interpretation of citizenship by birth, in effect rewards law-breakers and punishes those who have chosen to follow the rules and immigrate legally.
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. The United States is unusual in its offer to extend citizenship to anyone born on its soil. Other developed countries have changed their citizenship practice to eliminate the problems caused by the practice of birthright citizenship. [1] The anchor baby problem has grown to such large proportions that the United States can no longer afford to ignore it. The logical first step for correcting the problem is for Congress to adopt legislation clarifying the meaning of the 14th amendment.
Make no mistake, Americans are happy to welcome immigrants who follow our immigration laws and see a better lifer here. America is far more welcoming and tolerant of newcomers than any virtually any nation on earth. But our modern welfare state creates pervasive incentives for immigrants, incentives that cloud the issue of why people chose to come here. We cannot afford to open our pocketbooks to the rest of the world. We must end the pervasive incentives that encourage immigrants to come here illegally, including the anchor baby incentive. "
Thursday, August 5, 2010
White House Denials Are Scarier Than The Memos
If an employer says he has no intention of firing the "entire" workforce of a company, just how comfortable do you think the employees feel?Well, that's how I felt when federal officials said they have no intention of providing a backdoor amnesty to "the nation's entire illegal immigrant population."
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services of the Department of Homeland Security in response to leaked memos from the agency. And I have this leaked document for your consumption: http://tinyurl.com/24dycoz.
This comment certainly has merit. People often write or ask for memos that just provide an idea of options. Obviously, I would feel better if DHS was not even writing down the option of giving massive numbers of amnesties without permission of Congress. Nonetheless, the fact a memo was written like that doesn't mean that option will be taken or is even being seriously considered. http://tinyurl.com/24dycoz Educate yourself.
But then USCIS of the DHS seemed to undermine any reassurances by saying:
To be clear, DHS will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation's entire illegal immigrant population.
Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi are facing a dilemma: Although they publicly bemoan the fact that Republicans won’t help them pass an unpopular amnesty comprehensive immigration-reform bill, they don’t want to force vulnerable Democrats to vote on amnesty this close to the November elections especially not with unemployment at 10.5 percent.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) may have uncovered the answer to their dilemma last week: an internal U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services memo that outlines steps the Obama administration can take “in the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform” — that is, lawfully enacted amnesty — to “reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization.”
 |
| Here they come, Like always |
America, it is you who have made a comprehensive amnesty bill so radioactive that congressional leaders refuse to bring it up for a vote. The only way to stop the backdoor amnesties is if you apply the same kind of pressures. The federal government has proven it will protect de facto amnesties by taking states to court that try to move illegal foreign workers out of their jobs. We don't seem to be able to do anything to stop that federal assault on our abilities for self-determination and protection. But I think the ideas in the USCIS memos are so much farther in their assault on the limits of power on the Executive Branch that we can stop those ideas in the court of public opinion. http://tinturl.com/24dycoz
The U.S. Constitution gives Congress — and only Congress — the authority to decide federal immigration law, but the Obama administration has come up with an extensive list of ways to ensure that a majority of the illegal aliens in the United States are allowed to remain here. USE THE LGO READ THE PDF
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
AMNESTY AND JOBLESSNESS
SUMMARY
• American workers currently face the worst job market in a generation.
• The recent unemployment rate of 10.2 percent is the highest it has been in 25 years. Dating back to January 1948, unemployment has been higher than today’s unemployment rate in just 11 out of 743 months.
• Regardless of gender, age, race, or education level, the unemployment picture for Americans today is worse than it was just one year ago.
• Today, more than 15.4 million Americans are without a job and are actively looking for work. At the same
time, estimates conclude that 8.3 million illegal aliens are part of America’s workforce despite their employment being a violation of U.S. law.
• Despite the worsening jobs trend, the Obama Administration and leaders in Congress are talking about passing legislation that would give amnesty to an estimated 12 million or more illegal aliens.
• The American job market today, compared to June 2007 when Congress last considered and rejected
amnesty, is much, much worse. The official unemployment rate has increased from 4.6 percent to 10.0 percent. The number of unemployed has more than doubled, rising by 8.5 million.
• Amnesty would allow illegal aliens to keep jobs they should never have had, instead of freeing those jobs
up for American workers.
• Amnesty would also allow those who are working illegally today in the underground economy to begin
openly competing for scarce available jobs with Americans who are out of work.
• In short, Congress has a responsibility to ensure that available jobs are filled by legal workers. Consideration of amnesty legislation, particularly in these harsh economic times, constitutes a failure by Congress to live up to its basic responsibilities to the American people.
With the recent official unemployment rate of 10.2 percent, American workers are now facing the worst job
market in 25 years. [1] In fact, over the past 60 years, the unemployment rate has rarely been as high as it is today. Despite a difficult job market, President Obama and leaders in Congress are talking about passing so-called “comprehensive immigration reform” legislation. This legislation would give amnesty to 12 million or more illegal aliens, including an estimated 8.3 million illegal aliens who hold jobs they never should have had, and could include a proposed new guest-worker provision to import hundreds of thousands of additional foreign workers. [2] If enacted, illegal aliens would be allowed to keep these jobs instead of making them available to American citizens and legal immigrants who are out of work. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that the law that requires available jobs to be filled by legal workers is respected. Consideration of amnesty, particularly in these harsh economic times, constitutes a failure by Congress to live up to its basic responsibilities to the American people.
AMERICAN WORKERS FACE HISTORICALLY HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT
American workers are struggling. The number of available jobs continues to shrink. Today, 15.4 million Americans are out of work and looking for a job and millions more are in temporary part-time jobs while they look for permanent jobs.3 At the same time, it is estimated that 8.3 million illegal aliens are part of the American workforce despite not being legally authorized to work in the United States. In just the past year, 4.9 million jobs have been lost.
