Illegal Immigration: The Solution Is Simple

30 07 2010

By Timothy D. Naegele[1][2]

Every American is an immigrant, or his or her ancestors were immigrants. Even the American Indians are descended from those who crossed the Bering Strait—or the “Bering land bridge”—according to anthropologists. America is the world’s only true melting pot, with people here from every other country on the face of the earth. Indeed, that is one of its strengths. Yes, we disagree and we squabble and we even discriminate, but we are a nation of immigrants, and we pull together and bury our differences when times get tough or 9/11s occur. Then, we are all Americans, white or brown or black or whatever the color or religion or political persuasion.

My ancestors came from Germany, Scotland, Ireland and England, and the heritage of most Americans is equally diverse. The spouses of my daughter and son have one parent who is of Mexican ancestry, and so the story goes throughout this great country. For me, however, the immigration issue is simple, and its solution is equally straightforward. All illegal immigrants must be deported now, or as soon as humanly possible; and if workers are needed to fill their jobs, they should be drawn first from Americans who are here legally and willing to work, and then from the lists of those from other countries who have been waiting in line patiently to come here. The latter group should be admitted first, and today’s illegal immigrants should go to the back of the line—if they decide to apply at all, once they have been sent back to their countries of origin.

That may seem harsh to some people, but no other solution is fair and just. I met a lovely Irish woman in Dublin 23 years ago when she was 23 years old; and we traveled across the Atlantic for many years to be together, before she joined me here in the States. Each of us made 12 trips, with some of them lasting as long as three weeks; and both of us got to know and appreciate Ireland and the United States even more during our times together. Among other things, I came to appreciate my country, as seen through the eyes of an immigrant. I have old friends from Germany and other countries too, and I have seen America through their eyes as well, which is always enlightening and generally very positive.

My German ancestors, a husband and wife who had 16 children, landed in New York on September 18, 1849; and in 1860, the husband served with his fellow Minnesotans in the Union Army.  The assimilation had taken only 11 years, but he was proud to serve; and I am sure many other immigrants felt that way who served with the Confederacy.  An Irish ancestor of mine first came to the States in 1850; and an English ancestor came almost a century before, in 1760. I am not entirely certain when my Scottish ancestors came here, but my mother’s maiden name was “Duncan” before she married my father, and it is my middle name.  I am proud of all legal immigrants; and I am equally proud of those of Mexican and Hispanic heritage.

What I found when my Irish love moved to California to live with me at the end of 1996 was that she could not get a job because she did not have a “Green Card.”  She wanted to work, but she could not.  The U.S. had a lottery for Irish immigrants, and her sister applied on a whim and received a Green Card, so she came too and got two jobs, but my Irish love could not work at all.  Could she have found work anyway, and used a phony Social Security number and ID like so many illegal immigrants?  Sure she could have, but neither of us was willing to take the risks involved.

We played by the rules and she was never able to work, and finally she got homesick and returned to Ireland.  We did everything legally and it got us nowhere.  She did not overstay her visas, and she did not work illegally, and she is in Ireland today.  Why should illegal immigrants from Mexico or any other country be treated differently than she was?  Why shouldn’t they be required to wait in line just like she did?  Why shouldn’t they be arrested and deported just like she would have been if she had broken the laws?

Having been born and raised in Southern California, I love its Mexican and Spanish heritage, and Spanish architecture is my favorite, and I love Mexican food, and some of the hardest workers whom I have ever met are Hispanics.  They are wonderful people; however, all immigrants should be subject to the same rules that my Irish love adhered to, or no one should be required to obey those laws.  It is just that simple.  No frills—the same rules for every immigrant, regardless of where he or she is from.  Fundamental fairness requires that; and we owe it to all who have come to this country legally and who have contributed so much to our heritage.

I have watched President Bush’s speeches on the subject, and I have seen the demonstrations on TV, and I have listened to the debate. However, I am fed up with the fact that no politician is willing to do what is right.  Again, from my vantage point, the issue is simple and its solution is straightforward.  There is no mystery about what needs to be done.  Whether any of our politicians will have the courage to do the right thing remains to be seen, but I am not optimistic.  If they fail to do so, the problem will fester for generations to come, and immigration will be an area of the law that applies to some people but not to others, which is wrong and fundamentally unfair and unjust.

Finally, how much does the plan outlined by President Bush before a national television audience on May 15, 2006, differ from what I believe must be done? The first objective of his plan calls for this country to secure its borders, using the National Guard to strengthen and supplement our Border Patrol; and I agree with that as long as the Guard remains in place to effectively shut the border to illegal immigrants, criminals, drug dealers, and terrorists.  The second objective is to create a temporary worker program.  I have doubts about such a program, and believe it would be best to eliminate temporary workers altogether, and replace them with Americans who are willing to work, or immigrants who are seeking entry to the United States legally and have been waiting patiently to get in.

The third objective is to hold employers to account for the workers they hire, and I agree with that as long as it is enforced vigorously.  The fourth objective is essentially amnesty for those illegal immigrants who are here already, and I disagree with that.  The president’s fifth objective is described as recognition of the fact that “we must honor the great American tradition of the melting pot, which has made us one nation out of many peoples.” Few Americans disagree with that; however, it can be achieved best by legalizing only those immigrants who followed the rules, not those who ignored this nation’s immigration laws.

At best, the president’s plan would close our southern border, but do nothing about our northern border; and it would stop employers from hiring illegal immigrants, which might send them scurrying back to their countries of origin, to get in line and come here legally. Thus, actual deportation would work in tandem with attrition, and the goals that I believe are necessary might be achieved over time. However, any notion of amnesty is a mistake, as is the idea of a temporary worker program. While many of the president’s proposals constitute steps in the right direction, they do not go far enough.

© 2010, Timothy D. Naegele

[1] Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass), the first black senator since Reconstruction after the U.S. Civil War.  He practices law in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles with his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates (  He has an undergraduate degree in economics from UCLA, as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University.  He is a member of the District of Columbia and California bars.  He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal.  Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years.  See, e.g.,

[2] This article was published first at on May 16, 2006.  See

More than four years have passed, and George W. Bush’s presidency ended and Barack Obama’s presidency began.  However, the underlying issues remain the same and are still as relevant and timely as when I wrote it.  Our national immigration policies continue to be a disgrace.  Some people play by the rules, such as my long-time Irish love, and they are penalized for doing so.  All immigrants should be subject to the same rules, or no one should be required to obey our immigration laws.



31 responses

5 08 2010

“Anchor Babies” Are Not Entitled To American Citizenship

Ann Coulter makes a well-reasoned and convincing case in this regard, which states in part:

Democrats act as if the right to run across the border when you’re 8 1/2 months pregnant, give birth in a U.S. hospital and then immediately start collecting welfare was exactly what our forebears had in mind, a sacred constitutional right, as old as the 14th Amendment itself.

. . .

In fact, this alleged right derives only from a footnote slyly slipped into a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Brennan in 1982.

. . .

The drafters of the 14th amendment had no intention of conferring citizenship on the children of aliens who happened to be born in the U.S.

. . .

The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”

. . .

And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”

. . .

Consider the story of one family of illegal immigrants described in the Spring 2005 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons:

“Cristobal Silverio came illegally from Oxtotilan, Mexico, in 1997 and brought his wife Felipa, plus three children aged 19, 12 and 8. Felipa … gave birth to a new daughter, her anchor baby, named Flor. Flor was premature, spent three months in the neonatal incubator, and cost San Joaquin Hospital more than $300,000. Meanwhile, (Felipa’s 19-year-old daughter) Lourdes plus her illegal alien husband produced their own anchor baby, Esmeralda. Grandma Felipa created a second anchor baby, Cristian. … The two Silverio anchor babies generate $1,000 per month in public welfare funding. Flor gets $600 per month for asthma. Healthy Cristian gets $400. Cristobal and Felipa last year earned $18,000 picking fruit. Flor and Cristian were paid $12,000 for being anchor babies.”

In the Silverios’ munificent new hometown of Stockton, Calif., 70 percent of the 2,300 babies born in 2003 in the San Joaquin General Hospital were anchor babies. As of this month, Stockton is $23 million in the hole.



20 02 2014

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with Democrats or Republicans (the diffrerences between those two supposedly different parties is minimal and getting caught up in the media-created fantasy differences is a major distraction that serves as an obstacle to America’s reclaiming its democracy. E.g., in 1986, Ronald Reagan instituted an amnesty for all illegal immigrants then resident in the U.S.. He is hailed as a pure-bred Republican (but he was also a major tax-and-spend -not to mention a borrow-and-spend President).

Stockton would be even more in the hole if it had no resident illegal immigrants who pay far more in taxes than receive in tax-supported services (and the ratio is much higher than for US-born residents). Like it or not (I suspect you don’t like it LOL!), these 11m are good for our economy (as well as our society).


20 02 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Felipe, for your comments.

The issue is equity and equality, not racism directed at any immigrants, as my article above discusses.

Our ancestors are all immigrants from somewhere; however, “open borders” is not an option. Those who entered the country illegally should be deported and sent to the back of the line, in terms of entering the United States.

It is just that simple.


24 02 2016
Felipe Ravono

I don’t find it particularly useful to throw around buzz words like “equity” and “equality” or “racism”. It doesn’t serve to help understand what is a complex -not as you assert- a simple problem.

It would be simple if the U.S. were a military dictatorship and had no pretensions having any respect for human rights or international law or domestic law. Your proposal implies that this may be your preferred model of government. It isn’t mine.

To pretend that this issue is anything but complicated is disingenuous. There is no way that 11m residents of the U.S. can, or should, be deported. It’s simply not going to happen. The problem is not between an “open borders” policy and deportation. Again, it’s disingenuous to pretend that these are the only options. There are many other options that can, and will be, under consideration.

As but one very small example of how this issue is not “simple” as you claim because we are supposed to be a nation of laws (the fact these folks have broken a law doesn’t mean the government is then granted the right to break another law in order to punish them): A US-born minor with parents who came to the US illegally has all the rights of a citizen and the courts may decide that these rights include having his/her parents at hand to raise him/her in the U.S.

What the framers of the constitutional clause granting U.S. citizenship to those born here had in mind or did not have in mind is hardly of relevance 200 years later when the national and global contexts are unrecognizable from how they were then. Courts interpret the Constitution through the lens of 21st Century reality, not through the rear-view mirror of a primarily rural society.

Again, the issue of border control and what we want/need to do about it, if anything, is entirely separate from what to do about the 11m US residents who crossed that border illegally. The fact is that, during the last 18 months, more Mexicans moved from the U.S. to the Mexico than vice-versa but facts like this don’t have any impact on either our media coverage of the issue or on our demogogic politicians who would rather raise anxiety and inflame fear as this results in more money for the media and more votes for the politicians.

The larger question is why would one would want to deport these people?


24 02 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you as always, Felipe, for your comments.

I respectfully disagree. The issue is not complicated or complex at all. Either they came to the States legally, or they did not. If the latter is true, they must be deported, and sent to the very back of the line of those applicants who are applying to come here legally; or they must be denied entry altogether, for having broken our laws.

