Why A 'Comprehensive' Bill Really Isn't Important

The White House is pushing hard for a 'comprehensive' immigration reform bill right now, trying to revive what the Senate rightly killed last week. They've sent out messenger after messenger saying that a 'comprehensive' bill MUST be passed RIGHT NOW.

Really? Why is that, exactly?

Clearly, the current system is not working, but that's not because of the system itself. The problem is that our political leaders lack the will to enforce the laws that are already in place. As Thomas Sowell says in a column yesterday on RealClearPolitics.com, "Both political parties know what is going on and both parties choose to see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil. Neither wants to risk losing the Hispanic vote, though it is doubtful whether all Hispanics are in favor of open borders. The net result has been empty promises about controlling the border, paired with various schemes to legalize the illegal immigrants, and washed down with fraudulent statements that insult our intelligence." He goes on to point out three particular frauds:

1. illegals are 'needed' to fill jobs Americans won't do
2. we cannot 'in good conscience' prevent illegals from reuniting with their families
3. we must have 'comprehensive' immigration reform

He addresses these frauds this way:

1. There is no job Americans won't take if the pay is good enough, but there is no reason to increase the pay if illegals are available at low cost.
2. Why is it that the only place in the world illegals can reunite with their families is in the US? Why can't they reunite in their own country?
3. There is no logical reason that securing our borders and dealing with illegals already here must be dealt with simultaneously, only political reasons. [emphasis mine]

As Sowell says, "Passing border laws described as 'tough' gives Congress political cover when they legalize the illegals. It allows Congress to be on both sides of the issue, which is where most politicians want to be on most issues."

The problem, again, is the lack of enforcement. Case in point: last year, the Senate promised us a border fence. Where is it now? It doesn't exist in any meaningful form (it's just two miles long), as I mentioned in a previous blog.

President Bush met with Senate Republicans yesterday and said that 'doing nothing was unacceptable'. As the editors of National Review Online point out, that's odd because he has done nothing on immigration reform for the past six years. I would also add that it's apparently been perfectly acceptable for our leadership to do nothing for the past 20 years! The result is, as Sen. Jim DeMint says, that "[T]here is no excuse for anyone to believe that what’s in this bill is going to happen, except for the amnesty." I think that's very true, especially with the recent awareness raised by this shamnesty bill. Anyway, the editors go on to say that Senators on both sides of the aisle report that their constituents doubt the federal government's willingness to enforce immigration laws, and that a sustained commitment to enforcement is required before the American people will accept any talk of sweeping reform. Many Senators would support an emergency spending bill to beef up border security immediately, but the NRO editors point out that new spending "must be matched with a demonstrable political will to see our immigration laws enforced, or else Congress would have merely enacted a far more expensive version of the failed 1986 immigration reform."

There's no need for a sweeping 'comprehensive' reform. Just start with enforcement. When the American people are convinced that the government is holding up its end of the bargain, they'll support immigration reform easily and in large numbers.

There's my two cents.

Dirty Secrets of the Shamnesty Bill

Some very interesting information came out today, posted by Michelle Malkin on her blog. Apparently, a number of the Senators opposing the bill sent a message to President Bush stating three main reasons for their opposition:

1. the bill is full of loopholes, and problems that deserved amendments and debate were denied by Reid and the Democrats in charge
2. the deal-makers showed blatant disregard for the legal process by drafting the bill behind closed doors, skipping the committee process, and jamming the bill through the Senate without proper debate
3. the American people rightly refuse to buy what the deal-makers are selling - rewarding law-breaking illegal aliens with legal status in exchange for another empty promise

The memo goes on to list a number of amendments that were rejected, ignored, or undermined, including:
- requiring full background checks for Z-visa recipients
- prohibiting felons or drunk drivers from obtaining Z-visas
- amendments to insure illegals don't swamp our legal system with abusive legislation
- illegal Z-visa applicants can't get in front of legal applicants in the process
- illegals denied a Z-visa can't hide from the enforcement of immigration laws

The memo also details a series of procedural red flags committed by the White House and Senate deal-makers in moving this legislation forward, including:
- the bill was crafted in secret by self-appointed Senators
- all negotiations by Republicans had to go through Ted Kennedy, who has a decades-long history of failing on immigration
- the final text of the bill wasn't made available to the full Senate until the day after the "debate" had already begun
- the final bill had been drafted by the White House (the normal process is that it should be drafted by the Senate)
- depending on the form used, the bill was either 300 or over 700 pages long - either way, it was a huge bill
- this bill is very complex, and still not largely understood by many
- Reid and the deal-makers demanded that amendments be filed immediately on this huge bill that wasn't fully understood
- Reid, Kennedy, and the deal-makers cherry-picked the amendments they wanted to come up to "minimize those that might disrupt the deal"
- Reid and Kennedy blocked all attempts to get amendments debated except for those they selected
- the Republican opposition filed over 200 amendments, but Democrats prevented all but 13 from coming to a vote
- Reid and Kennedy blocked Republican attempts to get more amendments a total of 12 times throughout the process
- only 6 days of debate were allowed on this huge and complex bill
- the normal legislative process is to have the text publicly available for weeks or months, then go through committee hearings, then see substantial debate on the Senate floor - this bill did none of those
- Democrats and some deal-makers are making accusations of "bad faith" inaccurately

This bill is shady, both in substance and in process. It needs to die permanently! It sounds like a core of Senators are fighting it even now, but the American public needs to keep up the pressure.

There's my two cents.

The Shamnesty Bill, Round 2...

Okay, you were warned - the shamnesty bill is being brought up again now that President Bush is back in the country, and he's planning to address the Senate in person soon to attempt to breathe new life into it. Some Democrats are already out there saying that the only negative feedback they're receiving is from a bunch of wingnut racists (I mentioned that unfair racism accusation in my first illegal immigration blog). Don't buy it - it has nothing to do with racism, and everything to do with upholding American laws and taking care of American citizens before illegal aliens!

If you're someone who is against this shamnesty bill, be prepared to start seeing headlines calling you a racist or an idiot. But, take comfort in the fact that there are a whole lot of other 'racists' and 'idiots' out there - you're actually part of the vast majority of Americans. According to a Rasmussen poll last week, only 23% of Americans supported the shamnesty bill, and it "failed because a broad cross-section of the American people are opposed to it. Republicans, Democrats, and unaffiliated voters are opposed. Men are opposed. So are women. The young don’t like it; neither do the no-longer-young. White Americans are opposed. Americans of color are opposed." That's some pretty good company, don't you think? So why is this coming up again? Bush wants it, and so do many liberals in Congress. Bush wants to leave a legacy, the Democrat leadership wants to buy more votes, and the Republican leadership is afraid that no Hispanic will ever vote Republican again. Sadly, all three are bad reasons for doing this legislation.

Incidentally, this is a perfect example of the difference between conservative and liberal values described in my last blog. Even though a majority of the American people have spoken, liberals in Congress still think you're too stupid to know what you really want or to know what's best for America. One of the theories I've heard is that they're using the 'racist' label to allow themselves to ignore your opposition because you're just a bunch of wingnut racists, and they don't want to let wingnut racists dictate US policy (which would be a valid point, if they weren't implying that 77% of America were wingnut racists). So, they're going to try to ram the shamnesty bill through DESPITE what the American people say about it because they believe they are better and more intelligent than you are. It's ridiculous and absolutely unacceptable that some of our representatives -- let me emphasize: REPRESENTATIVES -- are failing to represent us.