For months, leaders in Congress have been telling the American people that the U.S. economy is facing significant challenges. For example, during debate on President Obama’s $800 billion stimulus bill, Senator
Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said that “The country is in tough shape.We have had the most difficult economic
time since the Great Depression.”4 Since he made that remark in February, the economy and the job situation has continued its downward spiral. While today’s official 10.0 percent unemployment rate is nowhere near as bad as the 24.8 percent seen in 1933 during the depths of the Great Depression, the current employment picture is the worst Americans have seen in the past 25 years.
AMNESTY ON THE HORIZON?
Despite the jobless picture, Senator Schumer, who recently compared today’s economy to that of the Great
Depression, chaired a hearing several months ago entitled “Comprehensive Immigration Reform in 2009, Can We Do It and How?” The hearing was held on April 30, 2009 before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Refugees. Critics say that so-called “comprehensive” reform is a euphemism for legislation that would grant amnesty to 12 million illegal aliens and that this hearing was the first step towards consideration of amnesty in the 111th Congress.
While it comes as no surprise that Schumer would push amnesty, since he has supported it in the past, it is surprising that Congress would even consider amnesty given the current economic climate. Even people from
Schumer’s own state of New York recognize the reality that pushing amnesty with today’s job market is unwise. For example, Rogan Kersh, a dean at New York University’s Wagner School of Public Service, has stated that “rising unemployment rates, coupled with continuing dismal economic news, are battering the public’s inclination to back a change in illegal immigrants’ status, which was never that strong to begin with.”6
Underlying Dean Kersh’s comment is the fact that the American people intuitively understand that amnesty legislation would authorize illegal aliens to stay in the United States and allow them to keep jobs they should
never have had in the first place. The American people understand that, rather than granting amnesty, Congress and the Administration should focus on immigration enforcement, which would progressively make available to legal American workers those jobs currently held by illegal aliens. Despite the lack of available jobs for legal American workers and the support of the American people for immigration law enforcement, Senator Schumer has said he will be undeterred by “difficult economic conditions” and will press ahead with the hearing, noting that there is “a real chance of passing comprehensive reform this year.”7
AMNESTY’S MESSAGE: NO AMERICANS NEED APPLY
When Congress last considered amnesty in May and June 2007, some politicians suggested that illegal aliens
were doing jobs that no Americans would do.8 That was not true then, and it certainly is not true today. Rep.
Steve King (R-Iowa) has made just that point, saying that amnesty supporters “are going to have to be faced
with the argument that I and many others are making: Illegals are taking jobs Americans now want.”9 Amnesty would allow an estimated 8.3 million illegal aliens to keep the jobs they currently hold, even though they never should have been hired for those jobs in the first place. In addition, amnesty would allow anyone who is illegally present in the United States to openly begin applying for any and every available job in America. This would put American workers in the position of having to openly compete with (former) illegal aliens to fill an available job. American workers shouldn’t have to do that, but amnesty would force them to.
The last time Congress rejected amnesty, inMay and June 2007, America’s economy was in much better shape than it is today. At that time, big business interests supported amnesty and President Bush’s guest-worker program, which would have brought in hundreds of thousands of guest-workers each year. If the job market could not support those policies in 2007, there is no doubt that the current lack of available American jobs means that America simply cannot support these policies today.
The following table compares the unemployment data and jobless trends in June 2007 and today. It shows that during the 2007 amnesty debate, official unemployment (seasonal) stood at 4.6 percent—4.9 full points lower than the current 10.0 percent. It also shows that in June 2007, nearly 7.0 million Americans were out of work, compared to 15.4 million today. In November 2009, 8.5 million more Americans are out of work and actively looking for a job than were in 2007.
American Unemployment Data: June 2007 vs. November 2009 & 10
June 2007 November 2009
Unemployment Rate 4.6 percent 10.0 percent
Number of Unemployed 7.0 million 15.4 million
Jobless Trend (compared to prior year) +139,000 -5 million
During the last amnesty debate, the number of unemployed Americans declined by 139,000 during the year
prior to the debate (comparing July 2006 to June 2007). Over that same one-year period, the unemployment
rate had declined slightly from 4.7 to 4.6 percent. By comparison, America has had a net loss of nearly 5 million jobs during the previous one-year period (November 2008 to November 2009) and unemployment has increased by 3.2 percentage points. These numbers translate to a significantly higher number of Americans who are out of work today than were in 2007 (8.5 million more Americans) and suggests that America simply does not need more foreign workers, whether through amnesty, legalization or a guest-worker program. In fact, real enforcement and a reduction in immigration levels would ensure that America restores the integrity of its labor market which would increase wages and free jobs for American workers.
The unemployment numbers also demonstrate that regardless of gender, race, age or education, the employment prospects for all Americans are worse today than they were in June 2007. As the following chart demonstrates, women and men are both facing higher unemployment. In 2007, the unemployment rate for women stood at 3.9 percent; today it is 7.9 percent. Men also face higher unemployment. Unemployment was 4.1 percent for men in 2007 and is now 10.5 percent.
Unemployment Rates by Gender, Race, Age & Education: June 2007 vs. November 200911
June 2007 November 2009
Adult Men 4.1% 10.5%
Adult Women 3.9% 7.9%
Whites 4.1% 9.3%
Hispanics 5.6% 12.7%
African Americans 8.5% 15.6%
Teenagers 16.1% 26.7%
Veterans 4.6%12
Less Than High School Diploma +25years 6.8% 15.0%
High School Diploma (+25 years) 4.2% 10.4%
Some College (+25 years) 3.6% 9.0%
College Grad or Higher (+25 years) 2.0% 4.9%
Regardless of race or national origin, Americans across the board are living with employment prospects today that are much worse than in 2007. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), white unemployment is up 5.2 percentage points (from 4.1 to 9.3 percent), Hispanic unemployment is up 7.1 percentage points (from 5.6 to 12.7 percent), and unemployment for African-Americans is up 7.1 percentage points (from 8.5 to 15.6 percent). Immigrant unemployment—mostly legal workers—in the first quarter of 2009 was even higher, i.e., 9.7 percent—the highest level since 1994, when data began to be collected for immigrants.13 Similarly, the teenage unemployment rate, having risen from 16.1 percent in June 2007 to 26.7 percent in November 2009, is also considerably higher. The teenage unemployment rate for African-Americans, at 49.4 percent, is even higher than the national average for all teenagers.
