Boycott & Backlash

[thedrifter]

May 01, 2006, 7:00 a.m.
Boycott & Backlash
May Day in New New Mexico.

By Mark Krikorian

Today’s May Day general strike by illegal aliens and their supporters should help clarify the Senate’s immigration deliberations. The question before senators, as they seek to pass an immigration bill before Memorial Day, no longer concerns the specifics of policy—how much border fencing, the period of work for guestworkers, etc.

The question now is whether the government of the United States will give in to the mob.

France recently answered that question in the affirmative (for the umpteenth time), when Chirac backed down from his comically small employment reforms in the wake of mass protests. In Latin America, street protests have toppled two presidents in Bolivia since 2003 and one in Ecuador last year.

But the use of direct action to intimidate lawmakers is largely alien to American experience. The civil-rights marches, which the illegal-alien movement frequently points to as its inspiration, were explicitly patriotic and constitutional affairs. The 1963 march on Washington didn’t feature foreign flags and racist, anti-American signs; on the contrary, Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech pointed to the promise of “the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence,” written by “the architects of our Republic,” and his peroration was based on the lyrics of “My Country, ‘Tis of Thee.”

The illegal-alien marches, starting almost two months ago in Chicago, have more in common with the anti-war marches of the 1960s in their hostility to the American constitutional order. Prominent among the organizers of the street actions have been CISPES, the ANSWER Coalition, and other communist organizations, with CAIR and its ilk joining in, Subcomandante Marcos sending Zapatistas to protest at our embassy in Mexico City—and even Mumia Abu-Jamal expressing his solidarity!

Of course, both the civil-rights and antiwar protests of the 1960s were by Americans demanding the attention of their fellow countrymen. By contrast, the illegal-alien marchers are morally identical to burglars demanding that the homeowner rearrange the furniture. And part of that rearranging became clear last week when a Spanish-language rewrite of the national anthem was released (by a producer with his own colorful Marxist backstory). And Mexico, following the example of Muslim countries boycotting Danish products, is expecting a boycott of American products, called the “Nothing Gringo” campaign.

The illegal-alien marches resemble the Vietnam protests in another way—they’re backfiring. Just as the antiwar movement’s hatred of America caused a backlash that prolonged the war, the illegal-alien marches are hardening attitudes against illegals. A recent poll shows that the earlier marches made respondents less likely, by two-to-one, to be sympathetic to amnesty. The illegal-alien anthem has been denounced by President Bush (of all people), and a resolution is likely to be introduced today by Sen. Lamar Alexander affirming that “that statements or songs that symbolize the unity of the American Nation, including the National Anthem, the Oath of Allegiance sworn by new U.S. citizens, and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States, should be recited or sung in the common language of the United States: English.” (I boldly predict this will be approved.)

The marches are moving black Americans to finally speak out against mass immigration; Los Angeles homeless activist Ted Hayes, for instance, has organized the Crispus Attucks Brigade of the Minuteman Project. And the “Nothing Gringo” campaign in Mexico has prompted a “Nothing Mexican” backlash for Cinco de Mayo.

The more mainstream pro-amnesty forces understand the potential for an intensified anti-illegal backlash from today’s marches, which is why many did not join in. One amnesty supporter said the May Day offensive “could further polarize the debate and make reform supporters seem anti-American just as lobbyists are trying to persuade lawmakers in Washington to pass a bill that would benefit immigrants.”
This concern, though, is too little, too late. At this point, an immigration vote in the Senate will not, and should not, be about the particulars of policy. Rather, a vote for anything other than an enforcement-only bill would represent a surrender to the mob, a capitulation to the illegal-alien will to power. There will be plenty of time in coming years for Congress to debate the legitimate questions of legalization or guestworker programs—but now it’s time for senators to push back and pass an enforcement-only bill, to make clear that in the United States, laws are made in the Capitol, not in the streets.

—Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.

Ellie

[thedrifter]

May 01, 2006, 7:08 a.m.
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
An imaginary exercise.

By Tom Tancredo

What would a day without illegal aliens really be like? Let’s try to imagine it.
On May 1, millions of illegal aliens working in meat-processing plants, construction, restaurants, hotels, and other “jobs Americans won’t do” are supposed to stay home from work to show the importance of their labor to our nation’s economy. Doubtless, there will be some inconvenience if that happens, but there is another side to the story that is not being reported.

