Immigration: The Next Battle


Pages: 1 2

So here’s how I lay out the mission that we have ahead for us.  One is we have to stop the bleeding at the border.  A nation has to have a border if it’s going to be a nation.  You have to protect that border if you’re going to remain sovereign.  Phil Gingrey, a congressman from Georgia, laid it out best.  He’d been an emergency room doctor.  He said, when somebody wheels a patient into the emergency room, and they’re bleeding off of the gurney and it’s all over the floor, you don’t go grab a mop and a bucket and clean up the floor; you stop the bleeding.

And so I suggest we do stop the bleeding at the border.  And I’m one, and maybe the only one, who’s actually looked at the business model down there — $12 billion spent on 2,000 miles.  That’s $6 million a mile.  Now, I know what a mile of road looks like.  There’s an uninhabited mile west of my house.  And if Janet Napolitano came to me and said, I’ll pay you $6 million to protect this mile — in fact, I’ll give you a 10-year contract.  So you’ve got a $60 million contract to protect this mile.  And if you can slow down 25 or maybe 20 percent of the traffic going across — let the rest through — I’ll still pay you.  That’s what we have going.  And I told Karl Rove one day, if you pay me that kind of money to protect a mile of the border, I’ll make sure that nothing gets across that border for that kind of money.

And so that’s why I say we can build a fence, a wall and a fence.  We can build an interstate, four-lane interstate highway for $4 million a mile.  We’re spending $6 million a mile.  And if we just did that every year for the last 10 years, we’d have two walls two lanes wide.

Now, I don’t suggest that we build it all the way.  Not 2,000 miles.  Just build it till they stop going around the end.  That’s the measure.  Then, we have to shut off the jobs magnet.  And one of those ways is E-Verify mandatory.  But another way is this — I’ve introduced legislation that I think has a reasonable chance, even this year, and this coming year.  It’s called the New Idea Act.  What it does is it clarifies that wages and benefits paid to illegals are not tax-deductable.  It brings the IRS into the mix.

And so, when they come in and do an audit, they’d run the Social Security numbers of the employees through E-Verify.  And if they kick them out, we give the employer safe harbor if he uses E-Verify.  But the equivalent is this — it moves that business expense over into the profit column.  When you deny the business expense, it becomes taxable.  So the interest, the penalty and the taxes turn your $10-an-hour illegal into a $16-an-hour illegal, which opens up opportunities for $12-, $13-, $14- and $15-an-hour jobs for [legals].

And then, when we get to this point where we establish and reestablish the rule of law, I want to restructure the immigration policy consistent with the mission that I’ve laid out in the beginning — to enhance the economic, social and cultural wellbeing of the United States of America, to increase the average annual productivity, diminish the pressure on the welfare state in America, which is about half of the problem that brings about this immigration situation in the first place.  And I’d like to set up a point system.

Today, we only control, based upon merit, between seven and 11 percent of our legal immigration.  The rest is out of our control.  Because it’s family reunification plan or whatever.  I’d like to change that thing back around, and look at a score system, so we can reward youth and education and earning productivity, job skills, and, by the way, language skills.  An ability to learn and speak English is the single — most strongest indicator of assimilation in our culture.

Thank you.

Congressman Ed Royce: Many of you have read [Edward] Deming’s work.  And I had a chance to talk to him about this issue.  And he said, you know, there’s good immigration and bad immigration.  And for the United States, low-skilled immigration was not going to be helpful.

Along with Duncan Hunter, I authored the border fence legislation.  We got it signed into law.  The President did not like that.  Karl Rove was quite upset about it.  But they had to sign it because it was right before an election.  The reason it is not implemented is because there was a lack of will to do what’s in the law.

And I just want to make an observation.  I did some work in El Paso, Texas years ago.  And I remember Juarez.  Do you know how many Americans were killed last month in Juarez, Mexico?  Well, there were 20 last month.  But if you look at how many Mexican citizens since ’08 have lost their lives in that city — 7,100.  That gives you a sense of the magnitude of the problem.

I held hearings down on the border, as chairman of the International Terrorism Committee, in which we heard testimony from the FBI, from one of our investigators who brought the components for a dirty bomb across the border successfully.  We heard testimony from those who had worked with the 9/11 Commission Report, that border security is national security — that four of the hijackers were actually stopped separately — four cases — speeding here in the United States.  They were ticketed.  If there had been a concerted effort to check with the toll-free number — I know it’s not politically correct to do it in many communities — they could’ve been arrested at that point for being in this country illegally.  They had overstayed their visas.

So as a consequence of that, the 9/11 Commission pushed us to pass some of the very laws that we enacted.  And in that legislation, we allow Arizona and other states to enforce the federal law.  Now, this is what’s unique about the President’s position — or, I should say, the Attorney General’s position.  His position is, because the Administration has decided not to enforce the law of the land, the Justice Department now has the ability to prevent Arizona from enforcing the very laws that we passed.

I am the lead plaintiff on a brief that we have filed with Arizona — John Eastman actually did the legal work on this — in which our assertion is we have standing in the Congress because we actually passed the laws.  And the Administration does not have standing not only to ignore the laws we passed, but to also ignore the mandate to allow states to enforce the law.  I think we’re going to have standing in front of the Supreme Court on that.