As with other demographics, job losses have hit Americans hard regardless of their level of educational attainment. According to BLS, workers over the age of 25 who have earned a college degree or higher have seen their unemployment rate more than double from 2.0 percent in June 2007 to 4.9 percent in November 2009. The unemployment rate for people with some college but without a degree has more than doubled from 3.6 percent to 9.0 percent, from June 2007 to November 2009.
The hardest hit, however, are those Americans older than 25 with “less than a high school diploma.” These
Americans have seen their demographics’ unemployment climb from 6.8 percent to 15.0 percent, from June
2007 to November 2009. Those with a high school diploma but no college have seen unemployment increase from 4.2 percent to 10.4 percent. These numbers represent 1.8 million unemployed Americans without a high school diploma, and 3.9 million more with a high school diploma but no college.14
According to the Pew Hispanic Center, illegal aliens are “especially likely to hold low-skilled jobs” because they are “disproportionately likely to be poorly educated.”15 According to the Pew research, nearly half of all illegal aliens (47 percent) aged 25 to 64 have “less than a high school education,” compared to 8 percent of U.S.- born residents in that age group who have not graduated from high school. Americans who dropped out of high school or completed high school but never attended college will necessarily have to compete in the job market with any illegal alien who receives amnesty and anyone admitted under a new “no skill/low skill” “guestworker program.” Americans with no more than a high school diploma, including 5.7 million Americans who are currently unemployed, are the most likely to be economically disadvantaged and are also most likely to be the hardest hit by amnesty or by a guest-worker program.
CONCLUSION
America’s unemployment numbers, taken as a whole, demonstrate an alarming trend for American workers. Unemployment is much higher today—across all demographics and regardless of gender, race, age or education level—than it was the last time Congress considered amnesty in June 2007. Amnesty would force those Americans out of work and looking for a job to compete with today’s illegal aliens for the limited number of jobs. The jobless numbers suggest that American workers cannot afford a guest-worker program and that American taxpayers cannot afford amnesty for millions of illegal aliens who would then become eligible for unemployment benefits. Despite this reality for the American worker, Congress has begun holding hearings on amnesty. But the conclusion is unavoidable: if consideration of amnesty was “ripe” in 2007, by today’s standards it is simply “rotten.”
MONTHLY HISTORIC UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
(1948 to 2009, Seasonally Adjusted)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1948 3.4 3.8 4.0 3.9 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.8 4.0
1949 4.3 4.7 5.0 5.3 6.1 6.2 6.7 6.8 6.6 7.9 6.4 6.6
1950 6.5 6.4 6.3 5.8 5.5 5.4 5.0 4.5 4.4 4.2 4.2 4.3
1951 3.7 3.4 3.4 3.1 3.0 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.1
1952 3.2 3.1 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.7
1953 2.9 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.5 4.5
1954 4.9 5.2 5.7 5.9 5.9 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.1 5.7 5.3 5.0
1955 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.3 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.1 4.3 4.2 4.2
1956 4.0 3.9 4.2 4.0 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.1 3.9 3.9 4.3 4.2
1957 4.2 3.9 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.4 4.5 5.1 5.2
1958 5.8 6.4 6.7 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.5 7.4 7.1 6.7 6.2 6.2
1959 6.0 5.9 5.6 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.5 5.7 5.8 5.3
1960 5.2 4.8 5.4 5.2 5.1 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.5 6.1 6.1 6.6
1961 6.6 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.1 6.9 7.0 6.6 6.7 6.5 6.1 6.0
1962 5.8 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.4 5.7 5.6 5.4 5.7 5.5
1963 5.7 5.9 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.6 5.6 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.7 5.5
1964 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.1 5.2 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.1 4.8 5.0
1965 4.9 5.1 4.7 4.8 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.0
1966 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.8
1967 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.8 4.0 3.9 3.8
1968 3.7 3.8 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.7 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4
1969 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.7 3.5 3.5
1970 3.9 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.4 5.5 5.9 6.1
1971 5.9 5.9 6.0 5.9 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.0 5.8 6.0 6.0
1972 5.8 5.7 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.3 5.2
1973 4.9 5.0 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.6 4.8 4.9
1974 5.1 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.9 6.0 6.6 7.2
1975 8.1 8.1 8.6 8.8 9.0 8.8 8.6 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.3 8.2
1976 7.9 7.7 7.6 7.7 7.4 7.6 7.8 7.8 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.8
1977 7.5 7.6 7.4 7.2 7.0 7.2 6.9 7.0 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.4
1978 6.4 6.3 6.3 6.1 6.0 5.9 6.2 5.9 6.0 5.8 5.9 6.0
1979 5.9 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.6 5.7 5.7 6.0 5.9 6.0 5.9 6.0
1980 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.9 7.5 7.6 7.8 7.7 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.2
1981 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.9 8.3 8.5
1982 8.6 8.9 9.0 9.3 9.4 9.6 9.8 9.8 10.1 10.4 10.8 10.8
1983 10.4 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.1 10.1 9.4 9.5 9.2 8.8 8.5 8.3
1984 8.0 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.3
1985 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.4 7.4 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.0 7.0
1986 6.7 7.2 7.2 7.1 7.2 7.2 7.0 6.9 7.0 7.0 6.9 6.6
1987 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.3 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.0 5.9 6.0 5.8 5.7
1988 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.4 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.3
1989 5.4 5.2 5.0 5.2 5.2 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.4
1990 5.4 5.3 5.2 5.4 5.4 5.2 5.5 5.7 5.9 5.9 6.2 6.3
1991 6.4 6.6 6.8 6.7 6.9 6.9 6.8 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.0 7.3
1992 7.3 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.6 7.8 7.7 7.6 7.6 7.3 7.4 7.4
1993 7.3 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.0 6.9 6.8 6.7 6.8 6.6 6.5
1994 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.8 5.6 5.5
1995 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.6
1996 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.3 5.5 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.4 5.4
1997 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.1 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.7
1998 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.4
1999 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.0
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.2 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.8
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.9
2008 4.9 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.5 5.6 5.8 6.2 6.2 6.6 6.8 7.2
2009 7.6 8.1 8.5 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.8 10.2 10.0
MONTHLY HISTORIC UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
• American workers currently face the worst job market in a generation.
