Thursday, June 30, 2011

Enforcement Works

The lessons of Georgia and Arizona have been planted squarely in front of any Californian who is willing to look - Enforcement of immigration laws works.

In fact, even the threat or appearance of upcoming enforcement causes many families with illegal aliens to head elsewhere.

"Immigrants" in Georgia, preparing to flee before new enforcement laws take effect

The photograph that appears with this entry is from a recent issue of the Tifton Gazette.  It is a snapshot of  fifty plus Mexican nationals awaiting a bus that is destined for Mexico.  They are standing around in a parking lot of a local supermarket preparing to be driven home.  Keep in mind this is all taking place with a federal court having disallowed/suspended two provisions of Georgia's new immigration enforcement legislation.

Remember, Californians, that we don't have to live as we do. It is a choice we have made.  Our elected officials have set up numerous sanctuary cities, and treated employment  and residency regulations as if they are optional.  The Golden State has the largest population of illegal immigrants in the nation, and it has achieved such for more reasons than geographical location.

The evidence of recent events in Georgia and Arizona reveals that the warnings about having to spend billions on deportation proceedings are absurd.  People who worry about jail and unemployment commonly leave of their own free will.

Thousands of families with illegal aliens fled Arizona, and now they are fleeing Georgia.  Enforcement of laws in California would result in the same reaction, only on a much larger scale.

Article in the Tifton Gazette:

Saturday, June 18, 2011

Something WIC This Way Comes

If you're reading this blog, chances are you are at least somewhat familiar with U.S. immigration issues. You're also probably aware that demographic changes are impacting our nation. More specifically, we have a booming Latino population. What you may not know, however, is for how much of it you're paying.

If you reside in San Jose, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Gwinnett, Houston, Phoenix or Chicago, and are familiar with local public schools, you're probably aware of the dismal graduation rates of illegal aliens and their children, and what de facto babysitting services (with free lunches!) many campuses have become.  However, don't think for a second that you stop subsidizing the upbringing of other people's children when they step off campus.

Case in point, WIC (Women, Infants and Children) is a government program that provides free fruits, vegetables, eggs, milk, cereals, and other healthy foods for children who were brought into this world by parents who can't afford them ( Well, who commonly has children in America these days that they can't afford? Single mothers and Hispanics.

Recently, we learned that Latinos are now 16% of the national population. However, the National Council of La Raza reports that Latinos are 42% of all WIC recipients ( In fact, about 90% of very young Hispanic kids in America have parents who receive WIC vouchers and benefits.

WIC officials assume two things: 1) Lots of people in the United States have had children they can't raise without repeated government handouts, and 2) most of these people are nearly clueless as to how to properly feed a kid. Hey, given the overrepresentation of obesity among Hispanics in the U.S., below age 18, they're probably right.

Now why is this happening? Is there something wrong with people from Latin America? Hardly. People hailing from Mexico and Central America are as capable as anybody else of properly feeding and caring for kids. But, and this is key, the U.S. isn't absorbing "Latin Americans" and their American born children. Our nation is getting the bottom rung of the educational and socio-economic ladder that comes in from El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, etc. Illegal aliens are not commonly bankers, accountants, college grads, stock traders or people who had much success in their homelands. The middle-class and wealthy are not the ones skittering across Arizona deserts, hopping fences and paying coyotes to lead them past the Border Patrol. And they sure aren't the ones who are usually signing up for taxpayer-funded food programs.

Now, you may think that this is all very unfortunate, but you can't be asked, as an American taxpayer, to pay for all this. You have your own expenses and financial problems, right? Please, don't kid yourself. The NCLR has recently blasted e-mails (below) out to that organization's members and supporters. Make no mistake, having Americans continue to pay for WIC is exactly what they expect:

Save Our Babies! Stop Extreme Cuts to the WIC Programs!

The Latino community’s access to WIC, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants, and Children, is under immediate threat. The House of Representatives’ Appropriations Committee has voted to cut WIC funding by nearly $650 million, which will result in up to 350,000 mothers, infants, and children falling off the program. Given that Latinos make up two-fifths (42%) of all program participants, the Hispanic community is expected to be among the hardest hit.

WIC has been an essential nutrition assistance program for Latinos and has long been proven to prevent many of the costly conditions that result from hunger and malnutrition. In fact, nearly nine out of ten Latino infants born in the United States participated in WIC in 2008. This program has been especially important for Hispanic expectant mothers, who are less likely to have access to prenatal care and medical information.

