peejay

President's El Paso Immigration Pander
by James R. Edwards, Jr.
Posted 05/12/2011 ET
President Obama’s El Paso speech delivered the predictable: a call for the same old mass amnesty mix (“comprehensive immigration reform,” to open-borders types). And at least for a time, he’s put immigration front and center.
First, look at Obama’s “solution.”
Government’s “threshold responsibility” is “to secure the borders and enforce the law.” Obama asserted that his administration has done that. In fact, the Government Accountability Office reports that only 129 of the 2,000 miles of the southern border are under control.
The President said that “businesses have to be held accountable if they exploit undocumented workers.” House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Elton Gallegly points out that Obama’s work-site enforcement has fallen more than 70%. Obama has switched to civil fines and dropped filing criminal charges against companies employing illegal aliens. The administration has stopped holding illegal alien workers accountable in job-related enforcement.
And then there’s my personal favorite: Obama’s lame requirements purporting to hold illegals themselves accountable. He said, “They have to admit that they broke the law, pay their taxes, pay a fine, and learn English. And they have to undergo background checks and a lengthy process before they can get in line for legalization.”
These things are pretty much what current law requires, what the 1986 amnesty required, and comprise the same old Bush-era garbage circa 2006 and 2007. They reward all 11 million illegal aliens with eventual U.S. citizenship and access to taxpayer subsidy through welfare and other government benefits, along with the privilege of sponsoring even distant relatives for visas ad infinitum.
The supposed penalty ensures lack of assimilation. Legalized aliens gain the right to vote here and can keep dual citizenship, so they can also vote in their home country. The fine print in all recent amnesty bills proves that “learn English” doesn’t mean legalized aliens gain command of the English language.
The bottom line remains the same, though. Eleven million illegals get legal status. The President threw in a farm worker amnesty and the DREAM (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors) Act amnesty for good measure.
Obama also called for “reforming our outdated system of legal immigration.” Here, it gets interesting.
The President endorsed giving foreign students green cards so they can stay here permanently. This apparently is part of what makes “immigration reform” an “economic imperative.”
Having invoked company names such as Google and eBay, and foreign-born assets including Einstein and Andrew Carnegie, Obama implied that immigrants are overwhelmingly brainiacs, innovators, and job creators. He also implied that these are the world’s most talented people—“the best and the brightest,” Obama called them.
The President paints a false image, if you consider the facts.
Obama’s own supporting “facts” illustrate a dearth of immigrant innovative genius. He claimed, “In recent years, a full 25% of high-tech start-ups in the U.S. were founded by immigrants, leading to more than 200,000 jobs in America.” Not very impressive as a proportion of the total 5.9 million U.S. high-tech jobs in 2009, and below the 245,600 jobs that industry lost in 2009.
Prof. Norm Matloff of the University of California, Davis, has calculated a Talent Measure, the ratio of salary to the prevailing wage. By that measure (which assumes talented people will command higher pay), he found H-1B visa holders (skilled foreign temporary workers, many in high-tech) are just average. That holds true for foreign workers at leading tech companies.
The Small Business Administration reported in 2009 that only around 16% of U.S. tech firms have at least one founder who was an immigrant entrepreneur. Less than 13% of tech entrepreneurs are foreign-born. While these immigrant business founders hold more doctorates, they also twice as often have links to foreign companies.
These are the “smart guys” among immigrants. Not especially distinguished as a group.
Moreover, most immigrants are less skilled, less educated and more likely to take welfare and other taxpayer subsidies, lack health insurance, are more likely to be a net fiscal drain, and lag on other socioeconomic measures than native-born Americans.
Among immigrants in general, 11% are entrepreneurs, compared with 13% of American natives.
In addition to selling the same snake oil that stands little chance on Capitol Hill, Obama showed a cynical, partisan attitude hardly likely to win friends and influence people.
He insulted everyone who supports the urgent need to secure the border. He charged opponents of amnesty with “mov[ing] the goalposts one more time. ... Maybe they’ll say we need a moat. Or alligators in the moat.”
Obama took a condescending, preachy attitude: “I know some here wish that I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how a democracy works.”
In fact, Obama has attempted to end-run Congress on immigration. His administration plotted a number of options for abusing administrative discretionary policies to achieve wholesale amnesty—or, in the words of a leaked memo, "result in meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action."
The Obama speech showed little originality, no flexibility on approaching the problem, and an animosity toward those who disagree with him on immigration issues. All in all, a wasted opportunity.
Mr. Edwards is coauthor of The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=43464