• The recent unemployment rate of 10.2 percent is the highest it has been in 25 years. Dating back to January 1948, unemployment has been higher than today’s unemployment rate in just 11 out of 743 months.
• Regardless of gender, age, race, or education level, the unemployment picture for Americans today is worse than it was just one year ago.
• Today, more than 15.4 million Americans are without a job and are actively looking for work. At the same
time, estimates conclude that 8.3 million illegal aliens are part of America’s workforce despite their employment being a violation of U.S. law.
• Despite the worsening jobs trend, the Obama Administration and leaders in Congress are talking about passing legislation that would give amnesty to an estimated 12 million or more illegal aliens.
• The American job market today, compared to June 2007 when Congress last considered and rejected
amnesty, is much, much worse. The official unemployment rate has increased from 4.6 percent to 10.0 percent. The number of unemployed has more than doubled, rising by 8.5 million.
• Amnesty would allow illegal aliens to keep jobs they should never have had, instead of freeing those jobs
up for American workers.
• Amnesty would also allow those who are working illegally today in the underground economy to begin
openly competing for scarce available jobs with Americans who are out of work.
• In short, Congress has a responsibility to ensure that available jobs are filled by legal workers. Consideration of amnesty legislation, particularly in these harsh economic times, constitutes a failure by Congress to live up to its basic responsibilities to the American people.
With the recent official unemployment rate of 10.2 percent, American workers are now facing the worst job
market in 25 years. [1] In fact, over the past 60 years, the unemployment rate has rarely been as high as it is today. Despite a difficult job market, President Obama and leaders in Congress are talking about passing so-called “comprehensive immigration reform” legislation. This legislation would give amnesty to 12 million or more illegal aliens, including an estimated 8.3 million illegal aliens who hold jobs they never should have had, and could include a proposed new guest-worker provision to import hundreds of thousands of additional foreign workers. [2] If enacted, illegal aliens would be allowed to keep these jobs instead of making them available to American citizens and legal immigrants who are out of work. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that the law that requires available jobs to be filled by legal workers is respected. Consideration of amnesty, particularly in these harsh economic times, constitutes a failure by Congress to live up to its basic responsibilities to the American people.
AMERICAN WORKERS FACE HISTORICALLY HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT
American workers are struggling. The number of available jobs continues to shrink. Today, 15.4 million Americans are out of work and looking for a job and millions more are in temporary part-time jobs while they look for permanent jobs.3 At the same time, it is estimated that 8.3 million illegal aliens are part of the American workforce despite not being legally authorized to work in the United States. In just the past year, 4.9 million jobs have been lost.
For months, leaders in Congress have been telling the American people that the U.S. economy is facing significant challenges. For example, during debate on President Obama’s $800 billion stimulus bill, Senator
Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said that “The country is in tough shape.We have had the most difficult economic
time since the Great Depression.”4 Since he made that remark in February, the economy and the job situation has continued its downward spiral. While today’s official 10.0 percent unemployment rate is nowhere near as bad as the 24.8 percent seen in 1933 during the depths of the Great Depression, the current employment picture is the worst Americans have seen in the past 25 years.
AMNESTY ON THE HORIZON?
Despite the jobless picture, Senator Schumer, who recently compared today’s economy to that of the Great
Depression, chaired a hearing several months ago entitled “Comprehensive Immigration Reform in 2009, Can We Do It and How?” The hearing was held on April 30, 2009 before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Refugees. Critics say that so-called “comprehensive” reform is a euphemism for legislation that would grant amnesty to 12 million illegal aliens and that this hearing was the first step towards consideration of amnesty in the 111th Congress.
While it comes as no surprise that Schumer would push amnesty, since he has supported it in the past, it is surprising that Congress would even consider amnesty given the current economic climate. Even people from
Schumer’s own state of New York recognize the reality that pushing amnesty with today’s job market is unwise. For example, Rogan Kersh, a dean at New York University’s Wagner School of Public Service, has stated that “rising unemployment rates, coupled with continuing dismal economic news, are battering the public’s inclination to back a change in illegal immigrants’ status, which was never that strong to begin with.”6
Underlying Dean Kersh’s comment is the fact that the American people intuitively understand that amnesty legislation would authorize illegal aliens to stay in the United States and allow them to keep jobs they should
never have had in the first place. The American people understand that, rather than granting amnesty, Congress and the Administration should focus on immigration enforcement, which would progressively make available to legal American workers those jobs currently held by illegal aliens. Despite the lack of available jobs for legal American workers and the support of the American people for immigration law enforcement, Senator Schumer has said he will be undeterred by “difficult economic conditions” and will press ahead with the hearing, noting that there is “a real chance of passing comprehensive reform this year.”7
AMNESTY’S MESSAGE: NO AMERICANS NEED APPLY
When Congress last considered amnesty in May and June 2007, some politicians suggested that illegal aliens
were doing jobs that no Americans would do.8 That was not true then, and it certainly is not true today. Rep.
Steve King (R-Iowa) has made just that point, saying that amnesty supporters “are going to have to be faced
with the argument that I and many others are making: Illegals are taking jobs Americans now want.”9 Amnesty would allow an estimated 8.3 million illegal aliens to keep the jobs they currently hold, even though they never should have been hired for those jobs in the first place. In addition, amnesty would allow anyone who is illegally present in the United States to openly begin applying for any and every available job in America. This would put American workers in the position of having to openly compete with (former) illegal aliens to fill an available job. American workers shouldn’t have to do that, but amnesty would force them to.