But I want you to think for a minute about the condition we’re in today, where recently on a lake on the border, last month — we had a US citizen killed.  The investigator in Mexico who was working on that case was just decapitated.  If you’re asking for how many convictions we have or expect — out of the 20 Americans killed this month over in — or last month in Juarez, I can tell you this is what we’re facing, is the collapse right now of the rule of law.

And if we look at Juarez’s history, that was the principal job generator in Mexico.  That city, per capita, created the most jobs in all of Mexico.  That situation has totally been reversed by this war between the Zetas and the Gulf cartel.  And the reason we need to be especially concerned with this, as we see the Zetas go through there, burning homes, burning churches, burning markets and scaring people out to become refugees — the reason we need to be concerned goes back to those post-9/11 hearings, the hearings that I did on the border with Mexico, in which we heard the testimony from our sheriffs, our Border Patrol.

By the way, our Border Patrol faces 700 attacks a year.  What they’ve requested is a double border fence that they can deploy behind.  All right?  And that is what was enacted into law.  And that is what is not being enforced.

But the testimony that we got was that by fraudulently securing documents and getting into this country, and violating their terms of stay, this is how the 9/11 attack occurred.  And al-Qaeda leaders believe that illegal entry is more advantageous than legal entry for operational security concerns.  That is the testimony that we heard.

We heard that Border Patrol routinely apprehends now people from Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Somalia, crossing our southern border.  The FBI testified that individuals from countries where al-Qaeda’s operational are changing from Islamic surnames to Hispanic surnames in order to avoid detection.  That’s our FBI.

When individuals who are OTMs — from countries other than Mexico — are apprehended, they’re frequently released.  I don’t have much time, so I will share with you the story of Mahmoud Kourani, a story that’s important to me because his brother was head of military security for Lebanon and played a role in launching the missile attacks in Haifa.  I actually was there during those attacks, in the Rambam Trauma Hospital.  I saw the victims of 600 of those attacks.

This is the brother of that man.  His brother paid $3,000 to a corrupt official in Beirut, in the Mexican Consulate, in order to get entry into the United States.  He then approached a cartel and paid a sum of money, along with a confederate of his, to be put in the trunk of a vehicle and driven into the United States.  He then made his way to Dearborn, Michigan, where he rendezvoused with the other members of this cell group, which was in excess of 50.

I’ll just read from the indictment — “He is a fighter, recruiter, fundraiser for Hezbollah who received specialized training in radical Shiite fundamentalism, in weaponry, in spy craft, and in counterintelligence in both Lebanon and Iran.  He has employed the Sharia Muslim doctrine of Taqiyya, which is concealment, pretense and fraud, while in the United States.  He shaved his beard, he avoided mosques, he kept his beliefs private while inside what he called ‘hostile territory’.”

Now, luckily, he was apprehended.  And he and his other 50 were serving time in federal penitentiary.

I don’t have a lot of time to speak on this.  But I will just share with you that the concern that I have is that at least Arizona is getting serious about enforcing US law, at a time when the Administration is doing all it can do to undermine enforcement.

And the idea right now that we have testimony from Border Patrol agents who tell us that the cartels are using automatic weapons, grenades, grenade launchers — I’m quoting from the testimony — they are experts in explosives, wiretapping, counter-surveillance.  And they monitor our offices, they monitor our homes as deputy sheriffs, and our cellular phone conversations.  During the time of my hearing, one of those deputies had been shot.  One of the sheriff’s deputies had been shot the week before.

This is the situation on the border today.  This cannot be ignored.  It has to be addressed.  Edward Deming was right — there is good immigration, and there’s bad immigration.  You cannot allow immigration to be controlled by a group like this.  This has to be under the rule of law.  And it’s up to us to drive this issue home.

Thank you very much.

Moderator: We’ve got about 20 minutes for some questions.

Q: For General Vallely — Texas has some 20 cameras in areas that they know are real active areas along the border.  And those cameras are out on the Web, where anybody in the United States can view what’s going on and report directly to the Sheriffs Association.  I think it’s called BlueServo.  Are you all networking with people like that?  And is there any ideas of using drones to maybe intercede in those situations?

Paul Vallely: We are talking — a lot of the technology that I brought back from Israel in the north there [involves]their use of technology along the border using drones and balloons — and that information’s fed right into the, I think, 7 outposts in the north.  Very, very accurate as far as identifying moving, intelligent targets, and so on.  That’s why I talk about the no-go zone, where you identify enemy targets that are a threat to the United States. This is not just a defensive operation anymore; we’re looking at on a war south of our border, for all the reasons these three gentlemen have pointed out — that now we are in a transition point, where we really have to think about offensive operations.

We just can’t sit back and let this continue to deteriorate, and more and more people — Americans, as well as innocent Mexicans and others — be decapitated and blown up.  Because we know Hezbollah, as Congressman Royce has said — they’re coming in through the soft underbelly.  Chavez is promoting it, along with Ahmadinejad.  So they know what our soft underbelly looks like.  And again, they’re going to take advantage of our laws.