President's El Paso Immigration Pander
by James R. Edwards, Jr.
Posted 05/12/2011 ET
President Obama’s El Paso speech delivered the predictable: a call for the same old mass amnesty mix (“comprehensive immigration reform,” to open-borders types). And at least for a time, he’s put immigration front and center.
First, look at Obama’s “solution.”
Government’s “threshold responsibility” is “to secure the borders and enforce the law.” Obama asserted that his administration has done that. In fact, the Government Accountability Office reports that only 129 of the 2,000 miles of the southern border are under control.
The President said that “businesses have to be held accountable if they exploit undocumented workers.” House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Elton Gallegly points out that Obama’s work-site enforcement has fallen more than 70%. Obama has switched to civil fines and dropped filing criminal charges against companies employing illegal aliens. The administration has stopped holding illegal alien workers accountable in job-related enforcement.
And then there’s my personal favorite: Obama’s lame requirements purporting to hold illegals themselves accountable. He said, “They have to admit that they broke the law, pay their taxes, pay a fine, and learn English. And they have to undergo background checks and a lengthy process before they can get in line for legalization.”
These things are pretty much what current law requires, what the 1986 amnesty required, and comprise the same old Bush-era garbage circa 2006 and 2007. They reward all 11 million illegal aliens with eventual U.S. citizenship and access to taxpayer subsidy through welfare and other government benefits, along with the privilege of sponsoring even distant relatives for visas ad infinitum.
The supposed penalty ensures lack of assimilation. Legalized aliens gain the right to vote here and can keep dual citizenship, so they can also vote in their home country. The fine print in all recent amnesty bills proves that “learn English” doesn’t mean legalized aliens gain command of the English language.
The bottom line remains the same, though. Eleven million illegals get legal status. The President threw in a farm worker amnesty and the DREAM (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors) Act amnesty for good measure.
Obama also called for “reforming our outdated system of legal immigration.” Here, it gets interesting.
The President endorsed giving foreign students green cards so they can stay here permanently. This apparently is part of what makes “immigration reform” an “economic imperative.”
Having invoked company names such as Google and eBay, and foreign-born assets including Einstein and Andrew Carnegie, Obama implied that immigrants are overwhelmingly brainiacs, innovators, and job creators. He also implied that these are the world’s most talented people—“the best and the brightest,” Obama called them.
The President paints a false image, if you consider the facts.
Obama’s own supporting “facts” illustrate a dearth of immigrant innovative genius. He claimed, “In recent years, a full 25% of high-tech start-ups in the U.S. were founded by immigrants, leading to more than 200,000 jobs in America.” Not very impressive as a proportion of the total 5.9 million U.S. high-tech jobs in 2009, and below the 245,600 jobs that industry lost in 2009.
Prof. Norm Matloff of the University of California, Davis, has calculated a Talent Measure, the ratio of salary to the prevailing wage. By that measure (which assumes talented people will command higher pay), he found H-1B visa holders (skilled foreign temporary workers, many in high-tech) are just average. That holds true for foreign workers at leading tech companies.
The Small Business Administration reported in 2009 that only around 16% of U.S. tech firms have at least one founder who was an immigrant entrepreneur. Less than 13% of tech entrepreneurs are foreign-born. While these immigrant business founders hold more doctorates, they also twice as often have links to foreign companies.
These are the “smart guys” among immigrants. Not especially distinguished as a group.
Moreover, most immigrants are less skilled, less educated and more likely to take welfare and other taxpayer subsidies, lack health insurance, are more likely to be a net fiscal drain, and lag on other socioeconomic measures than native-born Americans.
Among immigrants in general, 11% are entrepreneurs, compared with 13% of American natives.
In addition to selling the same snake oil that stands little chance on Capitol Hill, Obama showed a cynical, partisan attitude hardly likely to win friends and influence people.
He insulted everyone who supports the urgent need to secure the border. He charged opponents of amnesty with “mov[ing] the goalposts one more time. ... Maybe they’ll say we need a moat. Or alligators in the moat.”
Obama took a condescending, preachy attitude: “I know some here wish that I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how a democracy works.”
In fact, Obama has attempted to end-run Congress on immigration. His administration plotted a number of options for abusing administrative discretionary policies to achieve wholesale amnesty—or, in the words of a leaked memo, "result in meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action."
The Obama speech showed little originality, no flexibility on approaching the problem, and an animosity toward those who disagree with him on immigration issues. All in all, a wasted opportunity.
Mr. Edwards is coauthor of The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=43464