The last time Congress rejected amnesty, inMay and June 2007, America’s economy was in much better shape than it is today. At that time, big business interests supported amnesty and President Bush’s guest-worker program, which would have brought in hundreds of thousands of guest-workers each year. If the job market could not support those policies in 2007, there is no doubt that the current lack of available American jobs means that America simply cannot support these policies today.
The following table compares the unemployment data and jobless trends in June 2007 and today. It shows that during the 2007 amnesty debate, official unemployment (seasonal) stood at 4.6 percent—4.9 full points lower than the current 10.0 percent. It also shows that in June 2007, nearly 7.0 million Americans were out of work, compared to 15.4 million today. In November 2009, 8.5 million more Americans are out of work and actively looking for a job than were in 2007.
American Unemployment Data: June 2007 vs. November 2009 & 10
June 2007 November 2009
Unemployment Rate 4.6 percent 10.0 percent
Number of Unemployed 7.0 million 15.4 million
Jobless Trend (compared to prior year) +139,000 -5 million
During the last amnesty debate, the number of unemployed Americans declined by 139,000 during the year
prior to the debate (comparing July 2006 to June 2007). Over that same one-year period, the unemployment
rate had declined slightly from 4.7 to 4.6 percent. By comparison, America has had a net loss of nearly 5 million jobs during the previous one-year period (November 2008 to November 2009) and unemployment has increased by 3.2 percentage points. These numbers translate to a significantly higher number of Americans who are out of work today than were in 2007 (8.5 million more Americans) and suggests that America simply does not need more foreign workers, whether through amnesty, legalization or a guest-worker program. In fact, real enforcement and a reduction in immigration levels would ensure that America restores the integrity of its labor market which would increase wages and free jobs for American workers.
The unemployment numbers also demonstrate that regardless of gender, race, age or education, the employment prospects for all Americans are worse today than they were in June 2007. As the following chart demonstrates, women and men are both facing higher unemployment. In 2007, the unemployment rate for women stood at 3.9 percent; today it is 7.9 percent. Men also face higher unemployment. Unemployment was 4.1 percent for men in 2007 and is now 10.5 percent.
Unemployment Rates by Gender, Race, Age & Education: June 2007 vs. November 200911
June 2007 November 2009
Adult Men 4.1% 10.5%
Adult Women 3.9% 7.9%
Whites 4.1% 9.3%
Hispanics 5.6% 12.7%
African Americans 8.5% 15.6%
Teenagers 16.1% 26.7%
Veterans 4.6%12
Less Than High School Diploma +25years 6.8% 15.0%
High School Diploma (+25 years) 4.2% 10.4%
Some College (+25 years) 3.6% 9.0%
College Grad or Higher (+25 years) 2.0% 4.9%
Regardless of race or national origin, Americans across the board are living with employment prospects today that are much worse than in 2007. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), white unemployment is up 5.2 percentage points (from 4.1 to 9.3 percent), Hispanic unemployment is up 7.1 percentage points (from 5.6 to 12.7 percent), and unemployment for African-Americans is up 7.1 percentage points (from 8.5 to 15.6 percent). Immigrant unemployment—mostly legal workers—in the first quarter of 2009 was even higher, i.e., 9.7 percent—the highest level since 1994, when data began to be collected for immigrants.13 Similarly, the teenage unemployment rate, having risen from 16.1 percent in June 2007 to 26.7 percent in November 2009, is also considerably higher. The teenage unemployment rate for African-Americans, at 49.4 percent, is even higher than the national average for all teenagers.
As with other demographics, job losses have hit Americans hard regardless of their level of educational attainment. According to BLS, workers over the age of 25 who have earned a college degree or higher have seen their unemployment rate more than double from 2.0 percent in June 2007 to 4.9 percent in November 2009. The unemployment rate for people with some college but without a degree has more than doubled from 3.6 percent to 9.0 percent, from June 2007 to November 2009.
The hardest hit, however, are those Americans older than 25 with “less than a high school diploma.” These
Americans have seen their demographics’ unemployment climb from 6.8 percent to 15.0 percent, from June
2007 to November 2009. Those with a high school diploma but no college have seen unemployment increase from 4.2 percent to 10.4 percent. These numbers represent 1.8 million unemployed Americans without a high school diploma, and 3.9 million more with a high school diploma but no college.14
According to the Pew Hispanic Center, illegal aliens are “especially likely to hold low-skilled jobs” because they are “disproportionately likely to be poorly educated.”15 According to the Pew research, nearly half of all illegal aliens (47 percent) aged 25 to 64 have “less than a high school education,” compared to 8 percent of U.S.- born residents in that age group who have not graduated from high school. Americans who dropped out of high school or completed high school but never attended college will necessarily have to compete in the job market with any illegal alien who receives amnesty and anyone admitted under a new “no skill/low skill” “guestworker program.” Americans with no more than a high school diploma, including 5.7 million Americans who are currently unemployed, are the most likely to be economically disadvantaged and are also most likely to be the hardest hit by amnesty or by a guest-worker program.
CONCLUSION
America’s unemployment numbers, taken as a whole, demonstrate an alarming trend for American workers. Unemployment is much higher today—across all demographics and regardless of gender, race, age or education level—than it was the last time Congress considered amnesty in June 2007. Amnesty would force those Americans out of work and looking for a job to compete with today’s illegal aliens for the limited number of jobs. The jobless numbers suggest that American workers cannot afford a guest-worker program and that American taxpayers cannot afford amnesty for millions of illegal aliens who would then become eligible for unemployment benefits. Despite this reality for the American worker, Congress has begun holding hearings on amnesty. But the conclusion is unavoidable: if consideration of amnesty was “ripe” in 2007, by today’s standards it is simply “rotten.”