If this issue is important to you, do two things: first, remember who supports this bill and who opposes it. I've posted voting results of the Senators from Missouri and Kansas in previous blogs, and I'll continue to do that as more votes occur, but also keep in mind the names of the major players on both sides of the issue. Second, continue to let your voice be heard. Call your Senators to let them know your opinion and to ask them how they plan to vote. In addition to contacting your Senators, call the White House. Amazingly, they seem to be even more clueless than the Senate about what Americans think on this issue, as evidenced by an article in The Washington Times describing how Bush was surprised by conservative outrage on the shamnesty bill. Clearly, they need to get back in touch with the American people, so let 'em hear from you!

Speaking of contacting the Senate, here's another number you can use: 800-417-7666. This was actually set up for supporters of the shamnesty bill last week to give them a fast (and toll-free) track into their Senators' offices, but anyone can use it. Just be aware that you'll have to listen to some supporters' propaganda before you get connected, but it's otherwise a perfectly serviceable method of contacting them. :)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - something needs to be done about illegal immigration. But, amnesty is NOT the answer. It hasn't helped any of the previous times we've tried it, and it won't help this time, either.

There's my two cents.

What is Conservatism?

This was actually going to be my first blog, but the shamnesty bill reared its ugly head and trumped the initial plan. But, now that that debacle has passed for the time being, we can get back to this topic. So, what is conservatism?

A 'conservative' is not the same as a 'Republican', just as a 'liberal' is not the same as a 'Democrat', although there is enough overlap that a substantial stereotype exists. There are plenty of examples of people who cross over the line. President Bush is a perfect example - he is the leader of the Republican party and tough on terrorism, but he is also quite liberal on government spending and illegal immigration. Similarly, a number of Democrats were elected in 2006 that were quite conservative in many areas. Rudy Guliani is a liberal on social issues (i.e. pro-abortion) but conservative on national security (i.e. war on terror). So where is that elusive dividing line?

Rush Limbaugh -- love him or hate him -- is one of the biggest names in conservatism today. He almost single-handedly established what is now called the 'new media', which includes talk radio, Fox, and various other alternative forms of media like the blogosphere. He is widely considered an expert in conservatism; in fact, when the Republican party (led by conservatives like Newt Gingrich) swept into Congressional leadership in 1994 via the 'Contract With America', they asked Rush to come and speak to the freshman class of lawmakers on the subject.

So, it is with great confidence that I'm going to paraphrase one of Rush's recent monologues (from March 21st, 2007) regarding the main differences between the conservative and liberal mindset.

He first establishes that these are just generalizations, and that some givens are valid for all people: we all want economic prosperity, opportunity, and the chance at the American dream; we want to be left alone, not hassled by the government in the pursuit of that dream. The real question is how to provide that.

Rush suggests that liberals do not believe that a majority of people have the ability to realize the American dream on their own, and that they have a general contempt for 'average' Americans and 'average' human beings. The essence of liberalism is assuming that people are helpless and hopeless. That way, government can step in and provide 'assistance' to incompetent people, which actually creates a self-fulfilling prophecy - by disarming the competitive nature and entrepreneurial spirit, liberalism also disarms the American dream itself by drawing focus to the government and the benefits it provides rather than the individual. Conservatives, on the other hand, have faith in the individual and believe that rugged individualism is what defines excellence, and that its pursuit is what made America the greatest country on the planet. Conservatism believes that people can better themselves, and strives to educate, inspire, and motivate people to do just that. Conservatives want a great country full of people who can raise families and support them, and to inspire them because that's how they are. Conservatives are fundamentally optimistic but still realistic, believing they can triumph over the inevitable obstacles of life. Liberals think those obstacles are insurmountable for the individual, and thus need the government to help them get by.

So, Limbaugh asks, why are some people not conservative and some are? His answer is that you could look at specific issues like abortion or gay marriage (which, again, are stereotypical enough to give you a good idea of where someone stands), or any other big issue. But, in a general sense, he maintains that anyone who is in favor of the growth of government and the idea that people need an infinite amount of help because they can't do things on their own is not a conservative. This is true for both Democrats and Republicans.

The problem, Limbaugh, says, is that liberals -- in pursuit of their agenda -- use government to train their youth from grade school on up through college. They get youth into nonprofit organizations and Ivy league schools for the express purpose of going into government and continuing the perpetual bureaucracy until they can take over. Conservatives, however, look at government as something that should be invisible most of the time, and the basic philosophy targets individuals (i.e. small businesses, normal Americans) and seeks to empower them instead. Conservatives want limited government, and Limbaugh points out that using government to limit government is a difficult challenge for conservatives.

I would also add that a key difference is that of double standards. Conservatism tends to hold everyone to a single set of rules, while liberalism seems content to have one set of rules for the people making the rules, and another set of rules for everyone else. We'll get into more of this in the future.

As I said in one of my first blogs - a conservative would strive to teach a man how to fish so the man could then sustain himself; a liberal would rather give the man a fish so the man keeps coming back to him for help. It's a very different mindset, and one that is at play in essentially everything in the world of politics. As we continue to look at other issues, my goal is to illustrate the contrasts through simple examples in daily life.

For now, hopefully that gives you at least a starting point for understanding the fundamental differences.

There's my two cents.

How Would This Change Daily Life?!

You've got to check this out! It's a story about some MIT scientists who have found a way to send electricity to devices without using a cord. That's right, wireless power! How cool would that be? Just think how that would change daily life - no more power cords getting tangled behind the home theater or computer, no more heavy extension cords for Christmas lights, the end of arranging furniture in rooms based on where the wall outlets are...

Pretty sweet!

There's my two cents.

PS. - this blog falls under the heading of "fun and frivolity". I'll be back with another political thriller in a day or two. ;)

Illegal Immigration 13: Victory!!! (at least for now)

The shamnesty bill has been shelved, at least for the time being. YES!!!

The theories explaining exactly why it failed are as numerous as the people writing them. I think the simplest answer is the best: too many Americans opposed it. A new Rasmussen poll illustrates the wide cross-section of people that didn't like it - basically, everyone. The only real mystery is how a large chunk of the Senate (Republicans and Democrats alike), as well as the White House, completely missed that fact.

Regardless, maybe someone will put forth a more reasonable immigration bill; very few people would oppose something that actually addressed the problem in a reasonable and just way. Hopefully someone will do that soon, but we'll just have to wait and see. Anyway, kudos to all those who made their voices known - see, it works! And, of course, kudos to those Senators who opposed this shamnesty bill - thank you for representing us well!

Now I'm going to have to find another topic to blog about. :)

There's my two cents.

Illegal Immigration 12: Thursday Night Wrap-up

After three separate cloture votes today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Dem, NV) finally gave up. The last (and closest) vote was defeated 45-50. Here's how our Senators voted:

- Bond: Nay (good!)
- McCaskill: Nay (good!)
- Roberts: Nay (good!)
- Brownback: didn't vote (what's up with that?!)

As Arlen Specter said from the floor, "the bill is on life support, but not dead." We'll see what happens tomorrow, but it's nice to see democracy in action, and to see that public outcry can still sway those folks in their ivory tower. Regardless, don't let up the pressure until it's truly a done deal.

Where does that leave us now?
So, it looks like McCaskill held to her published stance of being against amnesty, though I had my doubts yesterday. I had a rather heated discussion with one of her staffers today about the Cornyn amendment (permanently barring felons); she maintained that McCaskill was against it basically because of who would have been administering the judgments, not because of the provisions in the amendment itself. To me, it seems stupid to vote against such an important amendment because of procedural issues, but I'm not a Senator, so what do I know...