We are talking about illegal aliens, not mere “immigrants.” If legal immigrants stopped working for a day, we would miss the services of physicians, nurses, computer programmers, writers, actors, musicians, entrepreneurs of all stripes, and some airline pilots…as well as the CEO of Google. That would be more than an inconvenience, but it won’t happen because legal immigrants are not out marching angrily for rights that are already protected by our courts.

But if illegal aliens all took the day off and were truly invisible for one day, there would be some plusses along with the mild inconveniences.

Hospital emergency rooms across the southwest would have about 20-percent fewer patients, and there would be 183,000 fewer people in Colorado without health insurance.

OBGYN wards in Denver would have 24-percent fewer deliveries and Los Angeles’s maternity-ward deliveries would drop by 40 percent and maternity billings to Medi-Cal would drop by 66 percent.

Youth gangs would see their membership drop by 50 percent in many states, and in Phoenix, child-molestation cases would drop by 34 percent and auto theft by 40 percent.

In Durango, Colorado, and the Four Corners area and the surrounding Indian reservations, the methamphetamine epidemic would slow for one day, as the 90 percent of that drug now being brought in from Mexico was held in Albuquerque and Farmington a few hours longer. According to the sheriff of La Plata County, Colorado, meth is now being brought in by ordinary illegal aliens as well as professional drug dealers.

If the “Day-Without-an-Immigrant Boycott” had been held a year earlier on May 8, 2005, and illegal alien Raul Garcia-Gomez had stayed home and did not work or go to a party that day, Denver police officer Donnie Young would still be alive and Garcia-Gomez would not be sitting in a Denver jail awaiting trial.

If the boycott had been held on July 1, 2004, Justin Goodman of Thornton, Colorado, would still be riding his motorcycle and Roberto Martinez-Ruiz would not be in prison for killing him and then fleeing the scene while driving on a suspended license.

If illegal aliens stayed home—in Mexico, Guatemala, Brazil, and 100 other countries—the Border Patrol would have 3,500 fewer apprehensions (of the 12,000 who try each day).

Colorado taxpayers would save almost $3,000,000 in one day if illegals do not access any public services, because illegal aliens cost the state over $1 billion annually according to the best estimates.

Colorado’s K-12 school classrooms would have 131,000 fewer students if illegal aliens and the children of illegals were to stay home, and Denver high schools’ dropout rate would once again approach the national norm.

Colorado’s jails and prisons would have 10-percent fewer inmates, and Denver and many other towns would not need to build so many new jails to accommodate the overcrowding.

Our highway patrol and county sheriffs would have about far fewer DUI arrests and there would be a dramatic decline in rollovers of vanloads of illegal aliens on I-70 and other highways.

On a Day Without an Illegal Immigrant, thousands of workers and small contractors in the construction industry across Colorado would have their jobs back, the jobs given to illegal workers because they work for lower wages and no benefits. (On the other hand, if labor unions continue signing up illegal workers, no one will be worrying about Joe Six-Pack’s loss. Sorry, Joe, but you forgot to tell your union business agent that your job is as important as his is.)

If it fell on a Sunday, Catholic Churches in the southwestern states might have 20-percent fewer parishioners at Mass if all illegals stayed home, but they would be back next Sunday, so the bishop’s job is not in danger. The religious leaders who send people to the marches and rallies will never fear for their jobs, because illegal aliens need their special “human-rights” advocacy and some priests and nuns seem especially devoted to that cause. The fact that most Catholics disagree with the bishops’ radicalism doesn’t seem to affect their dedication to undermining the rule of law.

All of this might be a passing colorful episode in the heated national debate over immigration policy if it weren’t for an odd coincidence: The immigration-enforcement agency responsible for locating and deporting illegal aliens is also taking the day off today. Of course, they didn’t call it a boycott. It is just (non)business as usual.

—Tom Tancredo is a Republican congressman from Colorado.