Indeed, there are strong arguments for imprisoning them. However, this option would overload our prisons.

And no, it will not be difficult to deport all 11 million, if your figures are correct. As the Washington Post has noted:

Under Clinton, there were only about 870,000 removals/deportations [i.e., “when the government kicks someone out of the country”], but 11.4 million returns [i.e., “people who could have been deported but who left of their own volition”]. Under [George W.] Bush, the numbers were about 2 million deportations and 8.3 million returns.

See (“Ted Cruz gets it very wrong on recent presidents’ deportation numbers”)

And no too, children born in the United States of parents who are here illegally should not be allowed to stay. They have no constitutional right to be here, and must accompany their parents back to their parents’ countries of origin.

See, e.g., (“Anchor Babies” Are Not Entitled To American Citizenship”)

This is not an issue of “human rights” or “international law.” They came here illegally, and now they must pay the price. No exceptions must be allowed.

And yes, there is a very easy way to get rid of them: make it a crime for any American to employ them. Put the onus on employers, and the illegals will not have jobs, and they will leave.

It is time to get tough. Again, there is nothing harsh or cruel about any of this. They knew that they were violating the law.

Lastly, I would be remiss if I did not repeat again that I love Hispanics. Having grown up in California, I came to love its rich Hispanic heritage and wonderful people.

However, jobs are taken away from them by illegals, just as blacks lose out to illegals; and the list goes on and on.


24 10 2010

Here’s my solution to illegal immigration…..

The Federal government should begin vigorously enforcing the current laws throughout the country (vs just at the border) with a focus on tracking down recent arrivals. This would need to begin with a census identifying those here illegally.

Once it’s clear real enforcement has begun and we have some idea of the extent of the problem, offer those who haven’t committed crimes and who’ve been here for several years (families, jobs, etc.) a special one time permanent legal status – almost citizen – with two exclusions. One they can never obtain full citizenship (i.e. never can vote), and two they cannot bring in or sponsor others to immigrate (no relatives). Anyone who evaded the census and was discovered later would be deported immediately. This offer shouldn’t be available to recent arrivals and anyone with a criminal record.

This isn’t perfect by any stretch. While deporting a few million of the more recent illegals is possible, the great majority have been here too long and have families. They speak English and have absorbed the culture – deporting these latter isn’t feasible and would tear us (they have become ‘us’) apart. Letting them stay is the appropriate solution.

Real enforcement deporting many of the more recent law breakers would set an example for those contemplating coming and also prove to Americans in general that the Federal government has changed its ways and is now serious about enforcement going forward.

A permanent status short of citizenship would recognize that illegal entry cannot and should not be rewarded and also would frustrate the Hispanic Nazi types who have an agenda other than becoming Americans, and would reassure the majority of Americans (who support immigration, but oppose the illegal version) that our political processes will not continue to be distorted by the huge wave of mono-cultural immigrants.

Once the prospect of 15 or 20 mil new Democratic votes is simply taken off the table, both parties and the people can focus more towards what’s good for the country instead of who can appease the growing Hispanic vote with one bribe or another.


24 10 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

While what you suggest may be a step in the right direction, it still does not address what my Irish love and I went through, which is true to this day with respect to immigrants from a vast number of other countries too (e.g., New Zealand). They must go through an immigration process that takes time and costs lots of money (e.g., in lawyers’ fees), and there is no shortcut for them. If they fail to follow the rules and stay here illegally, they risk being deported and never allowed back into the country.

Everyone should face similar rules, or no one should. What you are suggesting would establish a dual system: one for Hispanics—whom I believe are wonderful people, by and large—and another for everyone else. This is not fair.


24 10 2010

Once the illegal problem is solved, or seen to be well on its way to a solution, then the system resources now wasted on illegals and related issues would be diverted to handling a larger volume of legal immigrants more efficiently.

The only non PC aspect of my recommendation would be to include a macro formula that would restrict certain cultural groups while encouraging diversity so as to ensure those who do come assimilate as efficiently as possible. While I understand that many past groups (e.g. Italians, Germans, Irish) spent considerable time in their own neighborhoods on the way to full assimilation by later generations, the process can be accelerated by putting brakes on groups that for whatever reason are flooding the country. Currently, I would put an almost full stop on Mexicans and hispanics in general, and looking to the future, we might need to slow down the intake of Indians and Han Chinese. The populations of the latter two and their rapidly improving standards of living are hitting the sweet spot in which the pace of emigration is likely to increase beyond our capacity to absorb without significant and traumatizing cultural shifts to our American culture.


24 10 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your additional comments.

First, with the economy getting far worse between now and the end of this decade, governmental resources will become scarcer, and few if any will be diverted to helping with legitimate immigration issues. Hence, if your recommended solutions were adopted, there would still be the dual system that I mentioned above, with gross inequities arising from one’s country of origin (e.g., Mexico versus every other country).

Second, with due respect, I am anti-PC regarding essentially all issues. Whatever is PC, I am against. :-)

Third, there have been country quotas for years. This is not new. As I recall, about 40,000 Irish immigrants were permitted entry into the U.S. and Green Cards each year based on a lottery when my Irish love applied. As mentioned in my article above, on a whim, her sister applied and received a Green Card and came here to work, but my Irish love could not work because she did not have such a Green Card. Illegal immigrants ignore such “niceties” altogether, which I find repulsive. Either everyone complies, or no one should.

Lastly, these are thorny problems, and Congress—being a largely corrupt group that only “greases squeaky wheels” that translate into votes and/or money—is never likely to do what is fair, just and right.


27 10 2010

I agree there’s a possibility of a dual system emerging which would target Mexicans, but hopefully if both increased enforcement were combined with sustained levels of legal immigration (including lower income from non Hispanic sources) the demands for the system condoning large numbers of illegals being brought in to provide cheap labor and or future votes would be removed.

And as I said upfront, my solution is to some extent not PC. I believe your fairness calibration is more liberal/leftist than you suspect. What’s “fair” IMO is what’s good for the US. Why do we have to be fair to Mexicans treating them the same as the Irish? or the Chinese? Or any other group? Part of my solution is specifically that from the point of the view of the country we should make decisions about how many from what sources to allow into the existing national pool. And given how close Mexico is, sharing a border and how many have already entered the country, there are sections of the country in which the Americanization process has weakened considerably. I’m not advocating any stopping of immigration, just adjusting the flow to the country’s advantage so as to maximize the numbers coming in while maintaining the Americanization process at peak efficiency. It’s is to our advantage economically to keep the flow going.

As far as the economy goes, the essential economy is strong. A modest shift in a few policies would get rapid growth going again quickly. One such policy would be a grand compromise on what to do with the current illegals and reform of the enforcement mechanisms.

The idea for the compromise arose from my own attempt to reconcile the fact I know illegals and my own reluctance to deport people I believe will make great citizens with the fact that rewarding the huge numbers of illegals now here with full citizenship will likely end badly for the country inviting huge numbers of additional illegals arriving. As those 15 million or so start voting, there would be simply no hope of ever getting control of the borders. So the compromise of allowing most to stay but granting them a limited form of nonvoting, non-sponsoring status that will enable them to stay and the country to avoid the hugely disruptive and damaging attempt to deport so many people. The limited status ensures their political impact is minimized and seems a modest punishment for coming here illegally – a punishment that I believe most conservatives could eventually accept as sufficient.

IMO deportation is not a viable option and will never be implemented.

Finally regarding fairness to Mexicans, one final point. You mentioned “gross inequities arising from one’s country of origin” targeting Mexicans as being unfair. It seems to me that restricting future immigration from Mexico would be more acceptable and fair, than right now targeting Mexicans living among us for immediate deportation or some form of aggressive attrition process to force them to leave by making the everyday life impossible. There is no doubt that because the great majority of illegals here are from Mexico that they would escape the feeling they were being unfairly single out.

A compromise with amnesty granting limited citizenship is a one time program. Hopefully, aggressive enforcement would have widespread support and remove future needs for granting second tier citizenship ever again.


15 11 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

In-State Tuition For Illegal Immigrants Preserved By California Supreme Court

The Los Angeles Times is reporting:

The California Supreme Court decided unanimously [today] that illegal immigrants may continue to be eligible for in-state tuition rates at the state’s colleges and universities rather than pay the higher rates charged to those who live out of state . . . [and that] a California law . . . does not conflict with a federal prohibition on giving illegal immigrants educational benefits based on residency.

California is one of several states that permit illegal immigrants to take advantage of lower college tuition for students who attend high school and graduate in state. About 25,000 illegal immigrants are estimated to receive in-state tuition rates in California.

. . .

College students who are in the country illegally are barred from government financial-aid programs. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected eventually to decide whether the lower tuition rates also violate federal law.

See; see also

Illegal immigrants from Mexico or any other country must be treated the same, and arrested and deported—or existing laws must be changed for all. In effect, we have a double standard: our immigration laws are not being applied and enforced against those who are in this country illegally from Mexico; whereas, we have stringent immigration laws for those who come from Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and all other countries.

The California Supreme Court decision is outrageous. No wonder so many Americans have little or no respect for lawyers and the judiciary. Also, it underscores why many Americans view California as “la la land,” and why Congress may be unreceptive when federal funding is needed to bail out California. The chickens will have come home to roost, in spades, and deservedly so.


17 11 2010

Those kids who were brought here as minors (as opposed to an adult who made the choice to break the law in order to gain access to greater job opportunities) should be given a permanent legal status short of citizenship that effectively allows them to take advantage of instate tuition (in this case) but would not allow them to ‘anchor baby’ 25 ‘family’ members into citizenship.


16 11 2010

California has a pattern of defying Federal law in connection with immigration – particularly the illegal sort. It’s revealing that when Arizona passes a law which basically mirrors Federal law [it] is immediately forced into Federal court, but when California refuses to enforce Federal law (e.g. sanctuary cities) not a finger is lifted.


18 12 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

U.S. Senate Blocks Bill For Illegal Immigrant Students, And Rightly So

The New York Times has reported:

The Senate on Saturday blocked a bill that would create a path to citizenship for certain illegal immigrant students who came to the United States as children, completed two years of college or military service and met other requirements including passing a criminal background check. The vote, 55-41 in favor of the bill, effectively kills the measure for this year, and its fate beyond that is uncertain.

Most immediately, the measure would have helped grant legal status to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrant students and recent graduates whose lives are severely restricted because they are illegal residents, though many have lived in the United States for nearly their entire lives.

Young Hispanic men and women filled the spectator galleries of the Senate, many of them wore graduation caps and tassels in a symbol of their support for the bill. And they held hands in a prayerful gesture as the clerk called the roll.


The proposed legislation would have rewarded illegality, and that is not the message to send, ever. As discussed in the article above, people from Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and many other countries wait patiently and work diligently to be admitted legally to the United States. It would be a mockery of their efforts to enact misguided legislation such as the so-called “Dream Act.” Lots of people have legitimate dreams and hopes of coming to America; and they should be rewarded if anyone is.