And that is why the National Guard — that the states control, by the way, unless they’re federalized — need to be used in a better capacity, under Posse Comitatus on this side of the [board].  If I was the general in charge, in redeploying my forces, I would certainly develop a number of intelligence contacts within Mexico that I can trust, that would in fact work with our Special Ops, Delta Force, special forces, Green Berets, SEALs and so on.  We find the targets, and we work with people, complemented by any technology that we have.

So I think we’re in a whole different war today.  A different endgame needs to be resolved and recognized.  If not, ladies and gentlemen, we will fall from below, just as we can fall from all the jihadi cells that are being developed in the country.

So that’s why we have to look at this as a total strategy.  And hopefully, our leaders in Washington at some point in time, above and beyond Steve King and Ed Royce, will be able to deliver to us a strategy that will work to save America.

Q: I think the overriding theme is that there’s a lack of political will.  And therefore, it leads to the next thing.  You’re preaching to the choir in this audience here.  But you obviously have a communication problem.  Because the lack of political will isn’t getting through.  And until that point, maybe you have to have billboard posters of decapitated bodies and American dead before we will get the political will.  Because obviously, you know, this isn’t anything that we haven’t heard before.  It’s just — something needs to be done.

Mark Krikorian: Yeah, I had a thought on the political will idea.  I mean, it’s true what you’re saying, obviously.  But I’m not sure it’s an issue of, you know, communication strategy.  It’s not just that people coming to Restoration Weekend are on our side.  The public is on the side of controlling immigration.  It’s just that immigration, the research actually shows, is the area of policy where there’s the biggest gap between elite views and public views.

The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations actually did some research on this.  And even things like support for foreign aid had a smaller gap, between elite views and public views, than immigration did.  Immigration’s not a right-left issue; it’s an up-down issue.

And that’s really the challenge.  And it’s a different kind of challenge than making the case for, you know, a lot of other things — whether it’s tax cuts, or on abortion or guns, or whatever it happens to be, which are clear are right-left issues.  And it’s a very different challenge.  And that’s why it’s been much more difficult to develop, to get any movement on it.

Thayer Verschoor: And the comment I’d like to make is — the media’s complicit in the lack of communication in this.  They don’t want to tell the truth about how bad things are.  I mean, it’s a civil war that’s going on in Mexico that is now bleeding into the United States.  They don’t want to tell you that, because they don’t want to incite the public and the masses.  They want to lowball this whole issue — that it’s just about prejudice, and it’s about racism and stuff like that.

But the fact is that as Arizona has stepped up, now 25 other states want to use that as model legislation to step up.  And just like everything else, you know, that are big issues in the country, for the most part, they kind of have to come up through the states to reach the federal level.  And that’s when you’re going to see that change, as more and more states start to adopt bills like Senate Bill 1070.

Q: I’d like to address Steve and Ed.  First of all, thank you for being here and being so frank with us.  How are you going to — with the new Republican Congress, how are you going to get the Administration to start the fence-building and enforce these laws?

Steven King: Well, I’ve said that I’ve now had almost eight years in Congress.  And I’ve spent a lot of those eight years seeking to embarrass the Administration into enforcing immigration law.  I have been challenged publicly by people who will say Congress needs to do something to enforce the law.  And I have to go back to the separation of powers and identify that we pass the laws we appropriate to the executive branch.  Their job is to enforce the law.  In fact, that’s the President’s Constitutional oath, is to take care that the laws are faithfully enforced.

So, that sounds like a bit of a duck.  But it really isn’t, in that we need to continue to turn the pressure up.  And we need to continue to advance these ideas that are so important.  One thing that I do is I applaud the states stepping up, like Arizona has.  And I support in this country, down to the county level, enforcement of our immigration laws.

I’m looking at some things we might be able to do to highlight this and continue this debate.  One is holding hearings, informing America, moving legislation that puts more pressure on the administration to enforce immigration laws.  One is to address anchor babies in this country.  That’s about 340,000, maybe as many as 750,000 babies in America — either one in a dozen or two in a dozen, depending on whose numbers you want to take.  That’s something we can do by statute.  And it would be litigated, but the clause subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the 14th Amendment, I think, makes it clear that Congress has the authority to pass laws [that] enforce the anchor baby issue.

The New Idea Act that I talked about — sanctuary cities are another.  And I think we can bring significant pressure to bear in the appropriations process on sanctuary cities.

I grew up in a law enforcement family.  I never envisioned, in all of those years spent around uniformed people — either military or law enforcement — as I grew up, that there was anything other than a cooperative relationship between all levels of law enforcement, from the city police officer all the way up to the federal officers.  And so I think we’ll have a lot of opportunities to bring amendments to start to reduce funding, and eventually unfund sanctuary cities.

And then — and I want to just briefly mention, before I pass this microphone over to Ed, that Thayer mentioned the spotter locations in Arizona.  I’ve gone to those locations, I’ve climbed those mountains.  I found out about them when I was walking across the Tahotaotum Reservation with the Shadow Wolves.  And they said, There’s a spotter on that mountain, there’s a spotter on that mountain.  Of course, I couldn’t see them.  But I wanted to go see what it looked like from there.