President's El Paso Immigration Pander
by James R. Edwards, Jr.
Posted 05/12/2011 ET
President Obama’s El Paso speech delivered the predictable: a call for the same old mass amnesty mix (“comprehensive immigration reform,” to open-borders types). And at least for a time, he’s put immigration front and center.
First, look at Obama’s “solution.”
Government’s “threshold responsibility” is “to secure the borders and enforce the law.” Obama asserted that his administration has done that. In fact, the Government Accountability Office reports that only 129 of the 2,000 miles of the southern border are under control.
The President said that “businesses have to be held accountable if they exploit undocumented workers.” House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Elton Gallegly points out that Obama’s work-site enforcement has fallen more than 70%. Obama has switched to civil fines and dropped filing criminal charges against companies employing illegal aliens. The administration has stopped holding illegal alien workers accountable in job-related enforcement.
And then there’s my personal favorite: Obama’s lame requirements purporting to hold illegals themselves accountable. He said, “They have to admit that they broke the law, pay their taxes, pay a fine, and learn English. And they have to undergo background checks and a lengthy process before they can get in line for legalization.”
These things are pretty much what current law requires, what the 1986 amnesty required, and comprise the same old Bush-era garbage circa 2006 and 2007. They reward all 11 million illegal aliens with eventual U.S. citizenship and access to taxpayer subsidy through welfare and other government benefits, along with the privilege of sponsoring even distant relatives for visas ad infinitum.
The supposed penalty ensures lack of assimilation. Legalized aliens gain the right to vote here and can keep dual citizenship, so they can also vote in their home country. The fine print in all recent amnesty bills proves that “learn English” doesn’t mean legalized aliens gain command of the English language.
The bottom line remains the same, though. Eleven million illegals get legal status. The President threw in a farm worker amnesty and the DREAM (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors) Act amnesty for good measure.
Obama also called for “reforming our outdated system of legal immigration.” Here, it gets interesting.
The President endorsed giving foreign students green cards so they can stay here permanently. This apparently is part of what makes “immigration reform” an “economic imperative.”
Having invoked company names such as Google and eBay, and foreign-born assets including Einstein and Andrew Carnegie, Obama implied that immigrants are overwhelmingly brainiacs, innovators, and job creators. He also implied that these are the world’s most talented people—“the best and the brightest,” Obama called them.
The President paints a false image, if you consider the facts.
Obama’s own supporting “facts” illustrate a dearth of immigrant innovative genius. He claimed, “In recent years, a full 25% of high-tech start-ups in the U.S. were founded by immigrants, leading to more than 200,000 jobs in America.” Not very impressive as a proportion of the total 5.9 million U.S. high-tech jobs in 2009, and below the 245,600 jobs that industry lost in 2009.
Prof. Norm Matloff of the University of California, Davis, has calculated a Talent Measure, the ratio of salary to the prevailing wage. By that measure (which assumes talented people will command higher pay), he found H-1B visa holders (skilled foreign temporary workers, many in high-tech) are just average. That holds true for foreign workers at leading tech companies.
The Small Business Administration reported in 2009 that only around 16% of U.S. tech firms have at least one founder who was an immigrant entrepreneur. Less than 13% of tech entrepreneurs are foreign-born. While these immigrant business founders hold more doctorates, they also twice as often have links to foreign companies.
These are the “smart guys” among immigrants. Not especially distinguished as a group.
Moreover, most immigrants are less skilled, less educated and more likely to take welfare and other taxpayer subsidies, lack health insurance, are more likely to be a net fiscal drain, and lag on other socioeconomic measures than native-born Americans.
Among immigrants in general, 11% are entrepreneurs, compared with 13% of American natives.
In addition to selling the same snake oil that stands little chance on Capitol Hill, Obama showed a cynical, partisan attitude hardly likely to win friends and influence people.
He insulted everyone who supports the urgent need to secure the border. He charged opponents of amnesty with “mov[ing] the goalposts one more time. ... Maybe they’ll say we need a moat. Or alligators in the moat.”
Obama took a condescending, preachy attitude: “I know some here wish that I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how a democracy works.”
In fact, Obama has attempted to end-run Congress on immigration. His administration plotted a number of options for abusing administrative discretionary policies to achieve wholesale amnesty—or, in the words of a leaked memo, "result in meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action."
The Obama speech showed little originality, no flexibility on approaching the problem, and an animosity toward those who disagree with him on immigration issues. All in all, a wasted opportunity.
Mr. Edwards is coauthor of The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=43464