MONTHLY HISTORIC UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
(1948 to 2009, Seasonally Adjusted)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1948 3.4 3.8 4.0 3.9 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.8 4.0
1949 4.3 4.7 5.0 5.3 6.1 6.2 6.7 6.8 6.6 7.9 6.4 6.6
1950 6.5 6.4 6.3 5.8 5.5 5.4 5.0 4.5 4.4 4.2 4.2 4.3
1951 3.7 3.4 3.4 3.1 3.0 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.1
1952 3.2 3.1 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.7
1953 2.9 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.5 4.5
1954 4.9 5.2 5.7 5.9 5.9 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.1 5.7 5.3 5.0
1955 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.3 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.1 4.3 4.2 4.2
1956 4.0 3.9 4.2 4.0 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.1 3.9 3.9 4.3 4.2
1957 4.2 3.9 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.4 4.5 5.1 5.2
1958 5.8 6.4 6.7 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.5 7.4 7.1 6.7 6.2 6.2
1959 6.0 5.9 5.6 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.5 5.7 5.8 5.3
1960 5.2 4.8 5.4 5.2 5.1 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.5 6.1 6.1 6.6
1961 6.6 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.1 6.9 7.0 6.6 6.7 6.5 6.1 6.0
1962 5.8 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.4 5.7 5.6 5.4 5.7 5.5
1963 5.7 5.9 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.6 5.6 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.7 5.5
1964 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.1 5.2 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.1 4.8 5.0
1965 4.9 5.1 4.7 4.8 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.0
1966 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.8
1967 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.8 4.0 3.9 3.8
1968 3.7 3.8 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.7 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4
1969 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.7 3.5 3.5
1970 3.9 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.4 5.5 5.9 6.1
1971 5.9 5.9 6.0 5.9 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.0 5.8 6.0 6.0
1972 5.8 5.7 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.3 5.2
1973 4.9 5.0 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.6 4.8 4.9
1974 5.1 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.9 6.0 6.6 7.2
1975 8.1 8.1 8.6 8.8 9.0 8.8 8.6 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.3 8.2
1976 7.9 7.7 7.6 7.7 7.4 7.6 7.8 7.8 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.8
1977 7.5 7.6 7.4 7.2 7.0 7.2 6.9 7.0 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.4
1978 6.4 6.3 6.3 6.1 6.0 5.9 6.2 5.9 6.0 5.8 5.9 6.0
1979 5.9 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.6 5.7 5.7 6.0 5.9 6.0 5.9 6.0
1980 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.9 7.5 7.6 7.8 7.7 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.2
1981 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.9 8.3 8.5
1982 8.6 8.9 9.0 9.3 9.4 9.6 9.8 9.8 10.1 10.4 10.8 10.8
1983 10.4 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.1 10.1 9.4 9.5 9.2 8.8 8.5 8.3
1984 8.0 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.3
1985 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.4 7.4 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.0 7.0
1986 6.7 7.2 7.2 7.1 7.2 7.2 7.0 6.9 7.0 7.0 6.9 6.6
1987 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.3 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.0 5.9 6.0 5.8 5.7
1988 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.4 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.3
1989 5.4 5.2 5.0 5.2 5.2 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.4
1990 5.4 5.3 5.2 5.4 5.4 5.2 5.5 5.7 5.9 5.9 6.2 6.3
1991 6.4 6.6 6.8 6.7 6.9 6.9 6.8 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.0 7.3
1992 7.3 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.6 7.8 7.7 7.6 7.6 7.3 7.4 7.4
1993 7.3 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.0 6.9 6.8 6.7 6.8 6.6 6.5
1994 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.8 5.6 5.5
1995 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.6
1996 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.3 5.5 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.4 5.4
1997 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.1 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.7
1998 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.4
1999 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.0
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.2 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.8
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.9
2008 4.9 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.5 5.6 5.8 6.2 6.2 6.6 6.8 7.2
2009 7.6 8.1 8.5 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.8 10.2 10.0
MONTHLY HISTORIC UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Obama: 'Committed to passing comprehensive immigration reform'
“In approaching immigration reform, I believe that we must enact tough, practical reforms. We need stronger enforcement on the border and at the workplace.
But for reform to work, we also must respond to what pulls people to America.Where we can reunite
families, we should. Where we can bring in more foreign-born workers with the skills our economy needs, we should. The time to fix our broken immigration system is now.
It is critical that as we embark on this enormous venture to update our immigration system, it is fully reflective of the powerful tradition of immigration in this country and fully reflective of our values and ideals.”
[Obama Statement in U.S. Senate, 5/23/07]
Here are just some of the lies our President has told us
Right after Healthcare was passed in May 2010, Nancy Pelosi said this:
This one is of our President looking us right in the face and lying to us without even blinking an eye:
This is how backdoor amnesty gets inacted. The idea here is not to insure illegals, but to make them all legal and then insure them,,,oh yeah, I forgot to mention,,,at our tax paying expense.
If this is allowed to happen, then the sovereignty of the United States will be in greater danger than it is right now:
Along with many people that would benefit greatly from LEGAL migration to the US we quite often in the area of the country where I live get a-lot of these types of people who only want to traffic drugs and export their flavor of crime:
And this is the kind of person the Justice Department doesn't want state and local law enforcement to even stop even after they've seen a crime committed. If you can't see this dictaitorship taking shape now, then I strongly suggest you learn to speak spanish now, before Obama is done with His CHANGE:
But for reform to work, we also must respond to what pulls people to America.Where we can reunite
families, we should. Where we can bring in more foreign-born workers with the skills our economy needs, we should. The time to fix our broken immigration system is now.
It is critical that as we embark on this enormous venture to update our immigration system, it is fully reflective of the powerful tradition of immigration in this country and fully reflective of our values and ideals.”