Later, I came back, climbed some of those mountains, sat in those locations.  And then we took a Black Hawk, and we did some operations against them.  And it was quite an interesting experience.  But we have located at least 100 locations where there are tactical positions taken up on top of the mountains, where they’re overlooking generally intersections of highways, so they can tip off all of our — any time our law enforcement officers are moving on that highway, they know it.  We can embarrass them about that, and I intend to do all of those things.  And I intend to help elect a President that’ll reestablish the rule of law.  And that’s more important [than anything else].

Ed Royce: Well, our first step is going to have to be to defeat the amnesty legislation that Nancy Pelosi’s going to move during this lame duck session along with Harry Reid.  Our second step — you know, if you think about the fact that the Social Security Administration admits right now that there’s nine million people using fraudulent Social Security numbers in the United States — we know who they are, and there is a lack of will to enforce that.  So one of the easy steps with E-Verify is to move legislation that makes that mandatory.  And electronically, you can check.  And, you know, that is a quick fix.

Lastly, I would just say we’re going to have to secure our border on our side of the border.  I’ve been down to the border on a number of occasions working with Border Patrol agents.  One of the interesting occurrences I saw was where, on the Border Patrol’s counterparts, on the other side of the border, a tunnel was being dug.  And the fellows showed me how, you know, they were watching as the Mexican officials offered cover for the guys digging the border tunnel.

So we’re not — in that kind of environment, you’re not going to get a lot of cooperation on the other side of the border.  We need to complete the double border fence and drive the hearings to do it.  Thanks.

Q: One of the things that, I guess, last night we talked about, about our armed forces — how we are overstressed.  Unfortunately, the border is really our Achilles’ Heel.  The situation is so bad, as you guys have talked about, and there’s so much research that has gone on.  I don’t understand why we don’t have troop deployment here.  Because this is the most serious war we’re going to fight.  Not in Afghanistan, not in Iraq; it’s here.  And people are coming through here — al-Qaeda, all kinds of other terrorists.  And everyone in Washington is passing legislation when nothing’s happening.

Why can’t we have true deployment here?  Why can’t we stop it?  We’re not going to get help from the Mexican government.  Because money is being funneled to the Mexican government by the immigrants.  That’s supporting their economy.

Ed Royce: The short answer is that the Obama Administration just pulled the National Guard off of the Texas border, the California border and the New Mexico border.  So they’re headed in the wrong direction.

Mark Krikorian: This is the National Guard, mind you, he just sent before the election.  And so now the election is over, the emergency is over, so he’s pulling them off the border.

But I mean, I think to answer your question, one of the reasons you don’t see more use of troops on the border is that legally, Congress would have to, it seems to me, adapt the law to permit the military in a certain range near — which I’m all for.  But I mean, [it’s not simple.]

But also, there has been use of military on the border in antidrug patrols.  And one — there was one kid, sort of a hapless kid who was herding his family’s goats and had a shotgun to keep the coyotes away, who ended up, you know, in the middle of the night with a group of marines sneaking up, or behind him.  He turned around, aimed the gun at them, and they shot him down — that kind of thing that immediately shuts down, really, any talk of it.  So, I mean, it’s a politically problematic thing that needs, it seems to me, a legal structure to kind of control it and establish it.

And the final problem is, starting in the Bush Administration, we basically contracted out our immigration policy to the Mexican Foreign Ministry.  And the Mexican government is dead-set against any use of American troops on American soil to protect our border.  And since they, you know, to some degree have a kind of veto power, both in the last administration and this administration over our immigration policy, you see why it hasn’t happened yet.

Thayer Verschoor: Sooner or later, the public demand is going to be so high.  Anybody in here familiar with the term “aztlan”?  This is a philosophy held  by many Mexicans to retake the western part of the United States through migration, and to repopulate it with their citizens.

In Arizona, we’ve already [ceded] about 60 miles of land to the cartels.  We’ve got signs up there saying, Don’t go here.  If you do, it’s at your own risk.  Because the cartels — they don’t say this specifically, but the implication is the cartels actually control this land now, and we can’t guarantee your safety there.  That’s insane for our government to allow that to happen to our border.  So we’re just basically giving up that much land right now that we’re saying we can’t control.  We do need to change that.  And I think the public outcry is starting to grow on that point.  And that’s what will change it.

Unidentified Audience Member: May I please say one thing?

Q: First, I want to thank you, Mr. Vallely, for calling this what it is — illegal migration and, more specifically, invasion.  Because this is invasion.  And all these proposals, all these calls for legislation, all these ideas and everything — great.  The President has pulled the National Guard off the border.

Now, he is — he has taken a solemn oath to uphold our Constitution.  And if I’m not mistaken, all the congressmen and -women have as well.  Am I correct?  All that is needed is to uphold the oath, uphold the Constitution.  And every time that vow is broken, we need to treat it as sedition and as treason.

It’s very, very simple.  We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of our liberty, for ourselves and our posterity.  It must be upheld.

And if someone pledges and takes the vow, and takes the oath in the name of God, and his solemn oath, and does not uphold that; and rather, in fact, undermines it and destroys it, he must be held accountable.

Ed Royce: And the most effective way to hold it accountable is to lay out this issue — we’ve got an election coming up — and run somebody on these issues who is going to be in step with the will of the American public and with our Constitution.