Overall thoughts:
Brownback? Not impressive at all. He may be a conservative on most issues, but he's as liberal as it gets on amnesty and immigration. He appears quite willing to give the country away. Watch out for him, Kansans...

If the shamnesty bill does die, Democrats appear to be content with their plan B - pasting Bush's name all over it to position themselves better for the 2008 Presidential race. You'll probably see quote after quote Friday in the news about how "Bush's plan is going down" or something to that effect. While that strikes me as being obnoxiously political and opportunistic, it's also completely accurate. Bush has wanted to address illegal immigration for a long time, but the Republican-held Congress prevented any realistic chance of success. With the Democrats in control of both houses, this was likely his best chance to get it done. Just remember, though, who was marching in lockstep with Bush on this bill - Kennedy, Reid, McCain, Biden, and Brownback, among (many) others.

I think it's safe to say Brownback's slim hopes of a Presidential bid are all but gone. He probably could have carried a lot of the conservative vote, but this issue has placed him squarely out of favor with his own base. McCain, too, has suffered already, dropping in just about every poll out there. Kudos to McCaskill for standing up to her own party's leadership and making most of the right choices on this bill. She and a handful of other good Democrats are making a world of difference when it comes to voting time.

The good news, from the conservative perspective, is that we've seen a handful of stand-out conservatives who are willing to fight tooth and nail for the integrity of the law and their constituencies - Sessions, DeMint, and Coburn being among the front-runners.

Who knows what will happen tomorrow, but I think good progress was made today. Let's put the final nail in the coffin of this atrocious shamnesty bill tomorrow!

There's my two cents.

Illegal Immigration 11: Loophole After Loophole

Senator Jeff Sessions (Rep, AL) posted a list of 20 loopholes in the current shamnesty bill on his website. This was posted on Monday, so some of these may have been amended in the past two days of debate (I haven't had time to check which, if any), and some of them have been addressed in previous blogs, but I thought it was worth a look anyway.

Here's a summary:
Loophole 1 – Legal Status Before Enforcement: Amnesty benefits don't wait for the so-called enforcement "triggers" before kicking in.

Loophole 2 – U.S. VISIT Exit Not In Trigger: The biometric system (VISIT) voted into being in 1996 has gone well past the already-postponed 2005 implementation date. Without this tracking system, there is no method to track who comes and goes.

Loophole 3 – Trigger Requires No More Agents, Beds, or Fencing Than Current Law: The enforcement trigger does not provide for any additional capacity over what's already in the law.

Loophole 4 -- Three Additional Years Worth of Illegal Aliens Granted Status, Treated Preferentially To Legal Filers: Illegal aliens who came here just 5 months ago are given preferential treatment over foreign nationals who legally applied more than two years ago.

Loophole 5 – Completion of Background Checks Not Required For Probationary Legal Status: This one is self-explanatory.

Loophole 6 – Some Child Molesters Are Still Eligible: This shamnesty bill would prevent illegals who commit child molestation crimes in the future from becoming legal, but allows those who have committed such crimes in the past.

Loophole 7 – Terrorism Connections Allowed, Good Moral Character Not Required: This one needs no interpretation.

Loophole 8 – Gang Members Are Eligible: ...as long as they promise they won't be in a gang anymore...

Loophole 9 – Absconders Are Eligible: Illegals who have already been ordered out of the country can get amnesty. This provision alone would affect more than 600,000 people.

Loophole 10 – Learning English Not Required For A Decade: No hablo Ingles...

Loophole 11 – Earned Income Tax Credit Will Cost Taxpayers Billions In Just 10 Years: $20 billion. Enough said. UPDATE: Sessions offered an amendment to remove this provision, and it was passed.

Loophole 12 – Affidavits From Friends Accepted As Evidence: "I'm Larry, this is my brother Darrell, and this is my other brother Darrell..." Oh, okay, come on in, you're now legal!

Loophole 13 – Taxpayer Funded Legal Counsel and Arbitration: You, the taxpayer, will pay LOTS of money for illegals' lawyers.

Loophole 14 – In-State Tuition and Student Loans: This would give illegal aliens in-state tuition, a better position than legal aliens and out-of-state US citizens.

Loophole 15 – Inadequacy of the Merit System: This is basically a point system that gives priority to highly-skilled and educated applicants. But, it doesn't really kick in until 2016.

Loophole 16 – Visas For Individuals That Plan To Overstay: This provision would allow spouses and children of new temporary workers who intend to abandon their residence country to stay indefinitely by paying a small fine after 30 days.

Loophole 17 – Chain Migration Tripled Before Being Eliminated: Chain migration will be eliminated, but not for 8 years.

Loophole 18 – Back Taxes Not Required: Due to tricky verbage, this one is simply misleading.

Loophole 19 – Social Security Credits Allowed For Some Illegal Work Histories: Aliens who overstayed their legal visas, as well as illegals who didn't qualify for a Z-visa, would still be eligible to draw Social Security benefits for the years they worked here illegally.

Loophole 20 – Criminal Fines Not Proportional To Conduct: I have to just copy this one: "The criminal fines an illegal alien is required to pay to receive amnesty are less than the bill’s criminal fines for paperwork violations committed by U.S. citizens, and can be paid by installment. Under the bill, an illegal alien must pay a $1,000 criminal fine to apply for a Z visa, and a $4,000 fine to apply for a green card. Eighty percent of those fines can be paid on an installment plan. Under the bill’s confidentiality provisions, someone who improperly handles or uses information on an alien’s amnesty application can be fined $10,000. Administration officials suggest that the bill’s “criminal fines are proportionate to the criminal conduct.” Why, then, is the fine for illegally entering, using false documents to work, and live one-tenth the fine for a paperwork violation committed by a government official?"

There are just too many problems with this bill, and it simply cannot be allowed to pass!

There's my two cents.

Senate votes

By the way, you can check out these Senate votes by clicking here.

Illegal Immigration 10: Enforce existing law? Heck, no!

As with the Cornyn amendment yesterday, the Senate has rejected an amendment that makes perfect sense and is clearly in our country's best interest. This one, put forward by Senator Jim DeMint (Rep, SC) and Senator Tom Coburn (Rep, OK), would have guaranteed that existing immigration laws (things like ensuring the entire fence would be built, all databases with illegal alien information would be current and operational, a system would be in place to track every alien leaving and returning, and the elimination of 'sanctuary' cities, among other things) would be enforced before any amnesty is granted.

Shockingly, a majority of the Senate thought that was a bad idea.

Here's how our Senators voted:
- Bond: in favor (good!)
- McCaskill: in favor (good!)
- Roberts: in favor (good!)
- Brownback: against (bad!)

Some good news: an amendment put forward by Byron Dorgan (Dem, ND) that would sunset the temporary worker program after five years passed. This is good news because potential supporters of this bill may decide it's not worth taking the heat for this shamnesty bill if one of the main pieces ends so soon.

Another update: The first cloture vote failed 33-63. Reid said he'd bring it up again later today.

Keep up the pressure - the shamnesty bill is struggling, but it's far from over yet!

There's my two cents.

Illegal Immigration 9: Thursday's events

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Dem, NV) is likely to invoke cloture on the shamnesty bill today, which means he'll force a vote on it in its current form.