[Obama Statement in U.S. Senate, 5/23/07]
Here are just some of the lies our President has told us
Right after Healthcare was passed in May 2010, Nancy Pelosi said this:
This one is of our President looking us right in the face and lying to us without even blinking an eye:
This is how backdoor amnesty gets inacted. The idea here is not to insure illegals, but to make them all legal and then insure them,,,oh yeah, I forgot to mention,,,at our tax paying expense.
If this is allowed to happen, then the sovereignty of the United States will be in greater danger than it is right now:
Along with many people that would benefit greatly from LEGAL migration to the US we quite often in the area of the country where I live get a-lot of these types of people who only want to traffic drugs and export their flavor of crime:
And this is the kind of person the Justice Department doesn't want state and local law enforcement to even stop even after they've seen a crime committed. If you can't see this dictaitorship taking shape now, then I strongly suggest you learn to speak spanish now, before Obama is done with His CHANGE:
Obama's back-door amnesty threat is real
 |
| Director Alejandro N. Mayorkas |
The memo is a blueprint for presidential dictatorship.
 |
| President Obama |
 |
| Brian Bilbray |
Like the earlier threat to use the administrative powers of the Environmental Protection Agency to impose carbon restrictions and "fees" if Congress failed to act on the Obama "Cap and Trade" proposal (under which Obama promised electricity rates would "necessarily skyrocket"), this threat to directly grant amnesty to illegals by presidential dictate was seen by many other Obama cheerleaders as a savvy political move to increase pressure on Congress to act on "comprehensive immigration reform."
 |
| Sen. Harry Reid |
While there's no doubt Obama would prefer signing congressional amnesty legislation (if only because of the opportunity to include another kite tail of goodies for his labor, environmental and lawyer backers), time is running out. Even Harry Reid has recognized that We the People are just too aware of the amnesty issue and way too opposed to it to allow passage of such a bill this close to an election.
But Obama's political need for an amnesty is too great. Obama views illegal aliens as undocumented Democrats – future voters vital to the re-election of the regime in 2012 and, if possible, the deus ex machina miracle needed to save enough failing congressional Democrats to hang onto control after this fall's election.
What gave away Obama's real intent is the unfolding presidential jihad against Arizona.
 |
| Judge Susan Bolton |
Federal District Judge Susan Bolton's injunction order against Arizona's immigration law is replete with sweeping generalizations unsupported by statute or precedent. But it does reveal Obama's real intentions on the border. The judge's order incorporates the "Justice" Department's contention that Obama has the power to not enforce immigration laws passed by Congress and the further power to stop any state from enforcing those laws.
The presidential oath (administered twice to this president!) requires the "faithful execution" of the office and the defense of the Constitution. As the executive sworn to carry out the will of the people as expressed by the people's representatives in Congress through the adoption of laws, the president has no constitutional power to decide to ignore the laws of Congress.
Yet Obama not only asserts such a power, he has a federal judge now confirming it. Congress – and through Congress the American people's ability to define and limit presidential power – just got taken down a notch. If the president can ignore congressional laws and prevent others from enforcing those laws, we are near dictatorship.
Obama's real intentions were also revealed by political allies in the community activist ranks who were mobilized to enforce the judge's order and bash Arizona.
SEIU, a labor union that spent $67 million supporting Obama in the 2008 election, and whose president was the single most frequent visitor to the White House in 2009, hired buses in Los Angeles and sent paid "volunteers" to Phoenix to demonstrate against the Arizona law. Defying overwhelming citizen support within Arizona for Gov. Jan Brewer and the Arizona immigration law, leftist groups within Arizona were mobilized to demonstrate in Tucson and Phoenix.
Violence ensued in both cities (this was no "tea party") and many arrests followed. On I-19 south of Tucson, a multi-car pileup was narrowly averted when the two southbound lanes were blocked by pickup trucks full of young men who, according to local media reports, unloaded tires and glass onto the freeway and posted a banner that protested the Arizona law.
The Obama media ignored the violence, ignored the "Che" T-shirts and banners, ignored the "down-with-capitalism" speeches, ignored the Mexican flags. Instead, they went with the "racist" spin on the Arizona law, highlighting the plight of individual illegals now fearful of staying in Arizona. One woman, illegally in the U.S. from Nicaragua, even complained in a TV interview that she would have to move to Philadelphia. Oh, the horror!
 |
| Gov. Jan Brewer |
I'm tired of just documenting and talking about the many atrocities of the Obama regime. I'm taking my national radio talk show to Tucson on Aug. 5 and inviting every listener to join me to support Gov. Brewer and Arizona. The time for just talk is over. It's time to take a stand.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Were our founding fathers racist?
Many in the progressive world, believe that our founding fathers were racist. As their evidence they point to Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”
To the liberals, the 3/5th figure is an indication that our founding fathers were a bunch of racists who thought that the African Slaves were less than human.
The truth is that the founders from the northern colonies who opposed Slavery, insisted on counting the slaves as less than “full persons.” The reason for the insistence, is to prevent the slave states from getting too many congressman and electoral votes as to dominate the government and prevent Slavery from ever being abolished.
The Slave states wanted their slaves to be counted as a full person so they could dominate the House of Representatives and the Presidency. And the cool part of if for the southern whites is that they would have the benefit of counting the slaves, they would also be able to control the political power of their large numbers as the slaves were not allowed to vote.
The Northern States did not want them counted at all, to prevent the south from getting too powerful. The “three fifths of all other Persons” refers to the slave population as a whole, not to the humanity of each individual.
For those of you who took American History in high school, you might remember something called the Three-Fifths Compromise, originally proposed by Roger Sherman of Connecticut, and James Wilson of Pennsylvania. For those wing-nuts who did not take high school American History, let me suggest you borrow a book, or try Google.
Those who have read the Federalist papers would know the mindset of the founding fathers were not in favor of the continuation of Slavery, but were instead trying to wean their Southern brethren away from Slavery.
For example in Federalist #38 Madison justified the constitutional provision allowing slave trading for 20 years because it was an improvement,
Is the importation of slaves permitted by the new Constitution for twenty years? By the old, it is permitted forever.