While it might seem harsh and cruel to some people, those illegals who filled the spectator galleries of the Senate should be arrested and deported. If our laws mean anything, they require nothing less. Those who seek to come here legally from Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and many other countries know and accept those risks.


18 12 2010

I’m sympathetic to the those young underage people (basically under 16) who were brought here by their parents. However, the Dream Act seems to be another monstrous size bill (deliberately?) that is described one way positively, but which contains much more than advertised – including much that likely could not survive a vote if done out in the open air and sun.

I haven’t read the act, but have read summaries that make it unacceptable. It basically is an amnesty bill for millions of people who entered illegally. Not only are the definitions loosely structured as to whom it would apply, but once one person in a family is tagged then effectively their whole family is set on a pathway to citizenship. In other words if parents accidentally or by design happened to bring over an underage child then they too will be getting amnesty. That covers a lot more people than advertised in the media.

We don’t need a 2,000 page bill to help those who were brought here. An acceptable bill should be narrowly defined, require significant proof, and apply only to the person brought over – not their families. Any pathway to citizenship and the right to sponsor other family members should be off the table – just legal status granted with citizenship barred permanently – should they decide to exercise this pathway to legal status.

The idea (floated in earlier amnesty bills) that paying over a few hundred or thousand dollars as a fine for illegally entering the country is a joke. At that price we will have tens of millions seeking to enter in the near future – how good are you at learning tonal-based languages?. The penalty has to be meaningful, nor should people who chose to enter illegally ever be able to influence the political direction in our system.

This is not racism, but a simple exercise of sovereignty.


18 12 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your thoughtful comments as always.

I am not sympathetic at all to the young people who were brought to the United States illegally by their parents. They are illegals; and if our laws mean anything, they must be subjected to the full consequences of those laws. Otherwise, such laws are meaningless; and in effect, there would be no immigration laws at all, affecting anyone. We would have totally open borders, which of course is utter nonsense.

In my judgment, there should not be any amnesty bill for the millions of people who have entered the United States illegally. This is discussed fully in my article above. Next, parents do not “accidentally . . . bring over an underage child.” They do so intentionally; and they certainly do not deserve amnesty, period. They should be arrested and deported, and barred from ever entering the States again.

This is what would happen to immigrants from Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and many other countries. There must not be a double standard. Either the immigration laws apply to all, or they apply to none. Indeed, there are lots of Americans today who immigrated to the States at young ages from countries other than Mexico, and such legislation would constitute “nothing less than a slap on the face to all of us who came to the United States legally,” in the words of one of them. I agree completely.

Those people from other countries who try for years to enter the United States legally—and in some cases get in, while others never do so and finally give up—are the real “heroes” in the immigration process, if there are any. By definition, while it may seem cruel and harsh, the illegals are criminals and must be treated as such.

. . .

Lastly, Mexico is growing more lawless with every day that passes. The human tragedies mount, as the following article underscores, in spades. It tells about a courageous mother, Marisela Escobedo Ortiz, who waged a two-year battle to bring her daughter’s killer to justice—a 17-year-old daughter who was burned and dismembered, and found in a rubbish bin in June of 2009.

The mother was shot to death—possibly by the same man suspected of murdering her teenager—in front of the governor’s office in the northern city of Chihuahua.


Until the people of Mexico rise up and say enough is enough, and until Mexico’s government deals with such violence and moves strategically to put an end to it, the pressures on America’s borders will be enormous. One can certainly understand why illegals from Mexico may not want to return to their country. Also, the violence below the border has been spilling into the States more and more; and steps must be taken by both countries to stop this. It is in the best interests of all Americans to do so—including Hispanics who are here legally, and may become victims in their own communities.


26 06 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Los Angeles, Mexico

This is the title of an article at one of the Tea Party Web sites, which is worth reading because it reflects the beliefs—and yes, deep-seated prejudices—of lots of Americans. There is no question that illegal immigration has gotten out of hand, and our country is being changed by it.


My views with respect to the article are as follows:

First, one of the “culprits” is Barack Obama, who must not be reelected; this much is crystal clear. He must be sent packing either to Chicago or Hawaii no later than January of 2013, to lick his political wounds and write his memoirs, and work full time on his golf scores and his presidential library. It cannot happen fast enough!

See (see also the footnotes and comments beneath the article)

Second, having grown up in Los Angeles, I have seen it change over the years. Yes, the immigration issue is a serious problem nationally, and I have written about it.

See (see also the footnotes and comments beneath the article)

However, by and large, the Mexicans in Southern California are hard-working, wonderful people, who go about their lives just like any other Americans. I listen attentively for Spanish being spoken; however, most speak English among themselves, which I have observed almost consistently. They become integrated into the American culture quickly, taking at most a generation to do so. They are very family-oriented, happy people who genuinely enjoy life. The Catholic churches in Southern California are filled with them; and young Mexican-Americans are attending on their own, without being forced to do so.

Perhaps I am biased because Mexican food is a favorite of mine; Spanish architecture is my favorite; and the Spanish/Mexican culture has imbued much of California (e.g., its beautiful Missions, stretching as far north as the lovely town of Sonoma in California’s wine country; the old Spanish ranchos that are referenched in the titles to property even today).

Third, the author of the Tea Party article complains that soccer fans at the Rose Bowl were loyal to Mexico, not the United States. I had season tickets to the UCLA football games at the lovely Rose Bowl for about 25 years, until I got tired of watching them lose or play dismal football. The Rose Bowl is a perfect venue for soccer; and the 1994 FIFA World Cup matches were held there, which were very exciting.

Having said that, some friends of mine and I were planning to attend a UCLA-USC basketball game near the LA Coliseum some years ago, and arrived in downtown LA early to have dinner. We allowed plenty of time to get to the game; however, it took us almost an hour to go about a mile or so, because a double-header soccer match involving Mexico was being played at the Coliseum. As it was, we missed the first half of the basketball game because of the traffic jam.

I know the intensity of soccer in Southern California, which is wonderful. However, it is not limited to Mexicans. People from other Hispanic cultures are just as enthusiastic; and having played soccer as a kid, with my son playing it too, I know what a great sport it is. And yes, those Mexicans who were not born here are very loyal to Mexico’s teams. The sports rivalries in soccer equal those in American football, basketball, baseball and other sports; and sports fans are often fanatics.

In short, I concur with the Tea Party article that we must stop illegal immigration in its tracks. I have outlined my views in the article cited above. However, to condemn Mexican-Americans on a wholesale basis—who are becoming a significant part of the American culture—is an enormous mistake. Among other things, they were here before the “gringos,” and they are here to stay, contributing mightily to our great country, just as other immigrants have done before them.


23 06 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

The Immigration Fiat: Another Reason To Remove Obama From The Presidency

The Washington Post‘s Charles Krauthammer has a fine article about Obama’s lawlessness, which is worth reading—and it simply adds to the myriad of reasons cited above with respect to why Obama must be removed from the presidency at the earliest possible date. In his article entitled, “Obama’s amnesty-by-fiat: Naked lawlessness,” Krauthammer writes:

With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations [of immigrants brought here illegally as children] through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed.

— President Obama, March 28, 2011

Those laws remain on the books. They have not changed. Yet Obama last week suspended these very deportations—granting infinitely renewable “deferred action” with attendant work permits—thereby unilaterally rewriting the law. And doing precisely what he himself admits he is barred from doing.

Obama had tried to change the law. In late 2010, he asked Congress to pass the Dream Act, which offered a path to citizenship for hundreds of thousands of young illegal immigrants. Congress refused.

When subsequently pressed by Hispanic groups to simply implement the law by executive action, Obama explained that it would be illegal. “Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. . . . But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”

That was then. Now he’s gone and done it anyway. It’s obvious why. The election approaches and his margin is slipping. He needs a big Hispanic vote and this is the perfect pander. After all, who will call him on it? A supine press? Congressional Democrats? Nothing like an upcoming election to temper their Bush 43-era zeal for defending Congress’s exclusive Article I power to legislate.

With a single Homeland Security Department memo, the immigration laws no longer apply to 800,000 people. By what justification? Prosecutorial discretion, says Janet Napolitano.

This is utter nonsense. Prosecutorial discretion is the application on a case-by-case basis of considerations of extreme and extenuating circumstances. No one is going to deport, say, a 29-year-old illegal immigrant whose parents had just died in some ghastly accident and who is the sole support for a disabled younger sister and ailing granny. That’s what prosecutorial discretion is for. The Napolitano memo is nothing of the sort. It’s the unilateral creation of a new category of persons—a class of 800,000—who, regardless of individual circumstance, are hereby exempt from current law so long as they meet certain biographic criteria.

Imagine: A Republican president submits to Congress a bill abolishing the capital gains tax. Congress rejects it. The president then orders the IRS to stop collecting capital gains taxes and declares that anyone refusing to pay them will suffer no fine, no penalty, no sanction whatsoever. . . .

It would be a scandal, a constitutional crisis, a cause for impeachment. Why? Because unlike, for example, war powers, this is not an area of perpetual executive-legislative territorial contention. Nor is cap gains, like the judicial status of unlawful enemy combatants, an area where the law is silent or ambiguous. Capital gains is straightforward tax law. Just as Obama’s bombshell amnesty-by-fiat is a subversion of straightforward immigration law.

It is shameful that congressional Democrats are applauding such a brazen end run. Of course it’s smart politics. It divides Republicans, rallies the Hispanic vote and preempts Marco Rubio’s attempt to hammer out an acceptable legislative compromise. Very clever. But, by Obama’s own admission, it is naked lawlessness.

As for policy, I sympathize with the obvious humanitarian motives of the Dream Act. But two important considerations are overlooked in concentrating exclusively on the Dream Act poster child, the straight-A valedictorian who rescues kittens from trees.

First, offering potential illegal immigrants the prospect that, if they can hide just long enough, their children will one day freely enjoy the bounties of American life creates a huge incentive for yet more illegal immigration.

Second, the case for compassion and fairness is hardly as clear-cut as advertised. What about those who languish for years in godforsaken countries awaiting legal admission to America? Their scrupulousness about the law could easily cost their children the American future that illegal immigrants will have secured for theirs.

But whatever our honest and honorable disagreements about the policy, what holds us together is a shared allegiance to our constitutional order. That’s the fundamental issue here. As Obama himself argued in rejecting the executive action he has now undertaken, “America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the president, am obligated to enforce the law. I don’t have a choice about that.”

Except, apparently, when violating that solemn obligation serves his reelection needs.


Obama and Napolitano must be removed from office immediately, along with Eric Holder!

See (“The ‘Fast And Furious’ Scandal Is Turning Into President Obama’s Watergate”) and (“Illegal Immigration: The Solution Is Simple”)

What has been done by Obama could be done by a Republican administration; for example, in shutting down all abortion programs, practices and facilities, and arresting those involved—again, by presidential fiat.

If this was done, the cries for impeachment from the far-Left and its captive media would be reminiscent of Watergate; however, they are conspicuously silent now—or cheering Obama on—when he nullifies our laws and shreds the Constitution.


19 07 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

The Death Of America?