This is a bit of a strange move, given that there are still many amendments that have yet to be debated (including one about the right of illegal aliens to vote), and that there is no guarantee that he'll get the 60 votes needed to make it happen. If he gets 60 votes on the cloture motion, the Senate will drop everything and vote on the shamnesty bill in its current form. If he doesn't get the 60 votes for cloture, it is likely he'll shelve the shamnesty bill for the time being, which will essentially kill it.

Either way, it's probably going to be a squeaker.

If it does pass in the Senate, the shamnesty bill will then go to the House of Representatives, where the debate and amendment process will be similar to what happened in the Senate. If it passes in the House, then a committee will have to reconcile the differences between the Senate and House versions, and then it would go to the President's desk.

In my humble opinion, I think he's doing this because the longer this shamnesty bill stays in the public light, the more people become outraged about it, and the heat is being cranked up on Senators across the nation to kill this bill. There's still a pretty good chance of getting it slipped through at this point, but the longer he waits, the more his support for this shamnesty bill erodes. We'll see what happens today, but if you want to make your opinions known, you'd better call your Senators today!

There's my two cents.

Illegal Immigration 8: Gang members caught in LA

Just saw this article on Newsmax's website, and it applies directly to the Cornyn amendment that was just defeated - 124 Mexican and Central American gang members were arrested or indicted in LA on drugs, weapons, and immigration charges.

If this shamnesty bill goes through, these guys are going to be given instant legal status and free legal assistance...and, I would guess they'll get a total pass based on the new legislation, and be set free.

This is a perfect example of what is wrong with this shamnesty bill!

There's my two cents.

Illegal Immigration 7 : Shamnesty Update

I forgot to mention in my last post that Senators Roberts and Brownback, both Republicans from Kansas, voted with Senator Bond in favor of the Cornyn amendment (which was defeated), and opposed to the Kennedy amendment (which was passed). Senator McCaskill, the only Democrat between the two states, voted opposite on both amendments.

Illegal Immigration 6: More Details and Updates

The Senate was actively debating and amending the amnesty bill today. Michelle Malkin is a prominent political analyst that has been doing some running commentary as things happen. Go check out her blog at http://michellemalkin.com/index.htm. It's very interesting to see the actual statements being made about huge issues included in this bill. Take special note of how many (and what types of) criminals would be allowed to get a Z-visa if the bill goes through without being amended. Malkin refers to this bill as the "shamnesty" bill. I like that, so I'm going to borrow the term. :)

Some items of note in the last couple days include...
- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Dem, NV) referred to current illegal aliens as "undocumented Americans" WHAT?!
- An amendment from Sen. Cornyn (Rep, TX), which would ban felons ("gang members, terrorists, and other criminals") from obtaining a Z-visa, failed. Bond (Rep) voted in favor of this amendment, but McCaskill (Dem) voted against it.
- A watered-down amendment from Sen. Kennedy (Dem, MA), which would allow significant loopholes for many types of criminals to obtain a Z-visa, passed. Bond voted against this amendment, but McCaskill voted in favor of it.

I also wanted to underscore a couple of very important points again. Most reasonable people, I think, would be in favor of allowing a potential path to citizenship for illegal aliens if they paid a fine (and back taxes) and returned to their country of origin to apply for a Z-visa. This is what you keep hearing about in the media, but this is not the reality of the current shamnesty bill. These conditions are only in effect if the illegal alien wants citizenship. According to this shamnesty bill, citizenship is NOT a requirement, just an OPTION. The truth is that this shamnesty bill will grant legal status to illegal aliens already here. Once they get that, why get citizenship? There's no incentive, and in fact, the fines and return trip home are a huge disincentive!

So, let me sum up what this 700-page shamnesty bill will NOT do:
- require illegals to pay fines
- require payments of back taxes
- require a return trip to the country of origin
- require any kind of assimilation or education about American history, or English proficiency
- require citizenship

Here's what this bill WILL do:
- grant amnesty to at least 40-50 million people
- give illegal aliens free legal representation
- give illegal aliens tuition assistance
- convert immigration enforcement agencies into Z-visa distribution networks
- increase the illegal-alien-drag on American taxpayers from $10 billion each year to almost $30 billion

Some Numbers You Should Know:
3-to-1:
The public outcry coming from the clear majority of the American public is resounding, as a USA Today poll yesterday shows - Americans oppose this shamnesty bill 3 to 1!

$2.6 Trillion:
This is how much YOU, the American taxpayer, will pay (at least!) if this bill goes through.

26/50/49:
Only 26% of people polled in a Rasmussen poll today are in favor of the shamnesty bill, and 50% are fully opposed. 49% say they'd rather change nothing than see this shamnesty bill go through.

51:
The idiots in the Senate are threatening the security and economy of the United States, as well as ignoring the obvious overwhelming opposition coming from their own constituents. If nothing else illustrates this staggering departure from duty and common sense, look at the amendment from Cornyn - its purpose was "[T]o establish a permanent bar for gang members, terrorists, and other criminals". It would have barred the following people from obtaining Z-visas and legal status: (1) absconders (i.e., aliens already ordered deported); (2) aliens deemed inadmissible or deportable as security risks (e.g., terrorists); (3) aliens who fail to register as sex offenders; (4) aliens convicted of certain firearms offenses; (5) aliens convicted of domestic violence, stalking, crimes against children, or violation of protection orders; (6) alien gang members; and (7) aliens convicted of at least three DUIs. 51 Senators voted against that, including McCaskill! Explain to me how a "nay" vote can be justified on that amendment! I think I'm going to have to call McCaskill and ask her...

The only thing we can do is turn up the heat even more - call them, e-mail them, write them, fax them, and do it all over again!

There's my two cents.

Illegal Immigration 5: How MO's Senators are Doing

In my last post, I gave a couple links at the bottom for a website called NumbersUSA. They post the upcoming amendments and changes being voted on by the Senate, as well as the results for amendments and changes that have already been voted on.

I checked Missouri's Senators (Bond and McCaskill), and both appear to be doing a fairly good job of representing the American people and fighting the worst parts of this bill. Of course, the overall results are so far not too encouraging, so they need to keep hearing from YOU!

You can also call the White House and leave your input there, too. After all, even if the bill gets through Congress, it still has to be signed into law by the President. If enough people fight this hard enough every step of the way, this bill could eventually be defeated.

There's my two cents.

Illegal Immigration 4: Rewarding Illegal Aliens: Senate Bill Undermines the Rule of Law

This blog is a summary of a great article by Kris W. Kobach (a professor of constitutional law at UMKC) and Matthew Spalding, published by The Heritage Foundation. They go into a lot more detail, and I would highly encourage you to check out their full article, but here is a paraphrased version which highlights the 10 worst provisions of the current immigration bill (my comments are in italics).

1. A Massive Amnesty This bill grants amnesty to anyone who could qualify for a Z-visa, and there is no limit on the number of Z-visas available. The only qualifications for the Z-visa are a job and two documents that show the person in question was here before January 1, 2007. For just a few thousand dollars, anyone in the world can buy legal status in America. How many terrorists do you think have a few thousand dollars laying around?

2. The Permanent "Temporary" Visa Supporters of the bill don't tell you that these Z-visas can be renewed every four years until the visa holder dies. Also, illegals don't need to return to their home countries to apply for the Z-visa - they only need to return home if they want to get a green card and become a 'lawful permenent resident'. Temporary = permanent.