Hispanic families became the hungriest families in 2008, and Latino children now make up nearly 40% of all children living with hunger in the U.S. The last thing we need is to take food out of the mouths of vulnerable mothers, babies, and young children.The full House will have a chance to reject these cuts. Tell your member of Congress to save our babies and reject harmful cuts to the WIC program. (

For a news report about the fraud and abuse common in WIC programs, please click on the following link:

Saturday, June 11, 2011

Not On The Menu

The Supreme Court has recently decided that states are not entirely without power to enforce immigration laws, and this has amnesty advocates terribly worried.  What they've been trying to sell, "comprehensive immigration reform," has failed to attract a lot of buyers. The idea that allowing most illegal aliens to stay, pay a fine, learn English, pass a background check, etc. is not amnesty, or more importantly, is an acceptable solution, has clearly been rejected.

Further, the accusations of "racism" and "xenophobia," complaints of mass deportations being impossible, and suggestions that illegal aliens only take jobs Americans don't want, seem to have changed few opinions.

Conditions suggest that to sell it, the people hawking it have to modify it. Therefore, after a brainstorming session that included lots of Starbucks beverages, the staff at cooked up these proposed alterations, that might succeed.  Folks on the left, in our humble opinions, will have a better chance of obtaining the mass granting of residency rights for millions of illegal aliens, if they incorporate one or more of the following changes.

By the way, we harbor no delusions that people who want to hand out an amnesty to our undocumented population will utilize any of these suggestions (There's a good reason this piece is entitled "Not On The Menu").  We simply believe that if they did, they'd stand a better chance of obtaining the "pathway to citizenship" they desire.

1. Put a cap on the number of illegal immigrants, currently in the U.S., who will qualify for the proposed legalization. In 1985, the American public was assured there were about 1 million people unlawfully present in the country. But only a year later, 2.7 million people were on their way to being amnestied in.  In 2011, we are advised that there are about 11 million of the undocumented inside our borders. Under what is currently proposed, however, there is nothing to prevent 25 to 30 million or more illegals qualifying for the so-called pathway to citizenship.

Putting a ceiling, of 10 or 11 million, on the number who would be legalized would go a long way to allay the fears of skeptical Americans who worry about a repeat of IRCA, and want to avoid being overrun with poorly educated and financially desperate newcomers.

2. Make those illegal aliens who want to be legalized really go "to the back of the line."  As a defense of their legalization plan, amnesty advocates like George Bush and Lindsey Graham have argued that illegal aliens must "go to the back of the line," behind other people who have applied to enter lawfully. This suggestion is patently false. As per the terms of what the McCains, Obamas, and Bidens of this world have proposed, illegal aliens would remain here and not become citizens for approximately ten years. Well, that is simply not "the back of the line."  Many people who have applied to live in America, with hopes of one day earning citizenship, are in their home countries awaiting entry visas. Outside the U.S. is the real "back of the line."

If someone is truly desirous of becoming an American, regrets what he has done, and wants to make amends, he can return to his home country, pay the back taxes, undergo the background check, learn English, and re-enter the U.S. after those who lined up ahead of him have been given permission to come to our shores. It might take a few years, but it would separate out the illegals who truly want to embrace America and its culture, from the ones seeking to simply take advantage of a dressed-up handout.

3.  Limit the amnesty to illegal aliens over the age of 40. Younger people have more time to leave the country and attempt to obtain traditional rights to enter, and are far more likely to have children they can scarcely afford, if they stay.

4. Reduce the number of future admissions to the U.S. from countries that have supplied the undocumented immigrants. 70% of illegal aliens currently in the States are believed to be from Mexico. The next largest group hails from El Salvador. Try appeasing skeptics of the legalization proposal with an offset. If 8 million of the beneficiaries of the legalization proposal are Mexicans, reduce the number of Mexicans allowed to enter legally during the next ten years, by 8 million.  If 1.5 million are Salvadoreans, reduce that country's allotment of future U.S. entrants by 1.5 million, during the next decade. This could be done for every country, based simply upon the number of illegal aliens we absorb in the amnesty, from each nation.

Note:  Were any or all of these changes made to what is now being proposed, the staff at would still be, to a man, opposed to it.  However, we recognize that we are more conservative on this issue than most Americans and, if acted upon, our suggestions for fine tuning might win amnesty advocates enough support to get most of what they want. Fortunately, at least for us, they are unlikely to heed our advice any time soon.