A Nation Of Immigrants
by John Hayward
Posted 05/12/2011 ET
“We define ourselves as a nation of immigrants,” said President Obama in his El Paso speech on immigration Tuesday. This is the most tedious talking point dragged out by the amnesty crowd.
We are not a “nation of immigrants.”
The current population of the United States is 307 million people. Of that number, about 40 million are legal immigrants, and perhaps 12 million are illegal aliens. That makes about 13% of our population naturalized citizens. Include the illegals and you have 16%. These percentages are not all that much different from other industrialized nations.
Is that taking the “nation of immigrants” canard too literally? Is it really supposed to mean that most of us are only a generation or two removed from immigrants? That sounds like another dose of the weary leftist philosophy that holds people accountable for the deeds of their ancestors. It’s reminiscent of the way our more excitable academics insist that we’re all descended from slave owners, or slaves. Why should we “define ourselves” based on where our grandparents were born?
Should we reflect on how America was founded by immigrants, over two centuries ago? But that’s not true. Most of our Founders were born on American soil. Only nine of the delegates to the first Constitutional Convention were immigrants.
The people who came before them were colonists, not immigrants. They certainly did not “immigrate” into American Indian society, and they rather pointedly did not regard themselves as a “nation of immigrants” when they declared their independence from the crowns that ruled their ancestors. There are organizations in the modern United States that openly encourage those who cross our border illegally to think of themselves as “colonists,” too.
What is “immigration,” anyway? Is it merely the physical act of crossing a border? In that case, England was a nation of immigrants during the Norman Conquest, and Asians still remember the waves of vigorous Mongol immigration that took place in the 13th century. Like all great affairs of free men, true immigration is an act of mutual consent, and mutual responsibility.
We are unquestionably a nation that has welcomed many immigrants. The American spirit burns bright when a new citizen recites the Pledge of Allegiance for the first time. Those who drag out the “nation of immigrants” chestnut are not seeking to congratulate Americans for their hospitality. On the contrary, they want us to see ourselves as a vast flock of migratory birds that just happened to settle on this lovely piece of ground, and have no right to set conditions for anyone who wishes to roost in the same spot. We’re supposed to feel like hypocrites for limiting the number of new citizens we accept, or making them fill out applications for citizenship and wait for a response. We’re definitely not supposed to regard the people who did fill out applications as the true “immigrants.”
Instead of flagellating ourselves for daring to envision borders around American territory, we should be working on ways to process those applications for citizenship more quickly. The President mentioned our “outdated system of legal immigration” in his El Paso speech, and he was right about that.
When the President went on to set up another of his infamous false choices, between open borders laced with amnesty and a moat full of alligators, he rendered an unforgivable insult to the millions of Americans – both native-born and naturalized – who take the concept of citizenship seriously. Citizenship implies the existence of non-citizens, and therefore borders. The ideas come as a set.
America is a nation with immigrants. We add a million of them every year. We are proud of them, and they are proud to be Americans. There is a difference between immigrants and aliens. It’s possible for an alien to become an immigrant. The process is currently more difficult than it should be. It will never be automatic. That’s why we have a border. We don’t need any more excuses for the President’s failure to do his duty in securing it, fantasies that he took care of it while we weren’t paying attention, insults directed at those who expect him to do his duty, poetic illusions, or moralistic lectures about why one of our borders shouldn’t exist.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=43469