In an important article entitled, “Democrats’ ideal voter: Illegal alien, convicted felon,” conservative Ann Coulter has written:

Before taking the oath of office, Barack Obama vowed to fundamentally transform the United States. He has certainly done so. For example, Obama has:

– destroyed the job market;

– sent billions of taxpayer dollars to Wall Street, companies overseas, his campaign contributors and public sector unions;

– forced the passage of a wildly unpopular national health care law on a purely partisan vote;

– come out for gay marriage;

– refused to enforce laws on illegal immigration;

– eliminated the work requirement for welfare.

How can a country that elected Ronald Reagan have Obama tied in the polls with Mitt Romney?

The answer is: It’s not the same country.

Similarly, when two successful, attractive multimillionaire women in California can’t beat a geriatric leftist like Jerry Brown or an old prune like Barbara Boxer, that’s not the same state that elected Ronald Reagan twice, either.

The same process that has already destroyed California is working its way through the entire country.

While conservatives have been formulating carefully constructed arguments, liberals have been playing a long-term game to change the demographics of America to get an electorate more to their liking.

They will do incalculable damage to the nation and to individual citizens, but Democrats will have an unbeatable majority. Just like California, the United States is on its way to becoming a Third World, one-party state.

Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act was expressly designed to change the ethnic composition of America to make it more like Nigeria, considered more susceptible to liberal demagogues.

Since 1965, instead of taking immigrants that replicate the country’s existing ethnic mix, we’ve been admitting mostly immigrants from the Third World. At the same time, people from the countries that sent immigrants to this country for its first several centuries have been barred.

Eighty-five percent of immigrants now come from “developing countries.” (How are they ever going to develop if their people are all on the dole over here?)

The “browning of America” is not a natural process. It’s been artificially imposed by Democrats who are confident of their abilities to turn Third World immigrants into government patrons.

It’s worked. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, 57 percent of all immigrant households in the U.S. get cash, Medicaid, housing or food benefits from the government—compared with 39 percent of native households. The highest rates are for immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (tied at 75 percent).

Isn’t the idea to get immigrants with special skills? If you can’t even get a job, by definition, you do not have a special skill. Other than voting Democrat.

There’s a strange asymmetry in how this matter can be discussed. Liberals and ethnic activists boast about how America would be better if it were more Latino, but no one else is allowed to say, “We like the ethnic mix as it is.”

That would be racist. By now no one even tries to disagree.

Liberals’ other plan to expand the Democratic rolls has been to destroy the family.

Every time someone gets a divorce, Democrats think: We got a new Democratic voter! Every time a child is born out of wedlock: We got a new Democratic voter! And if the woman has an abortion—we got a new Democratic voter!

According to recent polls, Obama has a negative job approval rating of 45 to 49 percent. The reason the polls are tied between Obama and Romney is that single women support Obama by a 2-to-1 margin. The Democrats’ siren song to single women is: Don’t worry, the government will be your husband.

Our prisons are overflowing with the results of the Democrats’ experiment of subsidizing illegitimacy. Children raised by a single mothers commit 72 percent of juvenile murders, 60 percent of rapes, have 70 percent of teenaged births, commit 70 percent of suicides and are 70 percent of high school dropouts.

. . .

Throw in felons voting, and the Democrats have an unbeatable majority.

See added); see also (“Illegal Immigration: The Solution Is Simple”)


22 02 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Illegal Immigration: The Opiate Of America

Like the issue of legalizing marijuana and other so-called “recreational drugs,” which is utter nonsense, Barack Obama wants the following—in the words of the Washington Post‘s Charles Krauthammer:

[He] makes virtually automatic the eventual acquisition of a green card and citizenship by today’s 11 million [illegals]. The clock starts on the day the bill is signed: eight years for a green card, five more for citizenship. It doesn’t matter if the border is flooded with millions of new illegal immigrants (anticipating yet the next amnesty). The path to citizenship is irreversible, rendering enforcement irrelevant.


The reason, again in the words of Krauthammer: “Democrats have little real interest in border enforcement. They see a rising Hispanic population as the key to a permanent Democratic majority.”

Conservative Ann Coulter adds:

I understand the interest of business lobbies in getting cheap, unskilled labor through amnesty, but why do Republican officeholders want to create up to 20 million more Democratic voters, especially if it involves flouting the law?

. . .

Without citing any evidence, the [Marco] Rubio Republicans simply assert that granting 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens amnesty will make Hispanics warm to the GOP. Yes, that’s worked like a charm since Reagan signed an amnesty bill in 1986!

True, Romney lost the Hispanic vote, but so did John McCain, the original Rubio. (McCain lost Hispanics by 67 percent compared to 71 percent who voted against Romney.)

President George H.W. Bush created “diversity visas,” massively increased legal immigration and eliminated the English requirement on the naturalization test. In the 1992 election, he won 25 percent of the Hispanic vote—less than what Romney got.

Although Hispanic politicians, spokesmen and TV networks benefit from Rubio’s mass legalization scheme, there’s no evidence that Hispanic voters care very much about it.

Amnesty never shows up in polls as a top concern of Hispanics. It’s a top concern of employers, not workers—which isn’t going to do much to help Republicans shed that “Party of the Rich” image. After Reagan signed an amnesty bill in 1986, unemployment among Hispanics skyrocketed when, suddenly, there was increased competition for low-skill jobs. That’s precisely why businesses want amnesty, not because of their deep concern for the plight of the underclass.

How’s this for an idea: Why don’t Republicans remind Hispanic voters that the more low-skilled immigrants who are admitted, the lower their wages will be? That at least has the virtue of being untried.

Whatever it is that makes Hispanics love Obama, it’s not amnesty. He double-crossed Hispanics on amnesty; in the words of Univision’s Jorge Ramos, “You promised (amnesty), and a promise is a promise and with all due respect, you didn’t keep that promise.” Obama still won 71 percent of their vote.

Indeed, almost alone among demographic groups, the Hispanic vote increased for Obama from 2008 to 2012. Protestants, Catholics, Evangelicals, Jews, men, whites, white women—even single women—all voted in larger percentages for Romney than they had for McCain.

Only Hispanics and Asians increased their vote for Obama. Coincidentally, these have been our two largest immigrant groups over the last several decades. (It’s sort of touching that Democrats couldn’t get Americans to vote for them, so they had to bring in new voters from other countries to start winning elections again. Immigrants really are doing the job Americans just won’t do.)

The canard about Hispanics being “natural conservatives” comes from the same cliche machine that gave us the one about blacks being “natural conservatives.” At least blacks really are social conservatives—they just vote Democratic, anyway.

As Charles Murray has pointed out, Hispanics are less likely to go to church or be employed than non-Hispanics. They are less opposed to gay marriage than everyone else—44 percent compared to 50 percent. (By contrast, 55 percent of African-Americans oppose gay marriage, according to a 2012 Washington Post/ABC poll—even more, according to how they vote.)

Nor, unfortunately, do Hispanic immigrants become more Republican the longer they’ve been here, as some Republicans claim without bothering to see if it’s true.

To the contrary, they get more liberal. Cubans used to vote Republican nearly as reliably as Mormons. In 2012, 49 percent of Cubans voted for Obama.

Will amnesty win the Cubans back? I don’t think so: They already get amnesty under the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act. Same with Puerto Ricans, who are automatic American citizens.

Trying to appeal to Hispanics with amnesty would be like trying to win over baseball fans by shouting “Go Yankees!” at a Mets game. Except that would at least capture some baseball fans.

It’s not clear that amnesty wins any Hispanics, apart from the ones who can’t vote (because they’re illegal) and their ethnic “spokesmen,” whose power increases as the Hispanic population grows.

So why do Hispanics vote Democratic? Like most legal immigrants since Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act, Hispanic immigrants are poor. The poverty rate of second-generation Hispanics is lower than the first—but the third generation’s poverty rate is higher than the second.

Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that Hispanics have the highest illegitimate birthrate in the country. According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2010, for every 1,000 unmarried Hispanic women, 80.6 had children out of wedlock, compared to 65.3 for unmarried black women and 29 for unmarried white women.

If Republicans think we can have mass amnesty for millions of government-dependent immigrants and become a more libertarian country, they’re crazy.

This isn’t because of a failure to “reach out.” Republicans can’t beat Democrats at the government assistance game. From single mothers to corporate subsidy-takers, they want your money and the Democrats promise to give it to them.

Instead of trying to compete with the ethnic lobbies, welfare schemes and racialized politics of the Democrats, perhaps Republicans should allow our immigration system to admit more immigrants who won’t immediately go on government assistance, as 60 percent of new immigrants do now.

Putting 12 million to 20 million of them on a “path to citizenship” won’t make them like Republicans; it will make Republicans lose.


Once again, Democrats are “evil,” and Republicans are “Neanderthals.”


12 06 2013
Timothy D. Naegele


Truer words were never written. Indeed, Coulter opines:

Democrats terrify Hispanics into thinking they’ll be lynched if they vote for Republicans, and then turn around and taunt Republicans for not winning a majority of the Hispanic vote.

This line of attack has real resonance with our stupidest Republicans. (Proposed Republican primary targets: Sens. Kelly Ayotte, Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio.) Which explains why Republicans are devoting all their energy to slightly increasing their share of the Hispanic vote while alienating everyone else in America.

It must be fun for liberals to manipulate Republicans into focusing on hopeless causes. Why don’t Democrats waste their time trying to win the votes of gun owners?

As journalist Steve Sailer recently pointed out, the Hispanic vote terrifying Republicans isn’t that big. It actually declined in 2012. The Census Bureau finally released the real voter turnout numbers from the last election, and the Hispanic vote came in at only 8.4 percent of the electorate—not the 10 percent claimed by the pro-amnesty crowd.

The sleeping giant of the last election wasn’t Hispanics; it was elderly black women, terrified of media claims that Republicans were trying to suppress the black vote and determined to keep the first African-American president in the White House.

Contrary to everyone’s expectations, 10 percent more blacks voted in 2012 compared to 2008, even beating white voters, the usual turnout champions. Eligible black voters turned out at rate of 66.2 percent, compared to 64.1 percent of eligible white voters. Only 48 percent of all eligible Hispanic voters went to the polls.

No one saw this coming, which is probably why Gallup had Romney up by 5 points before Hurricane Sandy hit, and up by 1 point in its last pre-election poll after the hurricane. Only two groups voted in larger numbers in 2012 compared to 2008: blacks aged 45-64, and blacks over the age of 65—mostly elderly black women.

In raw numbers, nearly twice as many blacks voted as Hispanics, and nine times as many whites voted as Hispanics. (Ninety-eight million whites, 18 million blacks and 11 million Hispanics.)

So, naturally, the Republican Party’s entire battle plan going forward is to win slightly more votes from 8.4 percent of the electorate by giving them something they don’t want.

As Byron York has shown, even if Mitt Romney had won 70 percent of the Hispanic vote, he still would have lost. No Republican presidential candidate in at least 50 years has won even half of the Hispanic vote.

In the presidential election immediately after Reagan signed an amnesty bill in 1986, the Republican share of the Hispanic vote actually declined from 37 percent to 30 percent — and that was in a landslide election for the GOP. Combined, the two Bush presidents averaged 32.5 percent of the Hispanic vote — and they have Hispanics in their family Christmas cards.