In Federalist #42 he says
It were doubtless to be wished, that the power of prohibiting the importation of slaves had not been postponed until the year 1808, or rather that it had been suffered to have immediate operation. But it is not difficult to account, either for this restriction on the general government, or for the manner in which the whole clause is expressed. It ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity, that a period of twenty years may terminate forever, within these States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the barbarism of modern policy; that within that period, it will receive a considerable discouragement from the federal government, and may be totally abolished, by a concurrence of the few States which continue the unnatural traffic, in the prohibitory example which has been given by so great a majority of the Union. Happy would it be for the unfortunate Africans, if an equal prospect lay before them of being redeemed from the oppressions of their European brethren! Attempts have been made to pervert this clause into an objection against the Constitution, by representing it on one side as a criminal toleration of an illicit practice, and on another as calculated to prevent voluntary and beneficial emigrations from Europe to America. I mention these misconstructions, not with a view to give them an answer, for they deserve none, but as specimens of the manner and spirit in which some have thought fit to conduct their opposition to the proposed government.
Ben Franklin, freed his slaves and was a key founder of the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society. Alexander Hamilton was opposed to slavery and, with John Jay and other anti-slavery advocates, helped to found the first African free school in New York City. Jay helped to found the New York Manumission (literally voluntary freeing of slaves) Society and, when he was governor of New York in 1798, signed into law the state statute ending slavery as of 1821.
When Constitution signer William Livingston heard of the New York society he, as Governor of New Jersey, wrote them, offering:
“I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the society in New York] and… I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity… May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke.”
Washington was a paradox; he was a slave owner hated slavery
“I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].”-George Washington
Washington’s successor John Adams did not own slaves and hated the Practice:
“[M]y opinion against it [slavery] has always been known… [N]ever in my life did I own a slave.”-John Adams
Slavery will always be a horrible chapter in American History, but the three-fifths compromise was not. The three-fifths clause was not a measurement of human worth; it was an attempt to reduce the number of pro-slavery proponents in Congress. By including only three-fifths of the total numbers of slaves into the congressional calculations, Southern states were actually being denied additional pro-slavery representatives in Congress and electoral votes for selecting the president.
Now if we can only count progressives as three-fifths of a person for census purposes.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”
To the liberals, the 3/5th figure is an indication that our founding fathers were a bunch of racists who thought that the African Slaves were less than human.
The truth is that the founders from the northern colonies who opposed Slavery, insisted on counting the slaves as less than “full persons.” The reason for the insistence, is to prevent the slave states from getting too many congressman and electoral votes as to dominate the government and prevent Slavery from ever being abolished.
The Slave states wanted their slaves to be counted as a full person so they could dominate the House of Representatives and the Presidency. And the cool part of if for the southern whites is that they would have the benefit of counting the slaves, they would also be able to control the political power of their large numbers as the slaves were not allowed to vote.
The Northern States did not want them counted at all, to prevent the south from getting too powerful. The “three fifths of all other Persons” refers to the slave population as a whole, not to the humanity of each individual.
For those of you who took American History in high school, you might remember something called the Three-Fifths Compromise, originally proposed by Roger Sherman of Connecticut, and James Wilson of Pennsylvania. For those wing-nuts who did not take high school American History, let me suggest you borrow a book, or try Google.
Those who have read the Federalist papers would know the mindset of the founding fathers were not in favor of the continuation of Slavery, but were instead trying to wean their Southern brethren away from Slavery.
For example in Federalist #38 Madison justified the constitutional provision allowing slave trading for 20 years because it was an improvement,
Is the importation of slaves permitted by the new Constitution for twenty years? By the old, it is permitted forever.
In Federalist #42 he says
It were doubtless to be wished, that the power of prohibiting the importation of slaves had not been postponed until the year 1808, or rather that it had been suffered to have immediate operation. But it is not difficult to account, either for this restriction on the general government, or for the manner in which the whole clause is expressed. It ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity, that a period of twenty years may terminate forever, within these States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the barbarism of modern policy; that within that period, it will receive a considerable discouragement from the federal government, and may be totally abolished, by a concurrence of the few States which continue the unnatural traffic, in the prohibitory example which has been given by so great a majority of the Union. Happy would it be for the unfortunate Africans, if an equal prospect lay before them of being redeemed from the oppressions of their European brethren! Attempts have been made to pervert this clause into an objection against the Constitution, by representing it on one side as a criminal toleration of an illicit practice, and on another as calculated to prevent voluntary and beneficial emigrations from Europe to America. I mention these misconstructions, not with a view to give them an answer, for they deserve none, but as specimens of the manner and spirit in which some have thought fit to conduct their opposition to the proposed government.
Ben Franklin, freed his slaves and was a key founder of the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society. Alexander Hamilton was opposed to slavery and, with John Jay and other anti-slavery advocates, helped to found the first African free school in New York City. Jay helped to found the New York Manumission (literally voluntary freeing of slaves) Society and, when he was governor of New York in 1798, signed into law the state statute ending slavery as of 1821.
When Constitution signer William Livingston heard of the New York society he, as Governor of New Jersey, wrote them, offering:
“I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the society in New York] and… I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity… May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke.”
Washington was a paradox; he was a slave owner hated slavery
“I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].”-George Washington
Washington’s successor John Adams did not own slaves and hated the Practice:
“[M]y opinion against it [slavery] has always been known… [N]ever in my life did I own a slave.”-John Adams
Slavery will always be a horrible chapter in American History, but the three-fifths compromise was not. The three-fifths clause was not a measurement of human worth; it was an attempt to reduce the number of pro-slavery proponents in Congress. By including only three-fifths of the total numbers of slaves into the congressional calculations, Southern states were actually being denied additional pro-slavery representatives in Congress and electoral votes for selecting the president.
Now if we can only count progressives as three-fifths of a person for census purposes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)