I have no love of the Nazis. Especially since my Belorussian relatives suffered so much during the Nazi occupation of Belorussia in WWII.
However, I don't feel comfortable with this "conviction" of this supposed lone low level Ukrainian guard on such flimsy evidence by Germany in particular. If Germany wishes to publicly atone for their sins...they can do better than this. This flimsy conviction is just posturing by Germany using a foreign (Ukrainian) stooge.

Obama Must Challenge Utah Immigration Law
by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX)
05/05/2011
Last year, the Obama administration sued Arizona over its law that was designed merely to assist the federal government in the enforcement of immigration laws. To date, however, the administration has been silent on a new Utah law, even though it blatantly undermines federal immigration law.
The Utah immigration law creates a guest worker program for illegal immigrants who have lived or worked in the state before May 10, 2011. Illegal immigrants who become guest workers can then obtain “immediate family” permits for their spouses or unmarried children under the age of 21 who are also illegal immigrants.
Unlike the Arizona law, the Utah immigration law is in direct violation of federal law.
Congress has the constitutional authority to determine immigration law, and has not been silent on the employment of illegal immigrants. In fact, current federal law says it's unlawful for any employer to knowingly hire an illegal immigrant. The law also requires employers to comply with an employment eligibility verification system to help ensure they hire a legal workforce.
The Obama administration’s silence regarding the Utah law stands in stark contrast to its early condemnation of the Arizona law that sought to enforce federal immigration law. If the Obama administration wants a consistent immigration policy, then it needs to take action against the Utah law.
It would not be a stretch to conclude that the only immigration policy that the Obama administration favors is one that allows illegal immigrants to remain in the United States. And it’s not just its silence on the Utah immigration law.
Though President Obama recognizes that jobs are a magnet for illegal immigration, his administration has ignored enforcement of immigration laws at the workplace. Arrests of illegal immigrant workers are down 77% from 2008. The administration’s policy? If they conduct a paperwork audit of a company and find illegal immigrant workers, the workers are not arrested. Instead, they are free to remain in the U.S. and take jobs from American workers someplace else.
Also, even though a number of states and localities are in violation of federal immigration law, the Obama administration has not taken action against any of them.
For example, the Obama administration has not sanctioned sanctuary cities, even though they willfully defy federal law by prohibiting their law enforcement officials from cooperating with the Department of Homeland Security.
The administration also has not taken action against states that give in-state college tuition to illegal immigrants, despite the fact that federal law prohibits this.
The Obama administration’s track record and continued silence on the Utah immigration law reflects its anti-enforcement agenda. It is just one more piece of evidence that this government has no interest in enforcing our immigration laws.
Instead of basing its decisions on its own policy preferences, the Obama administration should fully enforce all immigration laws. When immigration laws are enforced, illegal immigrants leave on their own, and wages go up for Americans and legal workers.
With millions of Americans looking for work, the administration needs to take legal action against Utah for its unconstitutional law that hurts American workers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressman Lamar Smith represents the 21st District of Texas. He is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=43323

I thought Bush senior had reelection clinched after the victory in the first Gulf War. Americans were eating the victory up at the time and Bush was riding high...but he didn't get reelected.
Bin Laden's death alone isn't going to get Obama reelected.

I thought Bush senior had reelection clinched after the victory in the first Gulf War. Americans were eating the victory up at the time and Bush was riding high...but he didn't get reelected.
Bin Laden's death alone isn't going to get Obama reelected.

