The GOP Flirts With Californiacide

Last week, the GOP got thumped and the Republicans can't believe it because their presidential candidate lost to an incumbent who is arguably the worst occupant of the White House during the last hundred years. Conservatives are incredulous about having been beaten by an office holder who has been leading a nation suffering from high rates of unemployment, terrorist attacks overseas, and $4 per gallon gasoline.

As they dig through the wreckage of last week's exit poll numbers, many take note of the fact that only 27% of Latino voters cast their ballots for Mitt Romney. This not entirely unexpected result has caused a number of prominent conservative figures to fall into a state of near panic. Almost immediately, we have begun to hear calls for "comprehensive immigration reform" from such notables as John Boehner, Charles Krauthammer, Sean Hannity and others. The general reasoning is that Republicans will never obtain a lion's share of the Hispanic vote so long as they continue to oppose legalizing millions of the undocumented who currently reside in the U.S.

Is that true? Would an amnesty constructed by GOP members of Congress win Latinos over to Republican candidates?

Fortunately (depending upon your perspective), we have a model to inspect: The State of California. When Ronald Reagan advocated for and signed the Immigration Reform Control Act of 1986, 2.7 million illegal aliens were granted legal residency. Of those, 1.9 million were residing in Los Angeles County. Have these people, most of whom had children and went on to become citizens, moved in the direction of limited government principles and started electing Republicans?

Here are some facts:

 - When Ronald Reagan ran in in 1984, two years before he signed an amnesty bill, he received 37% of votes cast by Latinos.

- When George H.W. Bush ran in 1988, two years after a Republican signed an amnesty bill, he received 30% of votes cast by Latinos.

- California easily has the nation's largest Hispanic population. No other state comes close, and many current Latino California voters were beneficiaries of the 1986 amnesty or are the children of those who got amnestied in. And Republicans have lost California in every presidential election since 1988.

- In 2008, John McCain advocated for a "comprehensive immigration reform" package that was identical to the one proposed by his opponent. John McCain received 31% of votes cast by Latinos in that election.

- In 2010, a year when Republicans won in huge numbers across the country, Meg Whitman ran as a Republican for the governorship of California. She advocated for the same type of amnesty that had been proposed by John McCain. She lost the election while receiving 34% of the votes cast by Latinos.

- In 2010, Carly Fiorina professed her support of the DREAM Act when she ran for the senate. She lost the election while receiving 31% of votes cast by Latinos in California.

- California, with its considerable Latino voting population, does not currently have a single Republican who holds statewide office.

- George W. Bush (a notable and well known amnesty advocate), who is touted as the poster boy for Republican success with Latino voters, never received more than 44% of Latino votes in any single election.

It's real simple. Latinos in the United States overwhelmingly support Democrats. They always have. This is nothing new. The large majority of Hispanics have voted against Republican candidates who have supported amnesty and against those who oppose it. They have voted for Democrats when Republicans had just passed an amnesty and voted for Democrats when Republicans voiced support for border security.

Expecting them to do otherwise, with an amnesty or without, is simply nonsense because supporting Republicans is something a majority of Latinos has never done. It is a notion that flies is the face of all available evidence; evidence that extends back to the earliest dates when pollsters began tracking Latino voting patterns. Therefore, taking affirmative steps, such as passing "comprehensive immigration reform," to ensure that the national population more closely resembles the population found in deep blue California, is as close to guaranteed suicide for the GOP as it gets.

For more information about Latino voting patterns in presidential elections, dating back to 1960, please click on the following link: http://www.hispanicvista.com/hvc/Opinion/Guest_Columns/102504schmal.htm

Truth And Accuracy Are Unacceptable

Many members of the undocumented population on Long Island are hopping mad. They have grown tired of being told they don't belong in the United States and made to feel as if they are unwelcome. Consequently, earlier this week, some of the undocumented and their supporters took to the streets to protest the hateful use of the term "illegal" in conjunction with the word "immigrant."

When interviewed by a local member of the press, here is some of what they said they would like the American public to know:

Osman Canales, Gay Rights And Immigrant Rights Activist

- I'm a human being, don't call me 'illegal!'

- It's a racist word against our community.

- We are not criminals. We are hard working people that are here just looking for a better life.

Elias Llivicura, Unmarried Teenage Father

- The term "illegal," you know, it makes some people feel uncomfortable.

- We also have feelings, too. It makes me feel like I'm different from everybody else. It makes me feel, like, really bad inside

- I can't do anything about it. I can't change it, so it's just what I am. I'm undocumented, what can I do?

Jackie Saavedra, a Mexican unauthorized resident who has been attending college classes, chimed in with the observation "by saying 'illegal,' they're assuming that we broke a criminal law."

George Orwell

What is not indicated by the newspaper articles about this event is that George Orwell was in attendance. Actually, it is unlikely he was anywhere near the vicinity in view of the fact that the author of 1984 passed on many years ago. However, prior to his death, he did issue a pair of statements that can well be said to have particular relevance to this protest that unfolded on Monday:

- We have now sunk to the depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.

- Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

The Completely Understandable Shock And Disbelief Felt By Juana Reyes

The woman pictured to the right is an illegal alien from Mexico named Juana Reyes. She's been in Sacramento for years, operating a small unregistered food business and driving around without a license. A few weeks ago, she was arrested by law enforcement after having been told repeatedly by cops and store employees that she can't sell her tamales in a Wal-Mart parking lot. She was taken into custody on misdemeanor charges that were later dropped, however, when her name and prints went into the system, her unlawful residency was flagged by ICE and she was placed in an immigration hold.

Since getting out on bail, Juana has mostly been conveying a sense of disbelief that she was hauled off to jail and that she even got into any trouble in the first place. And in all candor, given the circumstances of her life on the west coast, we at DerailAmnesty.com find her bewilderment entirely predictable.

Why should Juana expect to be held responsible for her lawless activities? What reason could she have to believe the orders of the police to leave the premises were serious? Juana is an illegal alien in California. Why should she think her conduct has consequences?

Think about it. Juana Reyes is exposed to Spanish language TV reports and news articles that bewail the plight of "hard-working immigrants" and the "racists" who want them deported. A network of Catholic churches assures her and those like her that God approves of their conduct. Local politicians lecture everyone about the need to stop California's cities and counties from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. Police commonly turn a blind eye to unlicensed businesses and street vending operations run by limited English speakers like herself. She's clearly had little trouble driving around without a license and she's aware that President Obama has taken it upon himself to unilaterally suspend most immigration enforcement and hand out free passes to millions of the undocumented. Hell, she's probably even learned that the soon-to-be bankrupt state in which she resides recently became the first in the country to offer financial aid to illegal alien college students.

Juana, like millions of illegal aliens similarly situated, traipses through her everyday life in a sanctuary city breaking rules and ignoring regulations the rest of us must follow. She does it. Lots of her neighbors and friends do it, and she's aware that authorities know these things but almost never take action. This time, she got into a little trouble and she's absolutely stunned.

The staff at DerailAmnesty.com shares her amazement. When was the last time an illegal immigrant in California did something short of murder, cripple or rape someone and actually face a serious risk of deportation?


For those concerned that Ms. Reyes might actually endure some consequences for her actions, please take comfort in the knowledge that the mainstream press has been rallying to her aid with stories portraying her as a sympathetic victim:  http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/19/4641130/hed-hereupper-and-lower-case-deck.html

The DREAM Act Will Never Be Enough To Satisfy Them

Today is a big day for Californians. It is the first day government forms will be made available for the undocumented to apply for President Obama's executive ordered DREAM Act amnesty. Whether you have illegal aliens in your family or not, if you're a Californian, this will impact your life due to the fact that our state easily has both the largest number of illegal alien families and illegal aliens in the U.S. No other state comes even close. Over half the people to whom the White House will be granting this free pass live in the Golden State.

It should be further noted that a lot of folks are "OK" with that. For many fair-minded Americans, they're not crazy about the notion of our residency and employment laws being ignored, however, they feel a degree of sympathy for young people who were brought here as children by their parents. After all, it's not their fault Mom and Dad chose to conduct themselves as criminals and leech off American taxpayers, right? Further, isn't it a good idea that we keep people who have the brain power and drive to become architects, financiers, engineers and other high-wage earners who will pay taxes?

For the purposes of brevity, this blog entry will not address the misleading intimations about the DREAM Act only helping out high school valedictorians, aspiring lawyers, doctors and other professionals. Those fairytale marketing pitches have already been written about at length. Rather, this piece is being written to bring to everyone's attention that the DREAM Act will never be enough to satisfy the illegal aliens and their passionate cheerleaders. Never ever, ever. Not in this lifetime, folks. This is simply the camel getting its nose inside the tent.

Let me provide an illustration that shows why this is true: On July 4th, President Obama spent the holiday advocating for the DREAM Act at a citizenship naturalization ceremony. I spent my July 4th at a social gathering in the presence of one of my friends who is in this country illegally. If this is surprising to you given the website I operate, be advised that in my line of work you run into illegals everywhere.

My friend is quite familiar with my concern regarding our nation's border problems and we've discussed the issue of immigration many times. He's also aware that I'm knowledgeable about current events regarding immigration as a result of my grassroots activities, so naturally, I was the first person he came to for information when Spanish language stations began trumpeting news of Obama's new "deferred action" policies. When he asked me what the details were and whether or not he would qualify, I advised him that "Unbelievably, Barack Obama has managed to simultaneously screw both of us on this one."

Here are the particulars -- My friend, who has been here since he was elementary school aged, is too old. He's in his early 30's and he's the eldest child in his family. The second child, his sister, is also out in the cold because her 30th birthday has come and gone, too. They both graduated from one of the LAUSD's notorius gang-infested "drop out factory" high schools, but their two younger siblings, each of whom is in his or her twenties, did not. They dropped out and never felt the need to get GED's. Fortunately for the younger brother and sister, however, the standards just recently got watered down even further by the Democrats. To qualify for the "temporary" amnesty, one no longer has to be a high school grad or have a GED. A couple days ago, the new rule implemented changed the standard to also include people who are enrolled in a GED course when they file their application.

So here's how it stands for the "Gonzales" family members, all of whom are happy residents crammed into one house (A decent sized home w/ many bedrooms) in California's scenic Inland Empire area: 1) Mom's legal. She got amnestied in in the 80's. 2) Dad's an illegal. He never applied for the benefits of the IRCA amnesty in the 80's, or allowed his children to have their applications filed, because he thought it was a plot to round up Mexicans and throw them out (The family is royally upset w/ Dad about this. They believe they'd all be legal if he'd applied for the amnesty. He responds by drinking excessively and getting arrested a lot, but that's a story for a different time). 3) My friend, the eldest son, is an illegal, as is 4) his sister, the family's other high school graduate. Unlike the older sister (#4), 5) the younger sister is going to be legalized thanks to the President's amnesty, as will 6) my friend's younger brother, the baby of the family. Number 5 has two anchor babies she's had with two different men and Number 6 has his first child on the way. These infants and toddlers, because they are or will be born here, are U.S. citizens.

There you have it. Nine people in one house, all blood relations. Six legal residents and three illegal immigrants. This will be the situation for the Gonzales family once the DREAM Act has been fully implemented, and it's a common one. Most families with illegal aliens in California are "mixed." It's the norm. Some members of the family are undocumented and others were naturalized or born here.

Now ... does anyone reading this seriously believe that the three illegals, described above, will simply pack up and leave? The American people have spoken and decided that some should be allowed to stay, others need to go, and we must respect that decision, right?

Start dealing in reality. It's an all or nothing proposition for Americans because the problem will never be over with half-measures and partial remedies. The United States is either going to enforce its immigration laws or we might as well legalize all the people unlawfully in the country because the others aren't just going to run off and leave their friends and loved ones behind. You are akin to Israelis seeking to trade land for peace if you think that the illegal immigration debate can be settled with some manner of compromise.

Jorge Herrera, L.A. Area DREAM Act Advocate

Illegal immigrant supporters have no interest in a middle-ground or compromise, and the second the DREAM Act is fully implemented, they will just start to lobby for "comprehensive immigration reform," i.e. a full amnesty for the millions here.

Hell, in Los Angeles, scores of Latino leaders began to pitch a fit when a local lawyer attempted to seek a modification of sanctuary city policies that would have allowed police to make immigration inquiries about known gang members (Try googling: Jamiel's Law). Given this reality, are you genuinely of the opinion that the folks on the left will fold their tents and be satisfied when the DREAM Act gives legal residency to fewer than 20% of the illegal aliens here?

As I have been at this awhile, I feel confident in predicting that you can look forward to being inundated with assertions of the following caliber, on behalf of the illegal aliens not covered by the DREAM Act amnesty:

- We can't allow families to be torn apart! It's inhuman! That's not what America's about! Where's your compassion?

- They just came here for a better life! You would have done the same thing! America was built by immigrants!

- If these people are forced to leave, crops will rot on the vine and you can look forward to paying $38 for a head of lettuce and small ceasars salad!

- Without "immigrants" the U.S. economy will crash. They are imporant consumers who are responsible for lots of consumption of goods that results in millions of dollars in sales tax revenue.

Etc. etc. etc. ...

If you still believe this analysis is incorrect and that we can decide to "keep some but deport others," try googling: DREAM Act down payment. Never mind what you want and think is fair. Take an honest look at how they view the issue and the ultimate goals.

The reality of the situation is simple: If you think passing the DREAM Act will ever be enough to satisfy them and will finally put the illegal immigration issue in the U.S. to rest, you're the one who is dreaming.

Reelection Uber Alles

Barack Obama is all in. He's made his bet and what he has wagered is the remainder of his career as an elected office holder.

Here's the situation: In 2008, Mr. Obama did very well on election day with college educated women and independents. He received 43% of votes from whites, as well. This November, however, he will not duplicate the success he enjoyed with these groups four years ago. The president will draw a smaller percentage in each of the above-listed categories. Obama has lost lots of those voters and he knows he won't be getting them back. Their allegiance largely depended upon the performance of the economy, and he royally fumbled that ball when it was tossed in his direction. Consequently, six trillion dollars in national debt later, and desperate for a second term, he is counting on reenergizing his base, and hoping GOP members are sufficiently unenthusiastic about Mitt Romney and show up on election day in small numbers.

Here's the plan:  Amp up gays, Latinos and extreme leftists to compensate for the votes he's lost among whites, college educated women and political independents.  Hispanics are especially important as they may make the difference in several swing states.

Here's the gamble:  American voters, for the most part, hug the political center. In order to energize the gays, the browns and the liberals, he has taken very unpopular positions with the majority of voters in the U.S. in relation to two hot-button topics -  Obamacare and Arizona's immigration laws. Polls repeatedly show that likely voters dislike the former and approve of the latter.  Rather than hug the center, and try to partner with Arizona to resolve that state's illegal alien dilemma however, Mr. Obama has seized upon the announcement of the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to attempt to create a de facto amnesty. Upon learning that the Court had upheld a key provision of SB 1070, allowing law enforcement officers to question a suspect about immigration status, he promptly had the Department of Homeland Security discontinue the 287g federal government/state police joint program in Arizona. He's made it very clear. Arizona will receive no help getting rid of illegal aliens from the federal government.

Here's the problem:  What he's doing is unfair. Most members of Code Pink, the National Council of La Raza, Act Up!, and MEchA probably don't think so, but they aren't representative of the American mainstream. Joe Average doesn't like the prospect of one million illegal aliens being given work permits when unemployment is above 8%. He feels sympathy for a state inundated with illegal alien crime and related expenses. In addition, many moderates have qualms about the fashion in which his healthcare plan was ramrodded through congress in such a partisan manner.

Here's the question:  Will the president succeed in exciting enough voters to compensate for the votes he's already lost because of the economy AND make up for the votes he'll lose because of taking the unpopular positions on immigration, health care and gay marriage?

Here's reality:  Few people consider him a moderate or "uniter" anymore, as he presented himself in '08. After his actions relating to immigration and healthcare, there's no going back. With about 130 days until the election, he is what he has presented and there is no wiggle room. As a matter of perception, Barack Obama is the Far Left.

Will Americans elect someone this far out of the political mainstream? Who knows, maybe the Harvard grad has calculated correctly but at this point, there's no going back. He either wins as Barack The Champion Of Government Controlled Medicine And Amnesty For Illegal Aliens ... or he retires to a life of high priced speaking engagements and book tours. Make no mistake, however. As of yesterday, Mr. Obama is all in.

5 Questions For President Obama About His DREAM Act Amnesty

This past Friday, our president issued an executive order amnesty for just under a million illegal aliens. He took no questions after making his pronouncement, and quickly exited while ignoring shouted inquiries from members of the press.

Had he been in a mood to defend the merits of his actions on Friday, however, here are the questions to which the staff at DerailAmnesty.com would liked to have heard answers:

1. When answering critics who had been demanding that you produce a DREAM Act amnesty, about a year ago, you asserted "I cannot do this on my own because there are laws on the books." How have those laws changed in the last year?

2. The last major amnesty given, of approximately the same size as the one you're authorizing, was supposed to cover about 1 million people. There was a great deal of fraud and bureaucratic error in 1986, however, and it turned out that 2.7 million illegal aliens were amnestied in. What safeguards will be put in place this time to ensure nothing similar happens again?

3.  You've stated that the DHS has to use discretion when enforcing immigration laws because of limited resources. Additionally, you just represented that the non-enforcement you've authorized will extend to young people without criminal records. Now that roughly 800,000 illegal aliens will have no legal action taken against them, will the DHS have sufficient funds and time to undertake deportation actions against your uncle who has been in defiance of a court order for over a decade, and was recently convicted of drunk driving in Massachusetts?

4. Will illegal aliens who have been convicted of unlicensed driving, or are currently working with the use of a stolen Social Security numbers be precluded from applying for work permits, or are such violations not going to be considered "crimes" for the purpose of this DREAM Act amnesty?

5. Do you think your actions to bypass Congress on this matter are legal, or do you believe it doesn't matter because a lawsuit won't be resolved for roughly a year, and after early November you'll never need another Latino to vote for you again?

Change Will Be Required In 2012

Barack Obama burst onto the nation's radar promising "change," and anyone who believes he hasn't attempted to deliver it (Matt Damon's recent protestations notwithstanding) is either delusional or has been asleep for the past three years. Whatever one may think of his performance in the White House, it cannot be denied that he has taken significant steps to radically alter America. 

On the campaign trail in '08, he gave no details about what "change" he would like to see occur, and millions of Americans who were dog tired of wars overseas and a nearly incompetent Bush administration, really didn't request many.

For those who were curious, however, at the end of 2011, we have our answers: Barack Obama would like the U.S. to be much less white and he wants new arrivees and their children to be subsidized at levels previously unprecedented in the U.S.

How do we know this? By looking at his major political efforts during his time in office: Obamacare and the ongoing crusade against states that have sought to enforce immigration laws. Let's briefly review them.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") is pretty simple at its core. It takes billions of dollars in healthcare funds that would normally go to the elderly through Medicare, and redistributes them to millions of previously uninsured people (http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA590.html). The poor and uninsured in the U.S. are mostly new arrivees and blacks and Hispanics, and they are the folks who will disproportionately receive the medical handouts that the middle class will finance under the president's plan. Think of it like EBT cards and Los Angeles public schools, only hundreds of times bigger. The folks paying (mostly white and middle class) will be required to further subsidize people who have had families they can't afford. Only this time, they will be doing it on a level that encompasses over 15% of our country's economic output.

Insofar as the President's undeclared war on state immigration law enforcement efforts, Mr. Obama has used Eric Holder and the Department of Justice like a spiked club. Indeed, he has repeatedly taken broad swings at states whose officials have demonstrated the audacity to try to chase off the burgeoning illegal immigrant population that Washington won't. Utah, Georgia, Alabama and Arizona are only some of the states that find themselves embroiled in multi-million dollar litigation with a federal government that does nothing to stop the loss of billions of taxpayer dollars consumed by illegal aliens and their offspring. As Americans grapple with an unemployment rate much higher than the one that existed before Mr. Obama took up residence on Pennyslvania Avenue, the president's operatives have hounded Joe Arpaio with inane accusations of "racial profiling" (as if a person' skin color or ethnicity is relevant when a limited English speaker is utilizing stolen Social Security numbers or presents a Matricula Consular card to a highway patrol officer in lieu of a drivers license), and attacked all state efforts to have voters identify themselves with state issued (and usually free) identification cards.

Should this desired "change" come as a surprise? Not to people who have looked at Barack Obama, the company he has kept, and what he has written. He said on the campaign trail that he wanted to "spread the wealth." Well, if fully implemented, his healthcare "fix" will achieve that at a level previously unseen in American history. Further, he attended church services presided over by Jeremiah Wright for twenty years and had the pastor officiate at important Obama family ceremonies. There's a saying, folks: Tell me who your friends are and I'll tell you who you are. Keep that in mind when you stop to consider what the president thinks of the American white middle class.

If you believe another major legalization effort for millions of undereducated and fundamentally dishonest people from Mexico and El Salvador (only this time, a lot bigger) is good for America, the incumbent should definitely receive your vote. If you believe that struggling middle class families have an ongoing obligation to subsidize people who had children they could never have afforded to pay for on their own, a second term for President Obama is certainly what you should want. However, if you're of the opinion that immigration and employment laws should not be treated as "optional," and that the U.S. takes in more than its share of legal immigrants each year, then change is what will be required in 2012.