John McCain, the nation’s leading amnesty proponent, won only 31 percent of the Hispanic vote, not much more than anti-amnesty Romney’s 27 percent.
Amnesty is a gift to employers, not employees.

The (pro-amnesty) Pew Research Hispanic Center has produced poll after poll showing that Hispanics don’t care about amnesty. In a poll last fall, Hispanic voters said they cared more about education, jobs and health care than immigration. They even care more about the federal budget deficit than immigration! (To put that in perspective, the next item on their list of concerns was “scratchy towels.”)

Also, note that Pew asked about “immigration,” not “amnesty.” Those Hispanics who said they cared about immigration might care about it the way I care about it — by supporting a fence and E-Verify.

Who convinced Republicans that Hispanic wages aren’t low enough and what they really need is an influx of low-wage workers competing for their jobs?

Maybe the greedy businessmen now running the Republican Party should talk with their Hispanic maids sometime. Ask Juanita if she’d like to have seven new immigrants competing with her for the opportunity to clean other people’s houses, so that her wages can be dropped from $20 an hour to $10 an hour.

A wise Latina, A.J. Delgado, recently explained on why amnesty won’t win Republicans the Hispanic vote — even if they get credit for it. Her very first argument was: “Latinos will resent the added competition for jobs.”

But rich businessmen don’t care. Big Republican donors — and their campaign consultants — just want to make money. They don’t care about Hispanics, and they certainly don’t care what happens to the country. If the country is hurt, I don’t care, as long as I am doing better! This is the very definition of treason.

Hispanic voters are a small portion of the electorate. They don’t want amnesty, and they’re hopeless Democrats. So Republicans have decided the path to victory is to flood the country with lots more of them!

It’s as if Republicans convinced Democrats to fixate on banning birth control to win more pro-life voters. This would be great for Republicans because Democrats will never win a majority of pro-life voters, and about as many pro-lifers care about birth control as Hispanics care about amnesty.

But that still wouldn’t be as idiotic as what Republicans are doing because, according to Gallup, pro-lifers are nearly half of the electorate. Hispanics are only 8.4 percent of the electorate.

And it still wouldn’t be as stupid as the GOP pushing amnesty, because banning birth control wouldn’t create millions more voters who consistently vote against the Democrats.

Listening to Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus burble a few weeks ago on “Fox News Sunday” about how amnesty is going to push the Republicans to new electoral heights, one is reminded of Democratic pollster Pat Caddell’s reason for refusing to become a Republican: No matter how enraged he gets at Democratic corruption, he says he can’t bear to join such a stupid party as the GOP.


As I have written: “Once again, Democrats are ‘evil,’ and Republicans are ‘Neanderthals.’”

See (see also the article above, as well as the other comments beneath it)


3 07 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

The Republicans Are Neanderthals; The Democrats Are Evil But Shrewd

One of the many lessons that I learned while working in the U.S. Senate is that the Democrats are smart and shrewd, while the Republicans are often unsophisticated losers. Ann Coulter describes this phenomenon in her latest article:

We keep hearing insistent claims that if Republicans don’t pass amnesty yesterday it will be the end of the party.

Can I see the math on that? I can see why bringing in 30 million new Democratic voters would be good for the Democrats, but how does it help Republicans? Maybe conservatives shouldn’t blindly trust the calculations of the guy who graduated fifth from the bottom of his class at the U.S. Naval Academy.

If I were a Democrat, I would have tried to sneak this bill past Republicans by proposing amnesty only after reaching some easily rigged benchmarks. But, apparently, Chuck Schumer knows elected Republicans better than I do.

Step One: Everyone’s amnestied. Step Two: After they’re amnestied, they can bring in all their relatives.

If Hispanics voted 50.1 percent for Democrats, amnesty would be a bad deal for Republicans. But, in fact, they vote 70 percent to 80 percent for Democrats. How did it become an urgent priority for Republicans to bring in 30 million new voters, 80 percent of whom will vote Democratic?

Democrats want 30 million new voters and they will say anything to get there:

It’s a crisis! Illegal immigrants are “living in the shadows”!

That’s not a “crisis.” At most—and this is highly dubious—it’s a crisis for the illegal immigrants. But evidently, “living in the shadows” is at least better than living in Guadalajara. Otherwise, there’s an easy solution.

We’re told, “You don’t know what it’s like to live in the shadows!” Yes, you’re right, and that proves it’s not a crisis.

Sorry to sound legalistic, illegal aliens, but you broke the law and—look me in the eye—you know you broke the law. You hid in the backs of trucks, traveled across remote desert locations, ran from U.S. agents and stole American IDs.

It’s supposed to be uncomfortable to break the law. We aren’t required to grant amnesty to people just because they’ve put themselves in the awkward position of being here illegally. (Or because the Democrats need 30 million new voters.)

If illegals were Republicans, Chuck Schumer would be a “Minuteman,” patrolling the Mexican border 24-7.

Oh boy! Are Hispanics ever going to take revenge on Republicans!

The obvious retort is: If these people vote 80 percent against Republicans, how does it hurt Republicans if they can’t vote? Is the claim that next time legal Hispanics vote against you, they’ll have an angry glint in their eye? Voting machines don’t register angry glints.

How could any decent person be against granting amnesty to lawbreakers?

In common parlance, “the decent thing to do” is usually defined as “following the law.” The fact that Democrats want 30 million new voters is not a good enough reason to ignore the law and screw over the millions of people who have been waiting 20 years to immigrate here legally.

We already have “de facto amnesty.”

I gather Marco Rubio considers this his big showstopper, since he says it in every interview as if he’s announcing the Kochen-Specker theorem. But if we already have de facto amnesty, why is this bill even necessary? Oh, that’s right! The Democrats need 30 million new voters.

It’s curious that Democrats don’t hysterically demand amnesty for other lawbreakers, such as tax-cheats or polluters. Right now—hold on to your hat, Marco!—we have “de facto amnesty” for tax-cheats and polluters! (Also rapists and murderers and every other crime that doesn’t have 100 percent enforcement.)

And if we won’t grant amnesty to tax-cheats and polluters, what about their children? Why punish the children? They did nothing wrong. Their parents told them they had lots of money for houses, clothes and college tuition. How can you put a tax lien on the homes of innocent children? Think of how BP executives’ children have suffered—the divorces, the deferred dreams, the broken families.

. . .

And by the way, polluters are also hard workers. They love their families and want the best for them, too. I bet illegal aliens who rape women and kill people in drunk-driving accidents love their families. Members of MS-13 work very hard at gang activities, such as, for example, when you cross them, they are very dogged about having you killed in a drive-by shooting. That shows a real stick-to-itiveness.

But weirdly, Democrats are obsessed with amnesty only for the lawbreakers that will get them 30 million new voters. (Violent felons come next.)

Republicans don’t have to be brave to vote against amnesty. They need to not be idiots.

This isn’t a single issue. It’s every issue. Presidential elections are decided by a few million votes. Giving the Democrats 30 million new voters means Republicans lose on everything—Obamacare, public sector unions, big government, abortion, gay marriage, racial preferences, and on and on and on.

In another few years, the whole country will be California and no Republican will win another national election.

Maybe New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie supports amnesty (as he did, via his appointed senator), hoping to be the last Republican ever elected president. There’s one for the history books!

But if Christie says he’s pro-life while giving the Democrats 30 million new voters, he’s a liar. Hispanics favor abortion by 66 percent, compared to 50 percent of other voters.

If he says he opposes Obamacare, court-mandated gay marriage, wants small government and loves his country while voting to give the Democrats 30 million new voters, he’s a liar.

Hispanics support Obamacare by 62 percent, gay marriage by 59 percent and big government by 75 percent.

If he says he opposes bloated, expensive public sector unions, he’s a liar. Look no farther than California for our future.

Instead of the elites bringing in another flood of low-wage immigrants to clean their homes and manicure their lawns (and vote Democrat!), how about we start getting some immigrants to compete with Florida senators and New Jersey governors?

See (emphasis added)

Chris Christie is a Democrat, who must be driven from the GOP; and immigration “reform” must be killed in the U.S. House of Representatives. Otherwise, lots of us who are Independents will never vote for Republican candidates again.


14 10 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Immigration Reform Must Be Blocked Forever

Barack Obama and his Democrats want a permanent majority in voting nationally, and to make the United States into a one-party system of government—not dissimilar to Putin’s Russia.

Neither Obama nor his Democrats are altruists. Rather, they are using this issue to achieve political control, which would change America forever.

If the illegals become legal, all or most will vote for Democrats; and Obama and his Democrats will have a permanent majority in this country: a one-party system of government.

Immigration reform must be blocked forever because Obama and his Democrats will never allow reasonable reform, but will fight tenaciously to achieve their goals. The “Neanderthal” Republicans will give in at some point, because they have no cojones.

My article above sets forth the only fair and just solution. Anything else would constitute a cruel and tragic “joke.”

. . .

America’s founders must be truly weeping . . .

. . .

See (“Barack Obama’s Welfare Socialism Sparked The US Government Shutdown, Not The American Constitution”); see also (“America: A Rich Tapestry Of Life”) and (“Poverty In America”) and (“Big Business Lobbies For Illegals!”)


4 11 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Big Business Lobbies For Illegals!

No amnesty for illegals

An article published by Bloomberg on October 25, 2013, stated:

Evangelical pastors, corporate leaders, elected Republican officials and small-government activists arrive in Washington next week to lobby lawmakers to revamp U.S. immigration policies before year’s end.

The “conservative fly-in” will involve about 600 people and include personal meetings with at least 80 Republican members of Congress, said Ali Noorani, an organizer of the event and executive director of the National Immigration Forum.

“When was the last time that you saw the conservative movement calling for something? Most of the time it’s, ’Stop this,’” Noorani said. “No Republican member really wants to do this, but they’re going to be hearing from constituents demanding that they do it, and do it this year.”

The Republican-to-Republican appeal is the latest tactic of immigration lobby groups that want to jar loose a Senate plan that passed in June and has been foundering in the other chamber. House Speaker John Boehner has said he won’t act on the Senate’s plan, with his caucus preferring instead to pass smaller bills.

The Democrat-led Senate and President Barack Obama have called for a comprehensive approach that includes a path to citizenship for an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants.

Most of the participants in the lobbying campaign aren’t household names, yet they will be well-known to the lawmakers they’re meeting, Noorani said.

“These are the same people they’ll be sitting across from in a few months to ask for their vote or even for financial support,” he said.

Ohio Republicans

Terry Boose, a state representative from Norwalk, Ohio, who is flying in for the effort, wants to talk to Boehner, one Republican lawmaker from Ohio to another.

“I’d like to tell him, and anyone else from Ohio who will listen, to think of immigration in terms of jobs, especially for our state’s agricultural industry,” he said. He’ll be working the halls with an Ohio farm owner who lost crops because he couldn’t find enough legal workers.

“Immigration is all about the economy. I think many of my fellow conservatives get that,” said Boose.