Can you sit there with a straight face and tell us that the attacks, slanders, and cheap shots from the Left directed at GWB would have occured if he were not a conservative Republican? Bush's intellect was often cruelly slammed.
I'd say if Obama can't take the heat...get out of the kitchen. Ditto for worshipers of the messiah. They can dish it out...but they can't take it when it gets thrown back at them.

Butthurt? Is gay humor considered witty now with Lefties? As much as you guys wig out on any comment from conservatives that you (mis)construe as racist, homophobic, sexist,....etc.? I must say I'm quite perplexed. The Dude has attempted to slap me backhanded with a homophobic slight. Oh my!

Can you sit there with a straight face and tell us that the attacks, slanders, and cheap shots from the Left directed at GWB would have occured if he were not a conservative Republican? Bush's intellect was often cruelly slammed.
I'd say if Obama can't take the heat...get out of the kitchen. Ditto for worshipers of the messiah. They can dish it out...but they can't take it when it gets thrown back at them.

Butthurt? Is gay humor considered witty now with Lefties? As much as you guys wig out on any comment from conservatives that you (mis)construe as racist, homophobic, sexist,....etc.? I must say I'm quite perplexed. The Dude has attempted to slap me backhanded with a homophobic slight. Oh my!

I never seen any 'dillos that far north. That ain't 'dillo country. They don't live up there. Pudwhacker caught it off a toilet seat in a Texaco gas station off the interstate. No telling what sort of tourist dropped it off there.

Can you sit there with a straight face and tell us that the attacks, slanders, and cheap shots from the Left directed at GWB would have occured if he were not a conservative Republican? Bush's intellect was often cruelly slammed.
I'd say if Obama can't take the heat...get out of the kitchen. Ditto for worshipers of the messiah. They can dish it out...but they can't take it when it gets thrown back at them.

Butthurt? Is gay humor considered witty now with Lefties? As much as you guys wig out on any comment from conservatives that you (mis)construe as racist, homophobic, sexist,....etc.? I must say I'm quite perplexed. The Dude has attempted to slap me backhanded with a homophobic slight. Oh my!

Butthurt? Is gay humor considered witty now with Lefties? As much as you guys wig out on any comment from conservatives that you (mis)construe as racist, homophobic, sexist,....etc.? I must say I'm quite perplexed. The Dude has attempted to slap me backhanded with a homophobic slight. Oh my!

Butthurt? Is gay humor considered witty now with Lefties? As much as you guys wig out on any comment from conservatives that you (mis)construe as racist, homophobic, sexist,....etc.? I must say I'm quite perplexed. The Dude has attempted to slap me backhanded with a homophobic slight. Oh my!

Butthurt? Is gay humor considered witty now with Lefties? As much as you guys wig out on any comment from conservatives that you (mis)construe as racist, homophobic, sexist,....etc.? I must say I'm quite perplexed. The Dude has attempted to slap me backhanded with a homophobic slight. Oh my!

Butthurt? Is gay humor considered witty now with Lefties? As much as you guys wig out on any comment from conservatives that you (mis)construe as racist, homophobic, sexist,....etc.? I must say I'm quite perplexed. The Dude has attempted to slap me backhanded with a homophobic slight. Oh my!

Then they end up in America and complain that America needs to be more like Britain.
Sound familiar? Not that I'm naming any names.

There is likely much more to this story than meets the eye. This guy is obviously on someone's sh*t list. Unfortunately there aren't enough details or the writer purposely chose to omit them in this short story to paint his own picture. Maybe the guy needs to be deported or maybe he doesn't. It's hard to say with so little facts to go by.
He'll get his day in court. And it is not a waste of time and money.

Then they end up in America and complain that America needs to be more like Britain.
Sound familiar? Not that I'm naming any names.

Then they end up in America and complain that America needs to be more like Britain.
Sound familiar? Not that I'm naming any names.

Then they end up in America and complain that America needs to be more like Britain.
Sound familiar? Not that I'm naming any names.

Then they end up in America and complain that America needs to be more like Britain.
Sound familiar? Not that I'm naming any names.