Mark Krikorian: One last comment on this that relates to what Congressman Royce said — even on the right, there is dissention on this.  And one of the first things we need to do is put our own house in order.  And, you know, it’s — Grover Norquist, the Editorial Board of The Wall Street Journal, Dick Armey, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — are on the side of the socialists on this issue.  And that’s where we have to start, even before we start attacking Obama and his minions.

Thayer Verschoor: I’d just say in conclusion that whenever I’ve watched the Statue of Liberty, I’ve never envisioned her as having a voice.  But now I do.  Thank you.

Pages: 1 2

  • USMCSniper

    Why should anyone here be surprised by this sense of instant entitlement? Illegal immigrants have learned well how to play the squeaky wheel fiddle while living here in the U.S. Not to mention their power seeking anti-American anti-U.S. government "leadership" who are positioning their "oppressed and maligned" as a voting bloc should they be granted immunity. They are even re-writing our National Anthem! That's just good old fashioned American creativity! Don't be fooled by the rhetoric. Ilegal aliens do take away potential jobs from the LEGAL AMERICAN POOR in this country. The "non-indentured servitude" employers and the illegals both need to be held accountable for breaking the law, and at the very least get on line and apply for a green card behind those who are registered and respect the law. Without the rule of law, there IS NO CIVILIZED SOCIETY.

    • http://iwmcbprofnasty.blogspot.com Dave Mende

      It was republicans who cajolled illegal imm. to build unneeded homes with scrip money. When the economy went bust in '08 we needed USMC veterans to stand up and fight in this country. Thanks for sitting on your ass. Hero.

    • Bill Ranier

      MAn, you should see all the Mexican children who cross the border on a daily basis to attend school in Cali then race home at the end of the day. They are getting free schooling at the cost of Americans…

  • Max9010

    When the Appel tree has one Worm in an Apple that does not mean the hole Crop is gone!

    • davarino

      I know that makes sense to you some how but what are you saying? Are you advocating legal immigration to only let in the good apples?

  • Max9010

    New data released this week by the U.S. Census Bureau highlights the rapidly growing
    economic power of Latino-owned businesses in the United States. According to the
    Bureau’s 2007 Survey of Business Owners, there were 2.3 million Latino-owned
    businesses in the country as of 2007, which generated $345.2 billion in sales and
    employed 1.9 million people. Moreover, the number of Latino-owned businesses grew
    by 43.7 percent between 2002 and 2007, which was more than twice the national average.

    • http://www.mysapce.com/freddawes1776/ Fred Dawes

      that is part of the plan to take us down, understand hispanic are for now in front of the money line for banks and are part of the coming evil.

  • Max9010

    In other words, the Latino community tends to be highly entrepreneurial, and the
    businesses which Latinos create sustain large numbers of jobs.

    While Latino-owned businesses accounted for 8.3 percent of all nonfarm businesses
    in the United States as a whole in 2007, they comprised a much higher share of
    businesses in many states and cities. For instance:
    Latino-owned businesses were 23.6 percent of all businesses in New Mexico, 22.4
    percent in Florida, 20.7 percent in Texas, 16.5 percent in California, and 10.7
    percent in Arizona as of 2007.

    • coyote4

      Look, I live where people with Spanish surnames are in the majority. Always have been. Hell, I am one. Most of the businesses are owned by people with Spanish surnames, or at least ancestry. However, around here, there are very few mojados, because the locals turn them in. They are criminals by definition. I ought to know, I chased mojados for an entire career. Lastly, the guys headlining this article are sure great specimins, regardless of their nationality. Let's see I make myself into a freak, and then wonder why no one wants to take a chance to hire me.

  • Max9010

    Latino-owned businesses were 59.8 percent of all businesses in El Paso (Texas),
    39.4 percent in San Antonio (Texas), 23.3 percent in Houston (Texas), 23.1 percent
    in Albuquerque (New Mexico), and 21.0 percent in Los Angeles (California) as of 2007.
    Given that the majority of Latinos are immigrants or the children of immigrants,
    their entrepreneurial contributions to the U.S. economy should be an integral part
    of the debate over the economics of immigration. Yet the role that Latino-owned
    businesses play in growing the economy and creating jobs is often overlooked. As the
    new census data illustrates, however, the entrepreneurship of the Latino community is
    a powerful economic force which can not be ignored. Even though the recent recession
    has undoubtedly hit the Latino business community hard, the fact remains that, without
    Latino businesses, the United States would have a smaller economy and fewer jobs.
    This is a basic economic truth which many nativist groups seem unable to grasp.

    • Tom Lowe

      What you fail to grasp is that without all of the illegal aliens sucking massive benefits away from Americans who need them, along with the spurious "entrepreneurship" that follows illegal immigration, the American economy would be MUCH, MUCH better off. You and that Israeli agent Mark Krikorian should come to my house and see my neighbor with his illegal auto repair shop next door. You should come and see all of the illegals growing weed and cooking meth in my neighborhood. You should come see the illegal alien woman here try to be the butcher at the local grocery store, while the real butcher who was raised locally and who did a very good job fights for Israel in Asia. You and that Israeli agent Mark Krikorian should come to my town and see an international corporation (Di Giorgio Corp.) taking very bad economic advantage of the illegal aliens while at the same time sending most of the water, food and wages that originate here out of the USA. You have a totally bum argument, because if Latinos are so good at being entrepreneuirs, then what the hell is wrong with them staying in Mexico and applying their entrepreneurial skills in MEXICO????