The fly-in is sponsored and paid for by Noorani’s National Immigration Forum, the Partnership for a New American Economy, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and, a technology group formed by Facebook Inc. Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg.

The Partnership for a New American Economy is an association of mayors and business leaders formed by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The mayor is founder and majority owner of Bloomberg News parent Bloomberg LP.

Cost Unknown

None of those groups is required by law to disclose donors or expenses, and representatives from the groups declined to say how much the fly-in will cost.

Marriott International CEO Arne Sorenson will welcome the group at a reception the night of Oct. 28. Marriott’s chairman and former CEO Bill Marriott Jr. is one of eight co-leaders of the Partnership for a New American Economy, along with fellow Republican donor Rupert Murdoch, founder of media company News Corp., now called Twenty-First Century Fox Inc.

“It is time for Congress to pass pro-growth, pro-security measures that modernize our truly dysfunctional immigration system,” Sorenson said in a statement yesterday. “That begins with an honest and serious debate about the status of the undocumented, our need for an efficient system for employers to verify work eligibility, and the current failure of our legal immigration programs to meet the actual needs of the labor market.”

Chamber Gathering

On Oct. 29, the group heads to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce building across from the White House to listen to economists, religious leaders and Republican strategists make the case for comprehensive immigration revisions.

Among the scheduled speakers are Barrett Duke, a vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention, Al Cardenas, chairman of the American Conservative Union, and Grover Norquist, founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform.

Afterward, participants will head to Capitol Hill, where they had more than 120 meetings confirmed as of this week, including at least 80 with the members themselves.

Jeremy Robbins, director of the Partnership for a New American Economy, said the idea is to flood the Hill with “right-of-center” voices who favor changes in immigration law that reflect the Senate’s plan.

“We just feel that the lesser-told story of all this is the conservatives who embrace immigration,” he said. “We are seeing stories all over the country and wanted to bring them to Washington.”

Mixed Group

Participants come from about 30 states and include a mix of local religious leaders, business owners, politicians, including Boose and Kris Steele, a former speaker of Oklahoma’s House of Representatives.

“Regardless of your political leanings, we all start with this agreement: The current system does not work,” Steele wrote about immigration in a Sept. 19 editorial in the Shawnee News-Star. He’s written several editorials on the topic in Oklahoma newspapers, each time basing his appeal for immigration policy changes partly on religion—“Americans are all children of our God”—as well as on economic grounds.

This isn’t the immigration advocates’ first attempt at wooing Republicans with their own., Zuckerberg’s group, included Democratic and Republican subgroups when it began in April. The Republican version, called Americans for a Conservative Direction, includes as board members former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour and Joe Kaplan, a Facebook executive who served as a deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

Americans for a Conservative Direction aired supportive advertisements for Republican Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Marco Rubio of Florida and Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan. All three have advocated for changing U.S. immigration policies.


Also, it has been reported:

Fast food chains and other big restaurant lobbyists are turning their attention to efforts to try to grant amnesty to the 11 million illegal aliens in the country, Breitbart News has learned.

In a public statement released post-government shutdown on Oct. 23, the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition (EWIC) wrote that it thinks Congress should focus on immigration reform efforts before the end of the year.

“Now that Congress can refocus after the showdown over the budget and debt ceiling, we are hearing calls from both sides of the aisle to go back to immigration reform,” EWIC wrote. “The Essential Worker Immigration Coalition (EWIC) is looking forward to continuing to work with the House of Representatives as it deliberates the important issue of immigration reform.”

Among other groups, the EWIC represents the National Council of Chain Restaurants (NCCR). According to the group’s website, its board includes a who’s who of fast food restaurant executives. For instance, NCCR’s chairman is Chip Kunde of Darden Restaurants—which owns brands like the Olive Garden, Red Lobster, Longhorn Steakhouse, Seasons 52, the Capital Grille, Bahama Breeze, Eddie V’s, and Yard House. Other members include:

• Vice Chairman: Mary Schell of Wendy’s
• Treasurer: Cicely Simpson of Dunkin’ Donuts
• Secretary Lynn Liddle of Domino’s Pizza
• Past Chairman: Mike Starnes of Denny’s
• Board members: Donald Balfour of Waffle House, Steve Hilton of McDonald’s, Craig Prusher of Church’s Chicken, James Richardson of White Castle, Patrick Sheehy from Cracker Barrel, Mark Simpson of Texas Roadhouse, Dan Colegrove of DineEquity, Inc., which owns IHOP and Applebee’s, and Joe Taylor of Brinker International, Inc., which owns Chili’s and Maggiano’s brands
• Chairman Emeritus: Steve Brigandi of Jack in the Box

The EWIC argued that despite unprecedentedly high unemployment rates, the industries it represents somehow need more workers. According to the September report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate in America stands a 7.2 percent and has not dropped below 7 percent since President Barack Obama took office.

“There is currently no effective process by which lesser skilled essential workers can immigrate legally other than a guest worker in a seasonal or temporary period position,” EWIC wrote in its statement. “Our American-born workforce will increase only 1% over the next 10 years. The restaurant industry alone projects a need for 15% more workers. There are simply not enough American-born workers to fill the jobs we expect to be created by a vibrant economy in the coming years.”

EWIC argued that American workers cannot always cut it in the fields this group of lobbyists represents, writing that its clients need “a new essential temporary worker program to identify qualified immigrant workers when domestic labor is unavailable.” The industry association called for a “workable and fair” E-Verify system, without giving specifications; “legal immigration reforms for employment-based immigrants to deal with unrealistic quotas and processes”; and “a mechanism for unauthorized immigrants to earn legal status under strict conditions and after complying with strict criteria.”

The group listed five different immigration bills currently weaving their way through the House of Representatives, each of which presumably would be used by House GOP leadership in efforts to combine the Senate’s “Gang of Eight” immigration bill in a conference committee if one of them or any group of them passed the House. “Although we recognize that these bills may be modified when they get to the floor, it is still significant to have so many bills in process,” EWIC wrote.

“We are particularly encouraged to hear that a new lesser-skilled temporary worker program is being drafted by Members that will allow the economy to get the workers needed from abroad when domestic labor is unavailable,” the statement continued. “We understand that this new temporary worker program will include visa numbers that reflect the economic needs of U.S. job creators and will be open to all industries. We encourage all House Members to support this policy initiative.”

House Budget Committee chairman Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) has publicly stated he wants a conference committee with the Senate bill. “A lot of people are saying, just pass the Senate bill,” Ryan said in July. “That’s not what the House is going to do. I think we can make it better.”

Other industry groups the EWIC represents include:

• American Health Care Association
• American Hotel & Lodging Association
• American Immigration Lawyers Association
• American Meat Institute
• American Nursery & Landscape Association
• American Staffing Association
• Associated Builders and Contractors
• Associated General Contractors of America
• Federation of Employers & Workers of America
• Greenberg Traurig, LLP
• ImmigrationWorks USA
• Independent Electrical Contractors
• International Franchise Association
• National Apartment Association
• National Association of Home Builders
• National Association of Manufacturers
• National Club Association
• National Multi Housing Council
• National Retail Federation
• National Roofing Contractors Association
• Professional Landcare Network
• Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council
• Small Business Workforce Alliance

EWIC is hardly the only group representing fast food restaurants pushing for amnesty. The National Restaurant Association (NRA) has participated in the campaign to lobby the House of Representatives as well. In July, after the Senate’s Gang of Eight bill passed that chamber, Gang of Eight members Chuck Schumer (D-NY), John McCain (R-AZ), Dick Durbin (D-IL) Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Michael Bennet (D-CO) met with NRA lobbyists to discuss pressuring the House to push for amnesty.

“With the fate of immigration reform in the hands of the House of Representatives, the National Restaurant Association took part in a meeting with senators who authored the Senate’s immigration reform bill to discuss strategies for moving immigration reform legislation forward,” the group noted on its website at the time. It also noted that tech lobbyists from Google and Facebook also attended the briefing.

“The overall message of the meeting was that the business community, including restaurant operators, needs to be vigilant in urging representatives to act on a comprehensive reform package,” the NRA added. “During the Senate debate, restaurateurs across the country contacted their senators to encourage them to pass comprehensive immigration reform legislation. Restaurateurs in several states took part in media events to call attention to the importance of immigration reform to the U.S. economy.”

“The NRA will continue its discussions with key members of Congress in an effort to secure its three priorities in immigration reform: a clear path to citizenship for undocumented workers, national use of the E-Verify employment verification system, and increased border security that does not impede legal travel and tourism,” the group stated.

The Hill has named the NRA’s Scott DeFife as one of the “top lobbyists” in Washington, D.C., an honor the outfit brags about on its website. The NRA’s president and CEO Dawn Sweeney noted in a statement that DeFife earned the lobbyist award for pushing on issues like healthcare and immigration. In addition to lobbying for amnesty, DeFife helped get big businesses an Obamacare delay by getting the Obama administration to push off the employer mandate while ordinary Americans continue to suffer from the law’s individual mandate.

“The NRA, under DeFife’s leadership, has played a significant role in encouraging the Obama Administration to delay the Affordable Care Act’s employer-mandate penalties and some reporting requirements until 2015,” the NRA wrote on its website. “It also has been vocal about immigration reform, making it a top priority for the restaurant industry and playing a key role in moving reform forward. Creating a clear path to legalization for undocumented workers, national use of the E-Verify employment verification system, and increased border security that does not impede legal travel and tourism are among the objectives DeFife and the Association are currently working on with members of Congress as well as the White House.”


This is “Obamacare II.” All of the businesses that are supporting so-called immigration “reform” must be boycotted.

It is just another way of changing America forever, and ending up with a one-party system of government, which of course is the goal of Obama and his Democrats!

See (“Immigration Reform Must Be Blocked Forever”)

It is argued by these misguided “Neanderthals” that the current system does not work, which of course is utter nonsense. It would work just fine if existing laws were enforced.

Indeed, make it emphatically illegal for employers to hire them and rigidly enforce such laws, and they would be headed back to their countries of origin “overnight.”


16 01 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

Gallup: Only 3 Percent Of Americans Rank Immigration Reform As Top Priority

Breitbart has reported:

New polling data from Gallup shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans do not think handling immigration reform is even close to a top priority for 2014.

Immigration places well behind other issues like healthcare, jobs, the economy, dissatisfaction with Washington politicians, the debt and deficit, lack of money, ethics and moral issues, poverty, the gap between the rich and the poor, education, foreign aid and others. In fact, only three percent of Americans think the issue is a priority that must be dealt with this year.

“Americans start the new year with a variety of national concerns on their minds,” Gallup’s Lydia Saad wrote on Wednesday. “Although none is dominant, the government, at 21%, leads the list of what Americans consider the most important problem facing the country. The economy closely follows at 18%, and then unemployment/jobs and healthcare, each at 16%. No other issue is mentioned by as much as 10% of the public; however, the federal budget deficit or debt comes close, at 8%.”