Ellie

[thedrifter]

Venezuela's Chavez and the "Day Without Immigrants"
May 1st, 2006
Thomas Lifson and A.M. Mora y Leon

Hugo Chavez of Venezuela does not lack for ambition. Sitting atop billions of petrodollars, closely allied with Fidel Castro (whose life span soon is nearing its natural end), Chavez is already sticking his nose in the business of other Western Hemisphere nations, supporting leftist candidates, Marxist rebels aimed at topping America, and buying far more arms than would be necessary to defend his borders.

There is every reason to suspect that Hugo Chavez may even be playing a planning and supporting role in today’s (May 1st – the Communist holiday) “Day Without an Immigrant” demonstrations.

Hugo Chavez has never shied away from interference in American domestic politics. Working with Democrat Congressmen from Massachusetts, he launched a publicity stunt sale of home heating oil at a discount last winter. He is building a base of client groups and politicans in the United States, allies to help him smooth down objections to his other activities. Investigators have barely begun to scratch the surface of his political involvements within our borders.

Communists of many stripes have endorsed today’s demonstrations, as have many other groups on the left. Many clearly see that encumbering the United States with a serious irredentist movement, powered by millions of new voters sneaking across our borders and eventually gaining the franchise, will divert us from fighting Communists and their de facto allies like Iran’s mullahs.

Some leaders like Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Cardinal Roger Mahony are distancing themselves at least from the calls for school boycotts. They are joined by other groups worried about a backlash.

But there is more reason than mere concordance of goals to suspect a serious connection between Hugo Chavez and the demonstration’s leaders.

The web site (maintained by the National Immigrant Solidarity Network” a “coalition” whose members names are not readily visible) of the May 1 “Day Without An Immigrant” protest in Los Angeles contains its very own Hugo Chavez newswire of sorts, a string of news events centered around Chavez’s Caracas-based World Social Forum in January. Click here, and note the “Americas Watch” section.

Reading the articles linked to the demonstration home page can only lead one to the conjecture that Hugo Chavez has been actively helping the planning of events like today’s demonstration.

Back in January, Hugo Chavez hoisted the 6th World Social Forum, a gigantic collection of left wing activists from all over the world. During this time, a lot of talk and a lot of planning seems to have taken place, some of it directly relevant to today’s demonstrations. The fact that the demonstration’s web page links back to articles about the Forum, completes the loop. This is not enough proof to stand up in court, perhaps, but it does demonstrate alignment.

It’s noteworthy that Chavez said at the time of the Social Forum that he didn’t want the event to be just a “revolutionary tourism” event, but a platform for more protests targeted at the U.S “imperialists.” In particular, Chavez praised the effort to stop a border fence even said he wanted to be involved with the U.S. border struggle. Other media was noted he clownishly said he’d like camp out with the illegal immigration activists to protest a proposed border fence. That issue, of course, has become white hot for the May 1 protest.

Each article linked sheds light on who’s behind this vast immigrant unrest scheduled for today.

The first article describes a series of protests being planned for March. It’s not known if immigration protests were part of it, but it’s significant that the first big immigration protest happened in Los Angeles on March 25.

In this article (scroll down), we see a Social Forum group discussing a group of Mexican (from Mexico) legislators planning a trip to Washington to lobby Congress about immigration measures. The key passage from the January meeting in Caracas is here:

In the meantime, a delegation of lawmakers from Mexico earned the backing of legislators from throughout the region in their opposition to a bill currently before the U.S. Congress aimed at extending the fences already blocking portions of the U.S.-Mexican border, among other measures.

Rafael Quintanar, a legislator from the centre-left Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD) in the Mexican state of Quintano Roo, told IPS: “We want to condemn the wall of death that the United States is erecting on the border, and the new immigration law,” which could come to a vote next month, and would penalise both undocumented immigrants and their eventual employers.

Another PRD representative, Emiliano Ramos, said that the party is collecting declarations of support and solidarity for Mexico from two dozen Latin American lawmakers, which it plans to send to the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

Another initiative being discussed at the WSF, Ramos added, is the organisation of a march from Central America to a point on the Mexican border with the United States, where a forum on migration is to be held in March.

The fence that the United States wants to throw up along the border “is the wall of indignity, death, racism, impunity and legalised crime,” he maintained.

What’s interesting about that is that Mexican legislators from Mexico have now flown up to Los Angeles to express “solidarity” for the immigrants as they try to “shut down the city” on May 1. It would be interesting to know if they were the same ones. In another item, we learn that world leftist protests are to take an “offensive phase.” At the bottom of the immigration agitators’ “Americas Watch” page, there are other items very dear to the heart of Hugo Chavez – killing free trade in the Americas – a cause Chavez has desperately been trying to push, Haiti troubles, anti-CAFTA efforts, and the offensive to demonize President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia. What is significant about all of them is that all (except a lone item against Arnold Schwarzenegger) are causes Hugo Chavez has been very vocal and active in promoting. The Schwarzenegger item is probably significant because of the California aspect of the protests and ought to be watched. Schwarzenegger and Chavez’s ally Cuban dictator Fidel Castro have exchanged insults in the past. Is this sudden wave of immigration activism hitting Los Angeles and the rest of the nation something Hugo Chavez is involved in? It’s attracting a host of political opportunists anyway.

This is an issue we ought to be watching closely. If Hugo Chavez is instigating or financing any of this, then we are seeing a whole new kind of attack against the U.S.

The deeper truth is that irredentism is congenial to our serious enemies because they recognize its potential to subvert America.

Ellie

[thedrifter]

A Day Without Illegal Aliens Is a Boon to Taxpayers
by Rep. Tom Tancredo
Posted May 01, 2006

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R.-Colo.), chairman of the 97-member House Immigration Reform Caucus, released the following statement about Monday’s planned boycott by illegal immigrants.

A day without illegal aliens would be a boon to U.S. taxpayers who wouldn’t pay for the tremendous social service costs of persons not legally in our country. On May 1, illegal alien activists are threatening to shut down major cities in what has been called “The Great American Boycott” and, alternatively, “A Day Without an Immigrant.”

The activist protestors are trying to confuse the American public by lumping legal immigrants with illegal aliens. A day without legal immigrants would be a day without almost all Americans. A day without illegal aliens, on the other hand, would be a boon to the American taxpayer.

The net cost to the federal government in 2002 for public services provided to illegal aliens was $10.4 billion or $2,736 per household according to a report by the Center for Immigration Studies. Estimates for 2005 put the amount at $11.7 billion or $3,080 per household.

Illegal Alien Costs By Social Service
Lost Revenue: The U.S. may be foregoing up to $35 billion in lost tax revenue because of the growing size of the underground labor market using illegal workers in the cash economy, according to a January, 2005 report by the Wall Street firm Bear Sterns.


Health Costs: Medicaid costs for illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children are $2.8 billion annually, according to a study by the Center for Immigration Studies. Approximately 70% of households headed by illegal aliens have at least one person without medical insurance, compared to 20% of all other households. The federal government spends $250 million each year reimbursing states for emergency medical services provided to illegal aliens, which is less than 10% of the true cost of those services.


Education Costs: The Center for Immigration Studies has shown that federal aid to K-12 public schools for the education of the children of illegal aliens is $1.4 billion annually, not including the cost of free school lunches. The total cost to state and local taxpayers for educating 3.5 million children of illegal aliens is estimated at $28.6 billion, according to a Federation for American Immigration Reform study.


Incarceration: Illegal aliens account for less than 5% of the U.S. adult population, but were 17% of the federal prison population in 2004, imposing a net cost of $1.8 billion in court and incarceration expenses.

Fortunately, Americans have seen through the protestors’ half-truths. A Rasmussen poll released last week showed widespread disfavor of recent immigration protests, with 26 percent holding a favorable opinion and 54 percent holding an unfavorable opinion.

Americans don’t respond well to illegal aliens who demand amnesty. As I’ve said before, that doesn’t play well in Peoria. Every time illegal aliens and their supporters take to the streets, it drives home the point to most Americans that illegal immigration is a problem in their home towns, and that we urgently need to get control of our borders.

Ellie

[thedrifter]

The Right Way to Put Heat on Illegals
By Horace Cooper| 01 May 2006

The debate over illegal immigration has managed to conflate two separate issues -- American immigrant citizenship status (and related requirements) on the one hand, and the economic consequences of having limited access to unskilled workers in the domestic labor pool. The two issues are not one and the same. Thus, resolving the complex choices associated with each will be easier when they are treated differently.

On the one hand, US immigrant citizenship policy as modified in 1986 by the Immigration Reform and Control Act -- which attempted to address seasonal temporary workers -- has been an abysmal failure. The act made it unlawful to knowingly hire an undocumented worker and provided for a one-year amnesty for illegal aliens who had already worked and lived in the U.S. since January 1982. Although at the time there were less than 3 million illegal aliens in the U.S., the grant of amnesty sent a signal to the world that the U.S. would no longer be serious about its border. Combined with a phasing out of employer sanctions, predictably the number of illegals has swelled nearly 4 times to more than 11 million people (many of whom assume that a new amnesty is waiting just around the corner).

Today it is vital that we adopt a policy that separates those aliens seeking permanent status from those only interested in temporary employment opportunities. Unfortunately, much of the present debate treats the groups as if they are one and the same. By failing to make this distinction, we risk going forward with an updated-but-incoherent program.

Economic Refugees, Labor Flexibility

First and foremost, policymakers must recognize that there are significant economic consequences to allowing geographical barriers to determine wages -- particularly in the context of low-skilled workers. Every American household pays an arbitrarily (and therefore wasteful) higher price for the goods and services that are provided when they are denied the benefit of competition simply because of where they live. Although often mentioned in the context of goods, the principle is no less true of labor costs. A rational temporary worker plan recognizes that we exist in a global economy that requires labor flexibility and allows honest workers interested in coming to America to provide for their families while respecting our laws.

Let's look at it from the low- or unskilled-laborer's perspective: Typically these workers are economic refugees plagued by the corrupt and chaotic economic regimes and attendant policies of Mexico or other countries in Latin America. The problems in these countries are not America's fault. Arguably, many of these workers would likely challenge their own governments if they didn't have America as a viable outlet. Nevertheless, it is in our economic interest to allow them to enter our labor force if not but to help maintain our own economic vitality.

To be sure, the presence of these workers has the effect of deflating salaries among unskilled or low-skilled laborers, but this consequence is offset by the benefit of increasing the standard of living for Americans which occurs because the lower priced goods and services they provide are made more readily available than they would be otherwise. Unless this process is only good when Wal-Mart does it, it should be recognized as an integral part of international competition.

And such facts are borne out in the numbers. According to the President's Council of Economic Advisers 2002 Economic Report, immigrants effectively raise the income of Americans by upwards of $12 billion a year. A rational temporary worker program would allow us to match foreign workers with American employers for wages that no American is willing to take, but does not require that we throw in citizenship as part of the deal.

Unfortunately the 1986 act had the unintended effect of turning seasonal illegals into long-term permanent lawbreakers by increasing the risks of crossing back and forth. Alternatively, a temporary legal status would alleviate much of the pressure for illegals to seek permanent status since they would be free to come and go across the border at will. Under the rules today they have the opposite incentive. Why, because the barriers to frequent entry are so high that once they come in (legally or otherwise) they have every incentive to make a permanent residence of America including resorting to having "anchor babies" (children born by illegal aliens in the U.S. that automatically become citizens). And by reducing the flow of illegal aliens, we can apply border enforcement resources more efficiently against those who present a threat to the country.

Ultimately, since the primary motivation for these workers is not citizenship, there should be no easy footpath to citizenship built into the program. Working in America is an economic opportunity of a lifetime -- in other words, getting the work permit is its own reward. With a temporary worker program, economic migrants would be given a chance to obtain wealth and related economic sustenance they can't get in their home country. Therefore, there is no need to offer citizenship as an added inducement.

Putting the Heat on Illegals

Once operational, those individuals here in America illegally will face a choice. Go to their home country and apply for the program or watch as others do exactly that while they miss out on the benefits of legal status. Employers will quickly demonstrate that they far more prefer a steady and reliable supply of legal unskilled workers (who have all passed background checks) to the outlaw labor force they rely on today. Ironically, it will be the illegal aliens who will feel the heat of competition most, because when the program is up and running and operating on a first-come-first-served basis, those that join in first will see the benefits sooner. (And by charging a fee for this, a temporary worker program could likely be used as a revenue source to pay for itself as well as provide additional border enforcement resources.)

Ideally rather than a fixed limit, the program would have a fluctuating fee level which would rise and fall depending on demand. Starting at around $1500 (the going rate for smugglers) and rising to say $10000 per applicant, potential workers and their employers could decide for themselves what the ultimate level should be. On the other hand with a floor of $8 billion and a ceiling of nearly $55 billion in revenue even if only half of the undocumented workers joined the program, the American taxpayer would easily come out ahead.

Additionally the plan should have two features. First like worker's comp programs all across the nation, it would require potential employers to be responsible for the social services used by these workers. Employers could provide health insurance if they chose. If not, whenever the temporary workers are provided assistance, hospitals and other government service providers would be allowed to seek reimbursement from the employers instead of sending the bill to the American taxpayer. A second feature would be that participants in the program would agree that their participation in the program in no way may be used to advance or assist them in seeking citizenship status.

And the program would have other benefits as well such as being attractive to fathers and older sons and single women who generally prefer to work seasonally or annually and then return to their home country. In a return to the practice prior to the act of 1986, participants in the new program would have little incentive to uproot their entire family or to have "anchor babies" in order to protect their ability to maintain their presence in the U.S.

Border Security

On the other hand, for those individuals uninterested in employment opportunity, the U.S. should signal a reinvigorated commitment to controlling border security and American citizenship. The U.S. has every right to restrict who it will invite to become an American and to set the terms. Indeed, any policy that rewards those who enter the country illegally is a poor one.

In fact, knowing who is crossing our borders has taken on a greater urgency -- particularly after 9/11. The U.S. should commit itself to a policy of returning every illegal alien caught crossing the border without exception (and rules like this could help provide incentives to other countries to help). New approaches such as interior repatriation for Mexican nationals (which transports illegals to interior portions of Mexico instead of simply escorting them back across the border) should be employed, and greater use of electronic surveillance at border sites should be undertaken.

The completely unworkable policy of "catch and release" should be ended within the next 15 months. Under this practice, if non-Mexican illegal aliens are apprehended they are released and told to return later for an immigration status hearing. As you might imagine, 75 percent of these persons simply fail to ever show up for their day in court. Also, the US should commit the resources to allow expedited hearings and new detention facilities so that once illegal aliens are caught by border patrol, they aren't allowed a chance to escape deportation, and instead are forced to actually appear in court. As illegal border crossings of economic migrants are reduced, interdiction of other drug smugglers and related criminals will be much easier to accomplish.

Ultimately, by separating immigrant citizenship policy from a temporary unskilled labor program, America will be living up to its own ideals -- keeping our borders open to legal travel and honest trade while securing them from exploitation by criminals, terrorists and drug traffickers. And by ensuring that citizenship is granted solely to those who understand and value the benefits of being an American, we'll protect our culture and the American way of life.

Horace Cooper is an assistant professor of law at George Mason University.

Ellie

[thedrifter]

A Day Without Gringos
Ethel C. Fenig 5 02 06

Right across our southern border, Mexicans joined in the spirit of the May Day and its American march for illegal immigrant “rights.” And, dear reader, before you get too excited that Mexicans feel that US citizens who move there from bringing wealth and jobs should have rights and protection under Mexican law know that the march was racially labeled A Day Without Gringos and supported the rights of Mexicans to pour unhindered into the US. Bravely matching deeds to words, a few even suffered extreme hardship by boycotting Mexico’s and South America’s Wal Marts and McDonalds.

A day-long protest dubbed “A Day Without Gringos” drew thousands of Mexicans into the streets on Monday and kept many away from U.S.-owned supermarkets and fast-food restaurants to support rallies in the United States demanding immigration reform.

Some Mexicans said staying away from U.S. businesses was tough, and customers streamed into some branches of Wal-Mart, McDonald’s and Burger King in Mexico City.

Wal-Mart shopper Juan Ortiz, a 28-year-old salesman, said he supported legalizing migrants, but didn’t think it was practical to boycott U.S. goods. “You have to buy what is least expensive here, and I have to buy things for my family,” he said.

In the border city of Tijuana, across from San Diego, Calif., about 400 boycott supporters blocked half the access lanes to an international bridge to discourage Mexicans from crossing into the United States to shop.

However the boycott was a total failure, as not one south of the border citizen rejected the almighty US gringo $ either from illegal aliens’ workers’ remittances or US aid or even from salaries of US owned factories and businesses. Ah what a shame!

Ellie

[thedrifter]

May Day: Brazen Act of Extortion for Amnesty
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted May 02, 2006

It was billed as "A Day Without Immigrants."

According to its propagandists, official and media, the purpose of the May Day walkout from schools and jobs and boycott of shops and stores was to show how much immigrants contribute and how they deserve appreciation and respect, and not to be treated like criminals.

But if this was all it was about, there would have been no need to go on strike. Americans have always welcomed immigrants. They are better treated here than anywhere on earth. While most Americans believe we now need a timeout to assimilate the 36 million here and their children -- like the moratorium we had in the Roosevelt-Truman-Eisenhower-Kennedy years -- no one urges any denial of rights to legal immigrants.

What, then, was May Day really all about?

May Day was a strike against America. It was a show of force, a demonstration of raw street power to force the government of the United States into granting to 12 million illegal aliens, who have broken our laws and broken into our country, not only the full benefits of U.S. citizenship, but full citizenship.

It was brazen act of extortion to coerce Congress to grant amnesty now, and not to enforce our immigration laws or secure the Mexican border -- or to be ready for big trouble in the streets.

Congress cannot capitulate. The response of any Congress that calls itself American to such extortion should be a direct one:

"We are not intimidated. There is going to be no amnesty. The border fence goes up this summer. Those are our non-negotiable answers to your non-negotiable demands. Demonstrate all you want. We're not capitulating."

The message that would go out to the world would be electric: Congress will have said, first, that the United States will not be cowed by strikes or boycotts by law-breakers. Second, America intends to re-establish control of her border. Third, the invasion route from Mexico is going to be closed, forever.

Fourth, those who come to America henceforth will be those we invite in. And, as guests, they will behave as guests -- or they will be going back home. As for businesses that cannot get along without illegal foreign labor, if some of their CEOs are prosecuted and put to work in Arizona building that security fence, they will rapidly rediscover how to make a buck without colluding in an invasion of their country for commercial purposes.

We are at a turning point in American history. In July of 1954, President Eisenhower, discovering that illegal aliens were pouring into the Southern United States at a rate of a million a year, put in motion Operation Wetback, which halted the invasion and sent back scores of thousands of illegals to Mexico. Many more returned voluntarily.

Thirty years later, Ronald Reagan declared an amnesty for 3 million illegal aliens, conditioned on sanctions on U.S. businesses that did not cease to hire them. Following that amnesty, the flood began. Now we have 12 million illegals here.

Between 2000 and 2005, 4.5 million were caught at the border. Four million are believed to have gotten in. No one knows exactly how many. Even Bush concedes that, among the illegals, one in 12 has a criminal record. If we have 12 million illegals here now, that means the U.S. government, in dereliction of its duty, has let into this nation in the last 20 years 1 million criminals -- like Beltway sniper John Lee Malvo -- to prey on American citizens.

While almost half of all Mexicans, in a national poll, indicated a desire to move to the United States, the rest of the Third World has gotten the message. One in every 10 citizens of Central America and the Caribbean countries has already arrived. During the War on Terror, the number of those coming into the United States illegally from countries "other than Mexico" (OTM) has tripled.

These OTMs are coming from as far away as China and Iraq.

Fifteen years ago, when this writer ran in the California GOP primary against the first President Bush, calling for a border fence along the crucial 70 miles where illegals were massing and coming in by the thousands every day, there were 3 million to 4 million illegals here.

Nothing was done. There are now 12 million. If these 12 million are amnestied and the border fence is not built along all 2,000 miles, the next amnesty will be for 20 million or 30 million.

During the "Generals' Revolt," when half a dozen senior officers called for the firing of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, President Bush saw a challenge to his authority and had to throw it back. If Congress does not throw back this challenge, if Congress now capitulates to this extortion, America should start shopping for a new Congress in November -- an American Congress.

Ellie