  • Max9010

    THESE ARE THE ONLY FACTS MIGRANTS not Illegal Immigrants
    (Under immigration law, being in the United States without legal status is a civil violation, not a crime.)
    youtube.com/watch?v=7Lxx1FZNCu0&feature=related
    http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/economic-and...
    http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/new-fbi-data...
    http://www.elpasotimes.com/juarez/ci_15425614
    http://www.azfamily.com/video/localn…ml?nvid=369691
    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0201398.html#axzz0xmWHPZx...
    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0900547.html#axzz0xmWVMrr...
    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0201398.html#axzz0xmWys77...

    "What these people want is that we cancel our own lives and our own actions, to
    fill us with fear and paralyze us as a society and as a government," he said.
    "This is exactly what we must not allow."

    Anti-Americanism

    • coyote3

      Bravo sierra. Entering the United States without legal authority, "is" a crime. A lot of us "nativists" have Spanish surnames.

      • dick

        brovo sierra my foxtrot alfa a spic is a spic kick them all out mike foxtrot

    • rip

      Stop voting for jack asses like john mcain and the other republican greedy white slave owners

  • Max9010

    washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/02/AR2010090202673.html

    How illegal immigrants are helping Social Security

    The contributions by unauthorized immigrants to Social Security — essentially, to the retirement income of everyday Americans — are much larger than previously known, raising questions about the efforts in many states and among Republicans in Congress to force these workers out.

    In response to a research inquiry for a book I am writing on the economics of immigration, Stephen C. Goss, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration and someone who enjoys bipartisan support for his straightforwardness, said that by 2007, the Social Security trust fund had received a net benefit of somewhere between $120 billion and $240 billion from unauthorized immigrants.

  • Max9010

    That represented an astounding 5.4 percent to 10.7 percent of the trust fund’s total assets of $2.24 trillion that year. The cumulative contribution is surely higher now. Unauthorized immigrants paid a net contribution of $12 billion in 2007 alone, Goss said.

    Previous estimates circulating publicly and in Congress had placed the annual contributions at roughly half of Goss’s 2007 figure and listed the cumulative benefit on the order of $50 billion.

    The Social Security trust fund faces a solvency crisis that would be even more pressing were it not for these payments.

    “If for example we had not had other-than-legal immigrants in the country over the past,” Goss e-mailed me, “then these numbers suggest that we would have entered persistent shortfall of tax revenue to cover starting 2009, or six years earlier than estimated under the 2010 Trustees Report.”

    Americans are faced with the difficult choice of cutting pensions, delaying the retirement age or raising taxes if we want to maintain the solvency of what has been the centerpiece of social welfare for ordinary Americans since the 1930s.

  • Max9010

    (Reuters) – U.S. authorities have charged 1,215 people in hundreds of mortgage fraud cases that resulted in estimated losses of $2.3 billion, top Obama administration officials said on Thursday, unveiling a crackdown after the housing market collapse.
    Authorities reveal mortgage fraud crackdown, 485 arrests

    The same for any corporation owner small or big!
    A country is nothing else as a large corporation, any immigrant
    who bring money to this country as any investment
    like paying the mortgage, the property taxes, insurance etc
    to build up his/her life has to invest more than $5000 to $850000
    depend how big he will be.

  • Max9010

    So any Investor small like a grape
    picker or even larger has no rights? Government decisions of
    allowing that in between rightness or corrupt builder, mortgage,
    attorneys ore people who life in greed can take advantage of those
    who are vulnerable by law. madoff, aig, wallstreet etc.. the
    variety is very long. Billions of us dollars in miss use.
    And now to throw illegal's out of the country is theft.
    250000000 victims (2007) of crime are in this country
    so how many citizen like you are all over the country
    are criminals ex convicts. Most republican war keepers with greed
    to take the money from those who are vulnerable that is
    the idea. The republican finger pointing, who broad this
    country in a financial disaster.
    Instead of declaring war to and after the terrorists, with
    all spending brought the economy down and Americans who life
    undisciplined irresponsible in over valuing there living standards who lost
    there homes to be responsible for their depth.

  • Max9010

    Non-citizens, for their part, contributed $28.9 billion, or eight percent of Arizona’s
    economic output, resulting in 278,000 full-time equivalent jobs. Their output included
    $10 billion in labor income, and $3.3 billion in other property income. The state tax
    revenues resulting from this economic activity were approximately $1.08 billion.
    They also looked at what would happen if the illegal workers were removed from the
    workforce.
    Agriculture: A fifteen percent workforce reduction in the agriculture sector would
    result in direct losses of 3,300 full-time-equivalent jobs, and losses of $600.9
    million in output including lost labor income of $198.6 million, and lost other
    income of $116.1 million. The lost direct state tax revenue would be approximately
    $24.8 million. Construction: A fifteen percent workforce reduction in the construction
    sector would result in direct losses of 55,700 full-time-equivalent jobs, and $6.56 billion
    in output including lost labor income of $2.59 billion and $450.5 million in other lost income.

    • poop

      mexicans have small pee pee's

  • Max9010

    The direct lost state tax revenue would be approximately $269.2 million. Manufacturing: A ten
    percent reduction in the manufacturing workforce would result in direct losses of 12,300
    full-time-equivalent jobs, and $3.77 billion in output including lost labor income of
    $740.8 million, and lost other income of $286.1 million. The lost direct state tax revenue
    would be approximately $104.4 million. Service industries: In the service sectors analyzed,
    a sixteen percent reduction in the labor force would translate to direct losses of 54,000
    full-time equivalent-jobs, and lost output of $2.48 billion including reduced labor income
    of $901.3 million, and reductions in other income of $273.0 million. The lost direct state
    tax revenue would be approximately $156.9 million.

  • Max9010

    I hope Governor Napolitano is realizing what a mistake she made pandering to the bigots.

    The study concluded that the state of Arizona took in tax revenue of $1.64 billion from
    immigrant workers while the amount the state spent on immigrants was approximately $1.41
    billion leaving a net benefit of $222.6 million to the state coffers. But that is only
    what they contribute to Arizona’s revenue. They also pay national income taxes and social
    security taxes.

  • Max9010

    Boycott Over Arizona Immigrant Law Cost $141 Million, Study Says
    By Ashley Lutz – Nov 18, 2010 10:02 AM ET
    A business boycott of Arizona over its immigration law may have cost the state’s economy as much as $141 million, a Washington-based policy group estimated.
    Convention bookings for July and August fell 35 percent from a year earlier, cutting lodging revenue by $45 million, the Center for American Progress said in a report today. Lost spending on food, beverages, entertainment, local transportation and retail goods brought the total cost to $141 million, the report said.
    The boycott is aimed at an Arizona law requiring police officers to determine the immigration status of people stopped for questioning. The state’s credit may be affected if the boycott harms tourism, Moody’s Investors Service said in May. In July, Moody’s cut the state one level to Aa3, its fourth-highest credit rank, citing “economic and financial weakness.”

    • piss

      I will be vacationing in arazonia cause they check their illgal mexicans papers. I think they should check all mexican looking creatures for papers all of them even the american proto type mexican

  • Max9010

    “This significant hit to direct visitor spending could not come at a worse economic time for Arizona,” said the report by the policy group founded by former Clinton administration chief of staff John Podesta in 2003. The center describes itself as a critic of conservative values and a supporter of the progressive movement.

    Tourists spent $16.6 billion last year in Arizona, where the travel industry supports 157,000 jobs, the state Office of Tourism said July 15.

    • phoebeintheforest

      Gee Max if the Latino culture is so superior to America's, how come their countries are crime-ridden, poverty-stricken hellholes for everyone except the wealthy? How about all those out of wedlock Latino babies we taxpayers are helping to support???? You need to step back and look at the WHOLE picture! Without a secure border, without the rule of law we are doomed as a nation…..

  • http://www.mysapce.com/freddawes1776/ Fred Dawes

    You can't win in a fight against our enemies all you can do now is to form a new nation out of the dead one, do what our enemies do, move in numbers to a place no monkey would move to and build a new nation under the ideals of the dead nation murdered by left ideals build it in away that will not be able to be taken from you or your kids and someday maybe 100 years from now yoiur greatgrand kinds can make this nation once more under laws. that is the own hope you have. if people can;t see that fact you are doomed to live in a hell on earth.

  • Beth

    "Janet Napolitano say that she’s got everything with the border under control"….

    must be a joke (and not a funny one)

    Truth be told – that situtation has been out of control for quite some time now. Strong leaders would have put a stop to it eons ago. They also would have dealt more wisely with the Mexican government – when it was possible. The 'drug-lords' are ruling now.

    and Janet Napolitano wants everyone to believe that she’s got everything with the border under control?

    What to do……. laugh or cry?

    • coyote3

      Okay, will she come "ride the river" with us some night? I'll show her outta control

  • davarino

    Jeez Max why dont you dominate the conversation. So because we are being held hostage economically we should give up and just let any and everyone across the southern border? Besides, I dont beleive your BS anyway. The economic contribution from the Latino owned businesses is from Latino's here legally. The illegals dont pay taxes unless they are some how working at a business that didnt check their status and pay the income tax, but an American citizen could have had that job and pay the tax just as well so I dont see your point. If the illegals were gone and only citizens could work then the contribution from the legals would go even further because there arent the expenses to pay for illegals who dont pay taxes.

    Sorry I dont get your long rant.

  • Theo Prinse

    Overwhelming detailed professor material from Max9010, but it sounds much like the 2.000 pages bill of the democrats. Nobody ever read it. The contribution of Max9010 say nothing about the 2 million illegal’s or the 20 million unemployed. Many of the unemployed lost their job to an illegal Latino.
    Some correct adding and subtraction however will show a totally different picture. Like in Europe with muslims, America is overrun by Mexicans. Mass immigration of low educated people stagnates any economy. Ultimately the economy can reach a critical point. Mexico is already in a civil war with their drug maffia. If the Latinos were to return to Mexico, both the US and Mexico would benefit economically and politically. Mexico economically with such an influx of Latino entrepreneurs and the US politically and morally towards their citizens.