In fact, immigration is so low among Americans’ priorities that Saad did not even mention it in her report on Gallup’s findings. It is, however, listed near the bottom of a chart of Americans’ priorities, slightly above welfare and “lack of respect for each other” as issues Americans think need to be dealt with.

Despite the fact that most Americans clearly do not think Congress or President Barack Obama should consider immigration issues a priority in 2014, House Speaker John Boehner and the rest of House GOP leadership are currently considering them a priority.

Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte, and Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan, among others, are currently drafting immigration “principles” that will all but certainly recommend granting legal status to large swaths of illegal aliens in America while massively increasing the levels of legal immigration to the country.

In fact, the only way immigration issues would fit into the priorities of voters is if they are viewed through the lens of how economically devastating amnesty and a subsequent massive increase in legal immigration would be to American workers—something that affects jobs and the economy, two top priorities according to Gallup.

A little over a week ago, 16 House Republicans—led by Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL)—stepped forward to write to President Obama about how American workers would be displaced if these immigration reform proposals succeeded.

“Rapidly expanding unskilled immigration—at a time when factory work and blue collar jobs are disappearing—would represent the final economic blow for millions of workers who have been struggling to gain an economic foothold,” the members wrote. “Yet, despite this jobs crisis for American workers, the White House continues to advocate that CEOs and business executives seek lower cost labor. The White House has entertained a parade of high-powered business executives to discuss immigration policy, all while shutting out the concerns of everyday wage-earners who overwhelmingly oppose these measures. You even released an economic report saying that the ‘hospitality and leisure industry’ needs ‘legislation that would legalize workers in the U.S. and facilitate the lawful employment of future foreign-born workers.’”

See (emphasis added)

The Republicans are on a suicide mission.

This is “Obamacare II.” It is just another way of changing America forever, and ending up with a one-party system of government, which of course is the goal of Obama and his Democrats!

“Big Business” has been pushing the GOP for immigration “reform,” which is a travesty unto itself!

See (“Immigration Reform Must Be Blocked Forever“) and (“Big Business Lobbies For Illegals!“) and (“Record-High 42 Percent Of Americans Identify As Independents“) and (“Homeland Security Secretary: Illegals Have ‘Earned Right to be Citizens’”—Johnson should be removed from office immediately. He is charged with enforcing our laws, not subverting them. Imagine the message he sends to illegals, terrorists and others!)


30 01 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

Republicans Are Suicidal

GOP is suicidal

As discussed above, clearly Republicans are suicidal with respect to the issue of so-called immigration “reform.”

See (“Gallup: Only 3 Percent Of Americans Rank Immigration Reform As Top Priority“) and (“One in Six Say Immigration Most Important U.S. Problem“)

Ann Coulter has added:

As House Republicans prepare to sell out the country on immigration this week, Phyllis Schlafly has produced a stunning report on how immigration is changing the country. The report is still embargoed, but someone slipped me a copy, and it’s too important to wait.

Leave aside the harm cheap labor being dumped on the country does to the millions of unemployed Americans. What does it mean for the Republican Party?

Citing surveys from the Pew Research Center, the Pew Hispanic Center, Gallup, NBC News, Harris polling, the Annenberg Policy Center, Latino Decisions, the Center for Immigration Studies and the Hudson Institute, Schlafly’s report overwhelmingly demonstrates that merely continuing our current immigration policies spells doom for the Republican Party.

Immigrants—all immigrants—have always been the bulwark of the Democratic Party. For one thing, recent arrivals tend to be poor and in need of government assistance. Also, they’re coming from societies that are far more left-wing than our own. History shows that, rather than fleeing those policies, they bring their cultures with them. (Look at what New Yorkers did to Vermont.)

This is not a secret. For at least a century, there’s never been a period when a majority of immigrants weren’t Democrats.

At the current accelerated rate of immigration—1.1 million new immigrants every year—Republicans will be a fringe party in about a decade.

Thanks to endless polling, we have a pretty good idea of what most immigrants believe.

According to a Harris poll, 81 percent of native-born citizens think the schools should teach students to be proud of being American. Only 50 percent of naturalized U.S. citizens do.

While 67 percent of native-born Americans believe our Constitution is a higher legal authority than international law, only 37 percent of naturalized citizens agree.

No wonder they vote 2-1 for the Democrats.

The two largest immigrant groups, Hispanics and Asians, have little in common economically, culturally or historically. But they both overwhelmingly support big government, Obamacare, affirmative action and gun control. According the 2012 National Asian American Survey, as well as a Kaiser Foundation poll, only 40 percent of the general public holds a favorable opinion of Obamacare, 42 percent unfavorable. Meanwhile, 51 percent of Asians have a favorable opinion of Obamacare, 18 percent an unfavorable one. Even Koreans support Obamacare by 57 percent to 17 percent.

Overall, 69 percent of immigrants like Obamacare, according to a 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study.

That same survey showed that only 35 percent of native-born Americans support affirmative action, compared to 58 percent of immigrants, including—amazingly—64 percent of Asians (suggesting they may not be as smart as everyone thinks).

Also surprising, a Pew Research Center poll of all Hispanics, immigrant and citizen alike, found that Hispanics take a dimmer view of capitalism than even people who describe themselves as “liberal Democrats.” While 47 percent of self-described “liberal Democrats” hold a negative view of capitalism, 55 percent of Hispanics do.

Pew also found that only 27 percent of Hispanics support gun rights, compared to 57 percent of non-Hispanic whites. According to Latino Decisions, large majorities of Hispanics favor a national database of gun owners, limiting the capacity of magazines and a ban on semiautomatic weapons.

Seventy-five percent of Hispanic immigrants and 55 percent of Asian immigrants support bigger government—also according to Pew. Even after three generations in America, Hispanics still support bigger government 55 percent to 36 percent, compared to the general public, which opposes bigger government 48 percent to 41 percent.

How are Republicans going to square that circle? It’s not their position on amnesty that immigrants don’t like; it’s Republicans’ support for small government, gun rights, patriotism, the Constitution and capitalism.

Reading these statistics, does anyone wonder why Democrats think vastly increasing immigration should be the nation’s No. 1 priority?

It would be one thing if the people with these views already lived here. Republicans would have no right to say, “You can’t vote.” But why on Earth are they bringing in people sworn to their political destruction?

Republicans have no obligation to assist the Democrats as they change the country in a way that favors them electorally, particularly when it does great harm to the people already here.

Yes, it’s great for the most powerful Americans to have lots of cheap, unskilled labor. Immigration definitely solves the rich’s “servant problem.”

. . .

The only ones opposed to our current immigration policies are the people.

See; see also (“Children’s surge of illegal aliens is overwhelming the southwest border”—”This is a mass movement of immigrants that threatens to transform the nation“)

I began as a Democrat, and then switched and became a Republican. However, I have been an Independent for more than 20 years. I cannot remember when I voted last for a Democrat. If the GOP is responsible for so-called immigration “reform,” I will never vote for the party again.

Once, I was proud to be a Democrat. However, the party left me, by becoming too Liberal. I was proud to be a Republican too, which was my parents’ political party. However, it has become filled with too many “Neanderthals.”

See (“The Rise Of Independents”) and (“Record-High 42 Percent Of Americans Identify As Independents”)

Also, American blacks should be very concerned about illegal immigrants, inter alia, because as each new group enters the country, blacks seem to end up at the bottom of the totem pole in terms of jobs and other opportunities.

See (“Black Americans: The True Casualties of Amnesty”) and (“Obama slammed by black Chicago residents: ‘Worst president ever’”)


24 10 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

More Than 14 Percent Of Non-Citizens Indicated They Were Registered To Vote

Illegal aliens vote

This is outrageous. Not only should they not be allowed to vote, but they should be deported to their host countries, and put at the end of the line of those who can enter this country!

The Washington Post has noted:

Could control of the Senate in 2014 be decided by illegal votes cast by non-citizens? Some argue that incidents of voting by non-citizens are so rare as to be inconsequential, with efforts to block fraud a screen for an agenda to prevent poor and minority voters from exercising the franchise, while others define such incidents as a threat to democracy itself. Both sides depend more heavily on anecdotes than data.

In a forthcoming article in the journal Electoral Studies, we bring real data from big social science survey datasets to bear on the question of whether, to what extent, and for whom non-citizens vote in U.S. elections. Most non-citizens do not register, let alone vote. But enough do that their participation can change the outcome of close races.

Our data comes from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES). Its large number of observations (32,800 in 2008 and 55,400 in 2010) provide sufficient samples of the non-immigrant sub-population, with 339 non-citizen respondents in 2008 and 489 in 2010. For the 2008 CCES, we also attempted to match respondents to voter files so that we could verify whether they actually voted.

How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.

We also find that one of the favorite policies advocated by conservatives to prevent voter fraud appears strikingly ineffective. Nearly three quarters of the non-citizens who indicated they were asked to provide photo identification at the polls claimed to have subsequently voted.

An alternative approach to reducing non-citizen turnout might emphasize public information. Unlike other populations, including naturalized citizens, education is not associated with higher participation among non-citizens. In 2008, non-citizens with less than a college degree were significantly more likely to cast a validated vote, and no non-citizens with a college degree or higher cast a validated vote. This hints at a link between non-citizen voting and lack of awareness about legal barriers.

There are obvious limitations to our research, which one should take account of when interpreting the results. Although the CCES sample is large, the non-citizen portion of the sample is modest, with the attendant uncertainty associated with sampling error. We analyze only 828 self-reported non-citizens. Self-reports of citizen status might also be a source of error, although the appendix of our paper shows that the racial, geographic, and attitudinal characteristics of non-citizens (and non-citizen voters) are consistent with their self-reported status.

Another possible limitation is the matching process conducted by Catalyst to verify registration and turnout drops many non-citizen respondents who cannot be matched. Our adjusted estimate assumes the implication of a “registered” or “voted” response among those who Catalyst could not match is the same as for those whom it could. If one questions this assumption, one might focus only on those non-citizens with a reported and validated vote. This is the second line of the table.

Finally, extrapolation to specific state-level or district-level election outcomes is fraught with substantial uncertainty. It is obviously possible that non-citizens in California are more likely to vote than non-citizens in North Carolina, or vice versa. Thus, we are much more confident that non-citizen votes mattered for the Minnesota Senate race (a turnout of little more than one-tenth of our adjusted estimate is all that would be required) than that non-citizen votes changed the outcome in North Carolina.

Our research cannot answer whether the United States should move to legalize some electoral participation by non-citizens as many other countries do, and as some U.S. states did for more than 100 years, or find policies that more effectively restrict it. But this research should move that debate a step closer to a common set of facts.

See (“Could non-citizens decide the November election?”) (emphasis added; chart omitted)

As I have written in the article above:

All illegal immigrants must be deported now, or as soon as humanly possible; and if workers are needed to fill their jobs, they should be drawn first from Americans who are here legally and willing to work, and then from the lists of those from other countries who have been waiting in line patiently to come here. The latter group should be admitted first, and today’s illegal immigrants should go to the back of the line—if they decide to apply at all, once they have been sent back to their countries of origin.

That may seem harsh to some people, but no other solution is fair and just.

. . .