3. Hobbled Background Checks This bill would allow only 24 hours for criminal background checks for Z-visa applicants. If a specific reason for denial hasn't been found by the day after the application was submitted, a probationary Z-visa is granted. "During the 1986 amnesty, the United States granted legal status to Mahmoud “The Red” Abouhalima, who fraudulently sought and obtained the amnesty intended for seasonal agricultural workers (even though he was actually employed as a cab driver in New York City). But his real work was in the field of terrorism. He went on to become a ringleader in the 1993 terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center." See provision #1.

4. Amnesty for Absconders Any illegal alien who has been ordered by a judge to be deported -- but broke the law again by staying anyway -- will be granted a Z-visa. Tell me how that makes sense...

5. Reverse Justice If an illegal alien is in the process of being removed from the US, the proceedings must be closed and the illegal alien will be offered a Z-visa. Again, tell me how that makes sense...

6. Enforcement of Amnesty, Not Laws Any Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agent that arrests an illegal alien must provide them the opportunity to apply for a Z-visa. "This is the equivalent of turning the Drug Enforcement Agency into a needle-distribution network." What a great idea.

7. Amnesty for Gang Members Any gang member that is an illegal alien would receive amnesty simply by stating his gang affiliation and signing a "renunciation of gang affiliation." Yeah, that'll work.

8. Tuition Subsidies for Illegal Aliens This bill would grant in-state status to illegal aliens, which would provide more money and lower tuition rates for illegals than for both legal aliens and US out-of-state citizens. You've got to be kidding me!

9. Taxpayer-Funded Lawyers for Illegal Aliens This bill would force taxpayers to foot the bill for illegal aliens' lawyers. This provision alone would cost hundreds of millions of dollars every year. You think your taxes are high now...just wait until you pay for a few million lawyers!

10. Amnesty Before Enforcement Triggers Supporters of the bill say that amnesty would occur only after certain law enforcement goals are met. The truth is that the bill allows Z-visas to be immediately issued, and the government is actually prohibited from waiting more than 180 days to start issuing them. Say one thing, mean another - typical political-speak.

Do we need to do something about illegal immigration? Absolutely, yes. Is this bill the right answer? Absolutely not! If this bill goes through, we are talking about some monstrous changes in American economics, culture, law enforcement, and life in general. I honestly cannot understand why anyone in their right mind would be in favor of this bill -- especially after knowing what's in here -- unless it's for the reasons stated in my previous blog: pure politics.

So, how do you make your voice known? Call your Senators. Ask them what their stance is on this bill, and tell them you will not vote for anyone who approves of this bill. Call them more than once, just to drill your point home. As discussed in previous blogs, the politicians REALLY want this bill to go through. The ONLY way this bill will be killed is if Americans deluge, swamp, and overwhelm the phone lines, fax lines, mailboxes, and e-mail inboxes with outrage demanding to kill it.

If you want to see how your representatives have voted so far on the individual provisions, click here.

If you want to see what provisions are coming up for a vote soon, click here.

There's my two cents.

Illegal Immigration 3: The current bill

Pretty much everyone agrees that we need to do something about illegal immigration. So, is the current bill the right answer?

Not even close!

The Senate is in the process of debating and amending the current immigration reform bill, so some of this info may become outdated depending on changes that occur daily. Since I have no control over that, I'm going to address the bill in its original form. I'd like to point out that this bill will likely go to a full vote in just a few days, so if you want your voice to be heard, call your Senators TODAY!

If you've read my previous blogs, you know where I'm coming from on the issue of illegal immigration. Now let's look at the specific bill in question. There are so many things wrong with this bill that it's actually hard to find a place to start!

What are they hiding? The original bill was seven hundred pages long. Does anyone actually know everything that's in there?? For example, Senator McCain has been going around touting the requirement of paying back-taxes in order to become legal. The problem is that that provision wasn't actually in there. It is now, but what does that say about this bloated bill and anyone's ability to understand it? And, if it's this long and complicated, why is the Senate trying to rush the bill through the process?

Few Americans actually like this bill. Though it's rare, the anger about this issue is on both sides of the political aisle. The only people who really want it to happen are the politicians and elites. And it's showing, especially in the conservative-leaning Republican party, where their small donations are down 40% because of this one issue.

Who gets in? Current law gives preference to legal immigrants who are highly skilled, educated, and proficient in English. The new bill would abolish that idea and simply rely on family ties.

Not just 12-20 million! If this bill goes through, you'll see a massive influx of now-legal immigrants due to the provision of allowing family members (parents, spouses, and children) in with the legalized immigrant. So, instead of allowing 12-20 million new people, we'll actually be inviting more like 40-50 million, maybe more. Keep in mind that with the total population of the US around 300 million, this would increase our population by at least 17% with one signature of the President. Also keep in mind that the vast majority of these new immigrants would be low-skilled, little-educated people. In my previous blog I showed how much of a drag illegal aliens have been on our economy so far. But, if they all suddenly become legal, it gets far, far worse. Households headed by illegal aliens represent a drain of $10 billion per year by consuming more government services (i.e. at taxpayer expense) than they pay in taxes at the Federal level alone. If they all suddenly became legal, this figure would triple! And where does it stop? In the words of Mark Steyn in the Chicago Sun-Times: "By the way, when I said "came to America," if you're visiting Toronto for a weekend break from Yemen or Belarus, don't be deterred by the fact that Canada is not technically in America. Why not just head down to Buffalo and apply for the old Z-1, too? After all, it's not such a stretch to regard every single person on the planet as a Z-1-in-waiting. This being America, pretty soon -- a court decision here, a court decision there -- the presumption of every school district and hospital and welfare administrator will be that they're obliged to treat everyone who walks in through the door as if they were a Z-1." What's that going to do to your health care costs? And what about the massive cultural shift that will inevitably take place with immigrants who have zero desire to assimilate and actually become an American?

How long have they really been here? This bill stipulates that if anyone can provide two documents showing they were in the country before January 1st of 2007, they're qualified for a Z-visa, which essentially says they can legally stay as long as they want (this is not citizenship, just legal permission to stay here). But, how hard is it going to be to come up with a couple sheets of paper with an old date? Anyone with a scanner and a printer could do it. If we don't even know who's here, or how many are here, how can we possibly determine who was here before a certain date? We can't. Anyone who can sneak in gets in. After the 1986 amnesty, Immigration and Naturalization Services found 398,000 cases of fraud. This time around we're granting amnesty to four times the number of people, and leaving the door open for applications for 12 full months! This bill is begging for fraud. You know, I wonder if terrorists would like to become American citizens so they could utilize our justice system for their legal defense...

Temporary?! The idea of a temporary worker program as a part of this bill is just silly. First of all, we've already got a functioning temporary worker program. Why do we need another one? And, it's because of this existing program that we know for a fact that 'temporary' workers almost always end up staying permanently. Hundreds of thousands of people from all over the world have benefitted from this program, staying well beyond their 'temporary' visa period. Basically, the government has had to make up reasons NOT to send people home until everyone gets a green card. Whether right or wrong, that's the way it is. There's even a group of Liberians who received 'temporary' status in 1991, and it keeps getting renewed every time it expires. In the context of immigration, 'temporary' actually means permanent.

They'll have to pay fines to stay. Not to my understanding - the fine and back taxes is only if they want to pursue a path to citizenship, but there's no requirement for that. They will simply receive legal status. So what's the incentive to become a citizen? Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) also criticized the new Z visa that "rewards people who broke the law with permanent legal status, and puts them ahead of millions of law-abiding immigrants waiting to come to America. I don't care how you try to spin it, this is amnesty." Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? Besides, even though the bill isn't yet finished, the media and advocate groups are already complaining about how the $5,000 fine is going to be too tough for illegals to pay.

It's not amnesty. "The Bush-Senate Z-Amnesty plan is 100 percent amnesty," said Grassfire.org President Steve Elliott. "It immediately offers legal status to every illegal alien in this country, which by definition is amnesty. It creates a clear path to citizenship and illegals do not even have to 'touch back' to their home countries to stay in the U.S. indefinitely." That was from CNSNews.com on May 18th. Plain and simple: this bill is amnesty.

Rewarding those who break the law. David Limbaugh makes what I think is a very compelling argument on his blog, saying that 'amnesty' is actually understating the case, and this bill would essentially reward anyone who is willing to risk breaking the law to come here illegally. He likens the situation to how a thief is forced to give up his loot in an attempt to restore the victim as much as possible, but illegal aliens will instead be allowed to keep their 'loot'. What exactly is this loot? He goes on: "As reported in the Washington Times, the Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector calculates that during their lifetimes, they will likely receive '$2.5 trillion more in government services than they will pay in taxes.' Among those benefits are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SSI, public housing, subsidized college education and Social Security Disability Insurance.'" Who's paying for that $2.5 trillion dollars? You and me.

What's really going on here? As I mentioned in my last blog, this is about what the politicians want, not what Americans want. In the words of Thomas Sowell at National Review Online, "This is perfectly consistent for a bill that seeks above all to solve politicians’ problems, not the country’s." If you're like me, you've got to be throwing up your hands in frustration and asking why these politicians are trying to rush through such an atrocious bill. Rush Limbaugh proposes an interesting theory to answer that question: Washington knows it's running short on people - the fact is that the birth rate doesn't match the death rate here anymore. Politicians are looking at the baby boomers retiring and are desperate to get anything in place that will bring in more tax revenue, even if it's temporary. The problem with using amnesty to bring in more people is that the vast majority of illegals are not skilled or educated, and will be getting low-paying labor jobs. There's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't generate much tax revenue (it's actually negative when you factor in the social services that will be drained out). US Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said in the USA Today that "the population aged 25-54 growing at 0.2% a year while the workforce is growing at 1.2% a year." And: "The reality is, we don't have enough people," said Gutierrez, adding that many of the United States' economic competitors, such as France, Germany, Japan and China, will be facing a similar demographic shift. "The big challenge of the 21st century is: who gets the people? Who gets the immigrants?" he said. "We don't appreciate today that these people are coming in for free."

Whoa...! Are you kidding me?! Talk about solving the wrong problem...instead of addressing illegal immigration, they're worried about how much tax revenue they get??

I was planning to post a great summary of the bill's worst attributes I came across with this blog, but this has already gotten longer than I originally anticipated. I'll try to follow up with that tomorrow.

There's my two cents.

Illegal Immigration 2: What should we do?

In the previous blog I laid out what I see as the real issue, and a number of reasons this issue is a major, major problem. So, the next logical question is what to do about it. You hear a lot about securing the border, and the Senate even went as far as to vote to build a fence on the US-Mexico border not too long ago. Of course, they only funded that bill enough to build 2 miles of the 700-mile fence, so it didn't end up accomplishing anything real. Way to go, Senate!

But, I digress.

It seems to me that there are two major elements to this question:
1. how to stop the influx of illegal aliens
2. what to do with the illegal aliens that are already here

The simplest thing to do, of course, is to enforce the laws that are already on the books. We already have laws against being here illegally, against businesses hiring illegals, etc. If we would just enforce what's there, we could fix the problem. Securing the border would be one first step, but it's going to be hideously expensive, and I think it's somewhat impractical to think it'll actually happen.

First things first. We need to ask ourselves why most illegal aliens come here. Typically, it's probably to make a better life - basically, they can find jobs, free health care, education, and government benefits. To address all of those things, I like what Selwyn Duke proposed at the American Thinker recently. His basic plan is this:
1. enact laws that will severely punish employers who hire illegals
2. enact laws that will eliminate illegals from receiving any government benefits
3. eliminate the "anchor baby" clause (anyone born on US soil is an automatic citizen)

These three things alone would more than likely remove most of the incentive for illegals to come here. But, he goes a couple steps further:
4. enact a law that establishes a date beyond which any illegal alien caught in the US will be subject to severe punishment
5. enact a law that says if an illegal is found in the US beyond that date, they will be prohibited from entering the US ever again, even legally

All this would be accomplished without having to go to the time, trouble, and expense of building a fence (which would cost literally billions of dollars and take who-knows-how-long to do) simply by removing the reasons for them to come here. Furthermore, no jobs and no freebies would mean that there would likely be a mass exodus of those already here. Voila! We've answered both of the major elements of the question!

Now, let's talk about some of the common protests to these measures.

"Illegal immigrants do the jobs Americans won't do." Who did those jobs before illegal aliens came here? Americans. And, there's a glaring weakness in that phrase that doesn't get pointed out much - you've probably heard that illegal aliens make up about 25% of the low-skill work force in the agriculture industry, but have you thought about who makes up the other 75%? Americans. As Duke points out in the above article, the point is not that there are jobs Americans won't do, rather there are wages that Americans generally aren't willing to work for. If illegals suddenly departed from the equation, the market would simply balance out, and wages would normalize to where they should be rather than being artificially deflated by illegal workers. It might get a little tight for a time while that normalization happens, but it certainly wouldn't be catastrophic. In fact, that kind of market push/pull relationship is the essence of capitalism. Also, isn't America the most technologically advanced society on the planet? Why do we have so much manual labor going on anyway? If 25% of those low-skill jobs suddenly open up, why can't we fill those needs with machines and technology?

"We can't possibly deport 12-20 million people." If we follow the plan outlined above, we wouldn't have to - I believe most would leave on their own. Even if they didn't, the logic in that statement is appalling. What would happen if we applied the same thought process to law enforcement? Do we shut down all law enforcement agencies because we can't possibly stop every crime? No, you do the best you can with what you've got! Last year, we deported over 220,000 illegal aliens, which was about 20% more than the year before. Take it one step at a time, and it becomes possible. Put the proper disincentives in place, and it might actually become simple.

"They're just here to make a better life for themselves and their families." For thorny issues like this, I try to think about the general principle to see how it could be applied to other situations. For example, let's say I live next door to a really rich guy who never locks his doors. I know for a fact that he's got huge TVs, lots of fancy jewelry, and an expensive coin collection in his house. I also know that he travels a lot. I could walk over to his house while he's away on his next trip, take a bunch of his stuff and bring it back to my house without getting caught. But, would it be right for me to do that? No, of course not. Now, let's say I do it anyway, then he comes home and discovers what I've done. I could point out that since he's rich he can just buy another one of everything I stole from him, and that I'm just trying to improve my standard of living and make a more comfortable life for myself. How's he going to react to that? What if the rich guy next door is you? How would you react?

"Some have been here for years or decades; we can't send them home." Again, apply the general principle to another situation. Let's say someone stole $25,000 from you tomorrow, but the police weren't able to find him. Fast forward to the year 2027. The police in another state catch a bank robber who confesses to stealing money from you back in 2007. Are you going to want justice for the thief, even though the incident happened years earlier?

In my mind, this is a case of principle over individual. There is a greater principle at stake than any individual (or group of individuals), and that is the law and integrity of the United States of America. I'm choosing the side of the principle.

Now, let's get concrete. What can YOU do right NOW? First and foremost, contact your Senators/Representatives and ask about their stance on illegal immigration and the current immigration reform bill. Do this whether you agree with me or not. One of our most priceless rights as Americans is the right of representation, and your reps need to know what you think about issues like this. I've adopted the attitude that anyone who doesn't get involved doesn't get the right to complain! :) That's one reason I've posted contact info in the box at the right - to make it easy for you to get involved. I've listed my own representatives here, but you can also call the Capital Switchboard and ask to be transferred to any Congressional office, so that's the only number you really need.

If your reps don't agree with you, politely inform them of your opinion and state that this issue is important to you and that their voting record on this issue will affect your vote at the next election. Additionally, when you hear people around you talking about the issue, don't be afraid to engage in polite discussion with them. It's okay to disagree (as long as you don't get crazy or obnoxious about it!), and word of mouth or friendly discussion is the best way to change other people's minds. And remember, chances are pretty good that most of the people around you actually agree with you anyway.

Lastly, pay attention, pay attention, pay attention! Don't let the issue sneak past you - this is something that has huge financial and cultural ramifications that may not be fully revealed for years, and by then it may be too late to "fix". If you don't pay attention, you may end up regretting it. So might your children and your grandchildren.

There's my two cents.

Illegal Immigration 1: What's the real issue?

Now that the introductory stuff is out of the way, let's jump in.

My first few blogs are going to touch on a tricky issue - illegal immigration. I'll address what I believe is the real issue in this blog, then follow up with a couple more blogs about what you can do about it and the specific bill going through Congress right now. This is a bit of a long blog, but bear with me - it's all important stuff!

Recent Rasmussen polls show that 69% of Americans believe illegal immigrants should be prosecuted, and that 72% think it's 'very important' to improve border enforcement and reduce illegal immigration. Clearly, this is a big-time issue that has a lot of people concerned about it. And, if you're someone who is upset at what is going on, you're far from alone!

At first glance, illegal immigration is a tough issue. Americans are, by nature, compassionate and helpful people. We have a natural sympathy for the underdog. We admire anyone who is simply trying better themselves and their circumstances; we all want that, too. But, if you look deeper, you'll see a very different picture. There are many problems with illegal immigration, and I'll try to outline a few of the biggies.

1. Illegal immigration --- by definition, if they're here, they're breaking the laws of the United States of America. "Undocumented worker" is simply a term used to deflect the reality that they're not supposed to be here at all. If they're here, they've committed a crime. Period.

2. This is NOT a racial issue --- anyone who tries to tell you it's a race issue is simply playing on your emotional sensitivities. I'm just as much against a Swede or an Australian who is here illegally as I am a Hispanic who is here illegally. Makes no difference who they are; what counts is how they got here.

3. It IS a security issue --- Remember the "Fort Dix Six"? A group of radical Islamic terrorists had gathered a weapons cache and planned to kill as many people as possible at Fort Dix in North Carolina, but were stopped before they commenced their attack. Of the six, three of them were illegal aliens who came through the Mexican border. This isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened, either.

4. It's a crime issue --- As of 2004, about 9.6% of the population of the US was Hispanic. Curiously, about 19.2% of the population in US jails is Hispanic. Let's be honest here - are all Hispanics criminals? Absolutely not! But, the logical conclusion is that -- compared to other ethnic minority groups -- an abnormally high percentage of them are not the "good, hard-working, honest" people the media likes to talk about. Rather, those who are here illegally are often drug dealers, thieves, rapists, and murderers. Do you think it's a good idea to give them citizenship or legal status? Take it a step further - if you set a precedent that we're going to ignore certain parts of the law, where do you draw the line of enforcement? For instance, here's a story reported by George Will from Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute: "Protecting one form of lawbreaking may require protecting others as well. The city of Maywood in Los Angeles County declared itself a sanctuary zone for illegal aliens this year. Then it got rid of its drunk-driving checkpoints, because they were nabbing too many illegal aliens. Next, this 96 percent Latino city, almost half of whose adult population lacks a ninth-grade education, disbanded its police traffic division entirely, so that illegals wouldn't need to worry about having their cars towed for being unlicensed." What kind of logic is that? But, if you ignore one part of the law, how can you logically enforce another part? Another example of what's actually going on is that sanctuary cities (which, by the way, have no offical standing according to law) instruct their police officers NOT to ask about citizenship status, even as they arrest illegal aliens. In fact, it appears that illegal aliens get more leniency from our legal and judicial systems than American citizens! The "Fort Dix Six" had 75 prior arrests between them, and not once were they investigated for being illegal aliens!

5. It DOES affect YOU right NOW --- Many illegal aliens utilize emergency rooms to obtain medical care without paying for it. Believe it or not, many hospitals have closed because of the volume of illegal aliens being treated on a daily basis. I think everyone agrees that health care costs are skyrocketing, but have you stopped to think about why? It's at least partially because you're paying the bill for illegal aliens' health care. Similarly, how much do you pay in taxes each year for your kids' schools? Illegal aliens know they can obtain medical care and education for free here because of the generosity of Americans. So how much generosity are we talking here? Consider the fact that since 1996 US taxpayers (you and I) have paid literally billions of dollars in social services (health care, welfare, etc.) and literally billions more in schools for illegal aliens. How do you think that affects your premiums for health care and tax rates for schools? Illegals may provide some cheap labor in a few industries, but they drag far more out of the US economy than they put in. In 2004, illegal aliens paid an average of $10,573 in taxes, but consumed an average of $30,160 in government benefits and services. The Center for Immigration Studies published a report in 2004 that showed illegals consume $10 billion more than they contribute at the Federal level alone. Hmmm...

6. Identity theft --- if you or anyone you know has been the victim of identity theft, you know it's a massive pain in the rear. You have to do the police report, notify all the cards that were stolen, close accounts and open new accounts, and dispute every invalid charge that comes to you. In most cases, the police are too busy to chase down this sort of thing, so all of this falls to you. It takes literally dozens (if not hundreds) of hours to clean up the mess, and if your credit report gets dinged in the process, you could have major problems obtaining a loan or financing for years into the future. With that being said, who do you suppose is the biggest consumer of stolen identities?

7. Voter fraud --- one of the most valuable rights of the US citizen is that of voting. We get to have our say in who leads this great nation, and that's priceless. I can think of very few things that infuriate me more than knowing illegal aliens vote in our elections because voting places do not require us to show photo IDs. Do you know that any US citizen can get a government-issued photo ID that's not a driver's license? Before the 2006 election it was free, and they would even come to you if you couldn't get out and about. When the US Supreme Court ruled that requiring photo ID to vote was unconstitutional (a horrible decision, in my opinion), these programs were stopped, but you can still get a non-driver's photo ID for a small fee at your local DMV. Despite this, there is absolutely NO reason not to implement this safeguard in our nation's election process...except, that is, if politicians want to stack elections in their favor by allowing multiple votes from one person, votes from dead people, votes from pets, votes from illegal aliens, etc. A photo ID does not disenfranchise voters at all - rather, it empowers legal voters to know that their vote truly has meaning. I have yet to see one legitimate reason NOT to require photo IDs for voting purposes.

8. Previous attempts haven't worked, either --- the US has granted amnesty before, and it's never worked out as promised. In 1965, the Immigration and Nationality Act (called the Hart-Seller bill) was signed into law along with promises that "the bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs" and "No immigrant visa will be issued to a person who is likely to become a public charge". It effectively granted amnesty to several hundred thousand illegal aliens. Okay, so that maybe wasn't such a big deal, but in 1980 we got the Immigration Rescue Act, which removed foreign policy considerations from refugee laws and sent phony assylum request rates skyrocketing. In 1986, the issue came up again with the Immigration Reform and Control Act (called the Simpson-Mazzoli bill), which provided amnesty to illegals living in the country before 1982. This time it was over 3 million illegal aliens. Each of these laws was accompanied by assurances that it would be the last time, and from that point immigration would finally be enforced. But where are we now? We're in the worst position yet - an estimate of as many as 20 million illegal aliens would be granted legal status (translate that to amnesty) instantly if the current legislation gets signed into law! Given the history of this issue, do you really think this is going to help or hurt America? One more thing - the man leading the charge for the current immigration "reform" is Senator Ted Kennedy. Guess who was the driving force behind each of these previous amnesty bills? You guessed it, Ted Kennedy. Do you trust him to actually fix the problem this time?

9. Business problems --- Some major US companies are now creating programs specifically for illegal aliens - Bank of America will now issue credit cards to anyone without a social security number. Seriously?! If that doesn't show you the lack of enforcement currently taking place, nothing will. When illegal aliens ditch their Bank of America credit card with a $50,000 balance on it, guess who ends up paying that bill? You, the Bank of America customer who is a law-abiding American citizen. I'm not a Bank of America customer, but if I was, I'd contact the corporate headquarters and demand they end all such programs immediately. If they didn't, I would take my business elsewhere. But that's just me.

10. Different motivation --- I often hear and read that "we're a nation of immigrants". True, that's how America started. There's a key difference, however, in those original immigrants and the problem we face today. In the past, immigrants were coming here legally, with the hope of achieving the American dream - joining in, becoming an American, and contributing to the greatness of the country. Legal immigrants are still doing that every day, and we as Americans should welcome them with open arms! Unfortunately, many illegal immigrants are coming here with no intention of learning English, no intention of being a productive member of American society, and no compunction about breaking laws once they're here. Instead, the intent is to leech off the prosperity of America, sucking up as much personal gain as possible with flagrant disregard for the principles America stands for. The multicultural movement has firmly established the idea that the culture of origin is far more important than the American culture, which is fundamentally damaging to our country. Look at the marches that occurred about a year ago - illegal aliens marched through the streets of many cities, demanding "rights" while flying Mexican flags and refusing to speak English. I don't know about you, but that really doesn't sit well with me! Now, take it a step further - if we allow Islamic jihadists and radical Islamics into the country and allow them to ignore the laws of this country in the name of "multiculturalism", what will we end up with? Home-grown terrorists and Sharia law, where women are subjugated, punishments are brutally carried out without due process, and many other awful things. Think it can't happen? It already has in Germany.

There are very few things that infuriate me more than watching our national leaders pander to this issue. They are the people we have elected to create and uphold our laws, and yet they blatantly ignore them. Why? The answer is in the last couple of elections, which were decided by 500,000 and 3 million votes, respectively. This issue is -- to them -- all about gaining votes. I think the Democrats are a little more out of line about it, as illustrated by this brochure photographed at one of the 2006 immigration rallies across the nation. But, both major parties are salivating to gain a new voting bloc of 12-20 million people, and they're willing to risk destroying our own economy and identity to get themselves in positions of power. I believe that the Democrat leadership is making a deliberate calculated bid for power, and I think the Republican leadership is simply a bunch of idiots for following along regardless of the fact that no previous amnesty attempt has gained them any significant votes. I think that many of the leaders in the House, Senate, and White House honestly believe that if they can just secure this new voting bloc and get into power, they can go back and fix the problems they cause on the way. It doesn't work like that. If they continue on this path, they're going to do irreparable harm to this country. More on that coming up.

There's my two cents.

Where Am I Coming From?

I'm a conservative. I'm not ashamed to say that I think that conservative principles are the reason this country has become the greatest society ever to grace the face of the Earth. I'll explain this more over time, and I hope you'll come to agree with me. For now, let's start with defining conservatism a bit.

Conservatism is a philosophy or frame of mind that believes in the free marketplace, not only in goods and services, but also in ideas. It believes that the role of government should be smaller and less intrusive in daily life, and that taxes should be as low as possible. It strives to enable the common man to elevate himself and grow rather than stagnate. It strives to ignore stigmas like race, heritage, and gender. It believes that individual freedoms unleash the potential of humans' innate God-given creativity and drive to succeed, build, and progress forward. In short, a conservative believes it's far better to teach a man how to fish and thus enable him to provide for himself and his family rather than to give him a fish and make him dependent.

All future messages will be coming from this point of view, so keep that in mind as you read. I respect other opinions, though - civilized dissent is part of what makes America great. Whether you agree with me or not, my goal is that you will be more informed of current events and issues when you're done reading than you were when you started. Even better, my hope is that you will agree with me and act accordingly. I know that won't always happen, and that's okay.

With that being said, you should know that I haven't always been interested in politics. In fact, I'm about as anti-politics as you can get. However, I also realize that there are a load of problems around us, and the vehicle through which many of these problems can be fixed is (unfortunately) politics via informed people. The more I started paying attention to that fact, the more I felt the need to jump in.

In my humble opinion, the main problem is this: I think there's a huge disconnect between the elites in this country (the mainstream media, the very rich, the socially powerful, and many of those currently in positions of power) and 'normal people' like you and me. The last few years have seen a departure in much of the mainstream media from unbiased reporting to agenda-driven slant. Fortunately, there's also been a much better dissemination of accurate information about what's going on through the so-called 'new media', but I think that a lot of people still don't get the full story - it takes a pretty significant effort to dig through the mainstream media to get the real deal. I try to keep up with things on a fairly regular basis out of my own interest, so I thought it might be helpful if I pass along what I learn to other 'normal people' like me.

Am I going to try to persuade you to my viewpoint? I might. But, I truly think that most Americans already believe many of the same things I do, so I'm going to try to keep this blog to an information-sharing purpose rather than just another political rant. I plan to show you the facts (the ones not reported in the mainstream media) and raise some questions, and I believe that if I do that effectively, you'll come to the same conclusions I do, and act accordingly. I may offer some blatant suggestions here and there, but you can -- obviously -- take them or leave them. You won't hurt my feelings either way. :)

I'll do my best to reference my sources as much as possible, but I don't know how long I'll be able to archive attachments - we'll see how it goes!

Thus begins a new adventure for me, and hopefully a useful service to you.

There's my two cents.

What's My Purpose?

This blog was established to achieve a single purpose. I believe that there is a lot going on in this country and the world that has major significance, and I think that many people don't pay much attention to it. This could be because of a lack of information, a lack of desire, a lack of time to check things out for themselves, or simply a lack of knowledge of where to look. Before the 2006 election, I sent out an e-mail with some plain information about several local issues that mainstream news outlets weren't providing, and I got a number of comments about how people appreciated it. So, I thought I'd take the same idea but step it up a notch.

Do I think I'm going to change the world with this little blog? No. Am I going to become a major policy influencer? No.

But, forces are moving in this world, and they're not all forces with our best interests in mind. We need to pay attention and participate. Even when we do pay attention, it can get pretty confusing sometimes. So, my intention is simply this: to inform people in my little corner of the world about what's going on, and motivate them to act.

Thanks for taking the time to check out my blog! Feel free to send comments (whether you agree or disagree) - I hope you come back often!