  • coyote3

    I don't get this. Just because someone "pays taxes", and that is debatable, what entitles them to benefits. We are not talking about social security retirement here, that people have paid into for decades. We are talking about non paying patients at hospitals, food stamps, section 8, AFDC. I don't really care if these mojados sign over their entire paycheck, if they entered this country without authorization, they are criminals. I didn't have ancestors who fought for Tejas independence to end up afflicted with this.

  • Brittanicus

    FIGHT OR BLEED DOLLARS! THE DREAM ACT TRAVESTY?

    A well known anti-open border columnist Michelle Malkin and Champion of Justice has hit the nail squarely on the head about the catering to illegal aliens and the ever widening of doors to let anyone into our nation. THIS IS JUST ANOTHER INCREMENTAL CHAIN MIGRATION, IF THE SENATE PASSES THE DREAM ACT. THIS IS A DECEIVING AGENDA OF THE LIBERAL-DEMOCRATS AND THE FAR LEFT WING PRESS. Secret or stealth Amnesties have been going on under our noses for years, specifically the laws of Chain Migration, which adds to our population when a legitimate immigrant sponsors family members. The reality is that there is neglect on behalf of our government, to assure the original guarantor doesn't renege on their obligation to keep financing the family members? What happens incessantly is that older sponsored family members become sick and the American taxpayers has to pay for their hospitalization or doctor visits. In addition, the original sponsor loses his job and can no longer support the father or mother, sister or brother.

    The government agencies do not have the personnel to enforce these laws and eventually the family members must rely on public social services. This is exactly the same situation if the Dream Act passes as the 2.1 million eligible students, can sponsor their immediate family once they gain permanent residency. Then after signing an affidavit of support, they can convey to America more mouths to feed, more sick and infirm that taxpayers must support by law, must educate the children or any new born baby and must imprison convicted felons. This chain migration unfortunately in the majority of cases becomes a taxpayer’s lament, because the chain migration law is never ending. The illegal immigration annexation of our country has got to the point, where State must protect and defend their population of citizens and permanent residents. The biggest hurdle to overcome is activist judges, who overlook the rights of citizens as invoked by the founding authors in the US Constitution.

    Arizona has embarked on its own judicial venture, to enforce laws that neither political party have really attempted to impose? There is a failure to secure the borders or execute some official directive to reveal the invasion from other countries via airport terminals. Too many tourists and students are misrepresenting their intention when entering these United States, fully aware they are here to settle. IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS SINCERE IN ENFORCING LAWS ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, THE PENALTY FOR UNLAWFUL ENTRY WOULD BE A FELONY, PRISON AND DEPORTATION. Now low-skilled American workers of all races must compete for jobs in this recession period with foreign nationals. You would think with nearly 10 percent of Americans jobless, the US government would put thousands of "boots on the ground" the length of the Southern border.

    Among the major acts of Congress providing mass pardons and citizenship benefits:

    – The 1986 Immigration and Reform Control Act blanket amnesty for an estimated 2.7 million illegal aliens, which finally became 5 million as the program was full of fraud.

    – 1994: The “Section 245(i)” temporary rolling amnesty for 578,000 illegal aliens.

    – 1997: Extension of the Section 245(i) amnesty.

    – 1997: The Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act for nearly one million illegal aliens from Central America.

    – 1998: The Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti.

    – 2000: Extension of amnesty for some 400,000 illegal aliens who claimed eligibility under the 1986 act.

    – 2000: The Legal Immigration Family Equity Act, which included a restoration of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty for 900,000 illegal aliens.

    This is in addition to hundreds of “private relief bills” sponsored in Congress every year.

    This is just the proverbial tip of the iceberg that Liberal Democrats have failed to see, or just don't care about. Each year America takes into this country through the visa process over a million new legal immigrants. Those readers interested in the dream Act, should read the full implications of this commitment of the passage of this law:

    Read more about the Dream Act at NumbersUSA and then you decide? Under current law (10 USC § 504), the Secretary of Defense can authorize the enlistment of illegal nationals. Once enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces, under 8 USC § 1440, these illegal aliens can become naturalized citizens through expedited processing, often obtaining U.S. citizenship in six months? Call your Three Members of Congress through the Capitol Hill switchboard: 202-224-3121to stops this immigration travesty. Liberal-Democrats do not want the Dream Act to be reviewed.

  • Padre

    I say we should adopt Mexico's illegal immigration laws and seal the borders using US troops to stem the southern invasion.

    So, before you flame me, explain why we should not adopt and enforce the same laws used by Mexico in Re: illegal immigration. Why would that not be fair and equitable?

  • Rev michael

    nobody should collect from social services unless they were born in america by americans, nobody should collect social security unless its their own money that they put in, if they didnt contribute then they dont get to suck from the tit of american taxpayers, the prison system, health care sytem and school system is over flowing because of illegals in our country, we should adopt Mexico's immigration laws and illegal immigration laws then we wouldn't have any problems except for the dems who think the few americans left who have tax paying jobs should pay for all of those conditions for would be dem voters-illegals. mexico has the harshest laws but Calderon can come here, to my nation and have a gripe about us wanting to respect our borders , he cant control his side of the border as it is