[A]ll immigrants should be subject to the same rules . . . , or no one should be required to obey those laws. It is just that simple. No frills—the same rules for every immigrant, regardless of where he or she is from. Fundamental fairness requires that; and we owe it to all who have come to this country legally and who have contributed so much to our heritage.

See (“Illegal Immigration: The Solution Is Simple”)

By and large, Hispanics are wonderful, hard-working people, who are only trying to better themselves. Within about one generation, they are speaking English and embrace our culture.

However, there must be uniformity in our immigration laws . . . or recognize that we have no laws at all.


20 11 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

Obama’s Amnesty Will Add As Many Foreign Workers As New Jobs Since 2009 [UPDATED]

Obama Amnesty

The Daily Caller has reported:

President Barack Obama’s unilateral amnesty will quickly add as many foreign workers to the nation’s legal labor force as the total number of new jobs created by his economy since 2009.

The plans, expected to be announced late Nov. 20, will distribute five million work permits to illegal immigrants, and also create a new inflow of foreign college graduates for prestigious salaried jobs, according to press reports.

Obama has already provided or promised almost one million extra work permits to foreigners, while his economy has only added six million jobs since 2009.

Under the president’s new amnesty plan, “up to four million undocumented immigrants who have lived in the United States for at least five years can apply. . . . An additional one million people will get protection from deportation through other parts of the president’s plan,” according to a Nov. 19 report in The New York Times.

The five million total was attributed to “people briefed on his plans,” the Times reports.

The five million work permits will add to Obama’s prior giveaways, which have provided work permits to almost one million foreigners.

Since 2009, the U.S. economy has added only six million jobs, according to the International Monetary Fund.

The total number of jobs rose from 139,894,000 in 2009, to 145,871,000 in 2014, according to the IMF. That’s an increase of 5,977,000 jobs in five years.

Obama’s administration claims it has helped create 10 million jobs. If so, he is giving out one work permit for every two jobs created since his inauguration.

Not all the five million illegal immigrants who get permits will work, and many are already working under fake names or for cash. However, their new work permits will allow them to compete for jobs now held or sought by blue-collar Americans, including the many African-Americans and Latinos who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012.

Polls show that the public is hostile to the amnesty plan and want Obama to work with Congress on immigration.

Currently, less than one percent of the nation’s population of 12 million illegal immigrants are repatriated each year. Obama’s policy will likely shrink the repatriations, while providing millions with work permits.

Obama’s total of six million extra work permits does not include the normal inflow of legal immigrants.

Each year, the nation accepts one million new immigrants, or roughly five million since 2009. That total includes roughly 3.5 million working-age immigrants, which is slightly less than the number of Americans — 4.3 million — who turn 18 each year.

Also, companies annually hire roughly 450,000 blue-collar guest workers and roughly 200,000 white-collar guest workers. Most of these guest workers stay for less than a year, but many stay for six years.

That current population of roughly 600,000 foreign graduates is expected to increase, if, as reported, Obama’s plan allows American universities to offer green cards to foreign tuition-paying students who will then compete for the well-paying jobs or the prestigious jobs sought by the offspring of the nation’s influential upper middle class.

Each year, roughly 4.3 million Americans join the workforce in search of good jobs. That total includes roughly 800,000 Americans with expensive degrees in business, engineering, medicine, technology and architecture.

At least nine million Americans are unemployed, and at least seven million have given up looking for work. Employment rates among African-Americans and Latinos are lower than rates for whites and Asians.

Since 2000, the number of native-born Americans with jobs has stalled, despite a growing population of working-age native-born Americans.

The surplus of domestic and foreign job-seekers also helps ensure that U.S. median wages have flat-lined since 2000. Economists — including Obama’s top economic adviser — say that wages stall when the labor supply is larger than the supply of new jobs.

But if the labor market tightens because the number of job-seekers is fewer than than number of new jobs, the wages will rise in the tight labor market. For example, in the late 1990s, even lower-skilled people saw their wages increase because the labor supply grew slower than the Internet-boosted job market.

That relationship, however, is shifted by technology, which creates and eliminates jobs for Americans.

Obama has already provided or promised almost one million work permits to foreigners since 2011.

Since June 2012, Obama used the legally questionable Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals program to give work permits to almost 600,000 illegal immigrants. That DACA number may go above 1.5 million.

In May 2014, Obama’s deputies announced they would provide work permits to 100,000 spouses of university-trained guest workers used by brand-name companies.

In October 2014, his deputies announced they would accelerate the paperwork for 110,000 would-be Haitian immigrants, allowing them to begin working in the United States long before they were due to get green cards.

Since 2011, Obama has allowed roughly 180,000 migrants from Central American to cross the border and apply for green cards.

Despite the administration’s focus on “unaccompanied children,” only about a third of the Central American inflow consisted of school-age kids. The majority were working-age youths and adults, all of whom can apply for work-permits while their legal causes slowly work their way through the courts.

See (emphasis added); see also (“More Than 14 Percent Of Non-Citizens Indicated They Were Registered To Vote”)

Barack Obama is hurting America’s blacks and Hispanics, but he does not care. Cynically, he considers them to be solid Democratic voters, just like America’s Jews, regardless of what he does to them.

Americans must never forget that Obama never set foot on the American mainland until he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles. Instead, he grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia. His views are out of touch with most Americans who were born and raised here.

He is a Narcissist, a demagogue, a liar and incompetent; and his reelection in 2012 merely elevated and reinforced these qualities in him. Indeed, he has come to believe that he is invincible, politically; and he has set about to change America, much like Richard Nixon did after his landslide reelection victory in 1972.

Obama’s anger and willingness to punish his enemies are on display, each and every day, like Nixon’s anger and willingness to punish his enemies.

If you have any doubts whatsoever about such anger, which has undergirded Obama’s life and still does, read (or reread) his book “Dreams from My Father.” It is all there, in his own words.

See; see also (Obama releases more Gitmo detainees) and (Obama Frees 30,862 Foreign Criminals) and (“While the [Obama] administration struggles to move forward with its plan to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants, the list of foreigners trying to get into the United States legally has surged to 4.4 million“) and (“Census: Record 51 million immigrants in 8 years, will account for 82% of U.S. growth”) and (“Every Pro-Immigration Claim is a Lie“)


15 12 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

The Emerging Latino Divide In America [UPDATED]

Assimilation of American Hispanics

Political pundit Dick Morris has written:

Tear up the textbooks, a new pattern may be emerging among Latino voters. The conventional wisdom—that Hispanics habitually vote Democrat over the immigration issue—may be obsolete.

Gallup found that support for President Obama’s amnesty order was primarily among the foreign born population—whether Latino or not. Hispanics born in the United States only backed the amnesty plan by 51-42. Latinos born outside the U.S. backed it by 75-17. (Non-Hispanics born outside the U.S. backed Obama’s plan by 60-32).

Since only one-quarter of Hispanic voters are foreign born, this finding is electrifying! It means that the knee jerk approval Democrats are expecting from the Latino community may not be forthcoming, particularly not in sufficient numbers to offset the backlash among non-Hispanic voters.

But the longer term political and social implications of this fissure in the Latino community, based on place of birth, are even more important. Political science experts have long wondered if the rapidly growing Latino population would auger in a permanent Democratic majority. When black and Latino voters reach one-third of the electorate combined (they are now one-quarter), will that cause Republican extinction?

Certainly if Hispanic voters follow African-American voting patterns it would spell bad—and possibly fatal—news for the GOP. But the Gallup data suggest that Latinos are assimilating politically into the larger population and, unlike blacks, abandoning race consciousness in their voting patterns. Like German-Americans, Italian-Americans, and Irish-Americans, they are mirroring national public opinion in their thinking rather than sticking with their ethnic orientation.

This birthplace gap in the Latino vote may help explain the 13 point gain by Republicans among Latino voters in the 2014 elections. While Democrats still won Hispanics 2:1, they did not win by the 3:1 margin that Obama tallied in 2012.

For decades, politicians spoke of the gender gap in voting patterns before they realized that pro-Democratic voting patterns were largely concentrated among unmarried women. It was more of a marriage gap than a gender gap.

So, with outspoken Latino advocacy groups urging immigration amnesty at the top of their lungs, the compliant and complacent media have assumed that they speak for all Latinos. But they don’t. While foreign-born Hispanics account for half of the U.S. Latino population, they are only one-quarter of the citizens and, perhaps, an even smaller share of the electorate.

So Republicans should not fear increases in the Latino population as much as they do. In the second generation, the children of our new neighbors, show the classical signs of healthy assimilation.

See (emphasis added)

What many Americans who do not live in States with large Hispanic populations fail to realize is that they assimilate very quickly. After one generation, most are speaking English; and often to the chagrin of some family members, more and more do not speak Spanish anymore.

Also, unlike many American blacks, they do not participate in violent demonstrations and burn buildings, loot and kill innocents. And they are not seeking reparations almost 152 years after Emancipation either.

American blacks should be very concerned about illegal immigration, inter alia, because as each new group enters the country, blacks seem to end up at the bottom of the totem pole in terms of jobs and other opportunities.

See also (“1.5 Million Missing Black Men”)

By and large, Hispanics are wonderful, hard-working Americans, who are only trying to better themselves and embrace our culture.


22 01 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

The Extraordinary Story Of Columba Bush [UPDATED]

Columba Bush

The UK’s Daily Mail must be commended for an excellent article about Jeb Bush’s wife, Columba.

See (“EXCLUSIVE: An illegal immigrant, warring parents and a bitter rift with the father she did not see for 40 years – the extraordinary story of Columba Bush as her husband bids to make her the first Hispanic first lady”); see also–gop_2016-george_p_bush-fcc00fdf15.html (“Can George P. make Jeb the 3rd Bush to win the White House?”)

The article presents both sides of difficult family relationships. They are present in Hispanic and Latino families today, who live in the States.

See, e.g., (“Hispanic vs. Latino – Difference and Comparison”)

These are wonderful people, who have often gone through very trying times to get here and adjust. Yet the success stories abound.

I have nothing but praise, admiration and respect for them. I have seen them in a variety of contexts, having grown up in California.

They are the hardest of workers, even in the most menial of tasks. And they seem to have nonstop, wonderful smiles on their faces, which are infectious.

It would be an honor to have Columba Bush as our First Lady.

But see (“‘Tonight I’m going to sleep with the best friend I have’: Jeb Bush pays tribute to his wife after disastrous show in South Carolina forces him to bow out of Republican race despite raising $150MILLION”)


24 02 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Melania Trump MSNBC Interview [UPDATED]

She is smart and lovely; and she is correct with respect to immigration.

She came to the United States legally, and she followed the often difficult and arduous process. Lots of others have too, and they have waited patiently in line; and many have never been admitted. Tragic stories exist, such as those described in the article above.

Others ignore our laws and come here illegally; and they should be deported and go back to their native countries and get at the end of the line, and wait to come here legally—if at all.

See (“Illegal Immigration: The Solution Is Simple“); see also (“ICE: 124 illegal immigrants released from jail later charged in 138 murder cases“)


What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 223 other followers

%d bloggers like this: