Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...
video production in Manassas and Prince William County

Moran’s TownHall Imperils Local Church

By Greg L | 21 September 2009 | Fairfax County, Illegal Aliens, US Congress | 65 Comments

So it looks like Congressman Jim Moran is getting ready early to try to ram amnesty for illegal aliens down our throats, aided of course by the ACORN-tainted SEIU.  What’s fascinating here is one of the number of non-profit organizations that seems so eager to throw away their tax-exempt status by violating rules barring their advocacy of a particular legislative proposal.  St. Anthony’s Parish, a Methodist Catholic church, and Culmore United Methodist are not usually so utterly negligent.

IRS regulations require that organizations awarded tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the IRS Code refrain from advocating for or against the passage of any legislative proposal in addition to refraining from endorsing or opposing candidates for office.  In doing so, contributions to the organization are tax-exempt.  If they wanted to become a political organization, they’d have to file under Section 501(c)(4) which would allow them to do this, but they would have to forego having contributions be tax-deductible.  Otherwise, “charitable” organizations would be engaging in political activity while being underwritten in a way by the federal government.

Churches have lost their tax-exempt status in the past for exactly this kind of behavior, and the financial impact of having a 501(c)(3) status revoked is enormous.  When a church suddenly has to pay back taxes and is now subject to having all their contributions subjected to taxes, it leaves a financial hole that can be absolutely crippling.   Often, they close as a result.  This is about as dumb a move as one could imagine, putting political convictions ahead of the fiancial viability of a church.

As for the rest of these organizations, it’s a veritable who’s who of the fringe political left in Virginia.  Just the types Jim Moran typically likes to associate with.  They’ll provide him with a nice illegal alien-friendly audience tonight that will allow him to say that all he’s heard about the issue is that we need to leagalize all the illegal aliens so they can get taxpayer-funded healthcare.

UPDATE: The Dar Al Hijirah Islamic Center which is a part of this has also been criticized for helping the 9-11 hijackers and having clerics associated with Al -Quaeda.  The center is linked to convicted terrorist Abduraman Al-Amoudi, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other extremist Islamic organizations.

On Dar Al Hijrah’s website, there are links to the sites of two prominent organizations linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, an 80-year-old religious movement that seeks to make Islamic religious law, or Shariah, the controlling basis for society: The Muslim American Society (MAS) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

The imam of Dar Al Hijrah is Shaker Elsayed, a former MAS secretary-general, who has spoken admiringly of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan Al-Banna, telling the Chicago Tribune that his ideas are “the closest reflection of how Islam should be in this life.” Elsayed also accused the Justice Department of unfairly targeting Muslims like Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, who was convicted of joining al Qaeda while overseas and plotting to assassinate President George W. Bush. Abu-Ali, currently serving a 30-year prison sentence, worshiped at Dar Al Hijrah.

The Eid video includes Esam Omeish, a member of Dar Al Hijrah’s board of directors who was recently defeated in his bid for the Democratic nomination in District 35 in the Virginia House of Delegates. In 2004, Omeish praised Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, founder of the Hamas terror group who had been assassinated a month earlier by Israel as “our beloved Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.” In 2007, Omeish was forced to resign from a Virginia immigration panel after a video was posted showing him praising Palestinians who chose “the jihad way” to liberate their land from Israel.

So we have Jim Moran, local churches, and the SEIU helping radical Islamists push for giving amnesty for illegal aliens.  That’s really got to make folks wonder what the heck is going on here.

UPDATE 2: St. Anthony’s, it turns out, is a Catholic church.  I guess the Diocese of Arlington is intent on getting itself into trouble AGAIN.

The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.


  1. I'm just saying... said on 21 Sep 2009 at 8:39 am:
    Flag comment

    It looks like they would have been ok if they left out that one line, “Participate to ensure that our Virginia elected officials vote in favor of immigration reform.” Then it would be just another forum.

    I think Churches in general should lose their tax exempt status… they are all just businesses these days. Why should we subsidize any of them? Churches used to be a primary source of social services for their communities… now these social services are just “footnotes” on their mission statement. If you want to see where the money goes, just look at their facilities.

  2. Tyler Durden said on 21 Sep 2009 at 8:46 am:
    Flag comment

    They should have invited PETA also, since they want to give all animals the same constitutional rights bona fide Americans have.

  3. I'm just saying... said on 21 Sep 2009 at 8:50 am:
    Flag comment

    What about vegetables rights?

  4. Greg L said on 21 Sep 2009 at 9:15 am:
    Flag comment

    Another flyer on MetroLatino gives the broad outlines of the policy agenda:

    Please, participate in this important event. Let’s support comprehensive immigration reform.

    • No more raids and deportations
    • No to 287g
    • A program that requires those who are undocumented to get on the right side of the law by passing background checks, studying English, and working towards full U.S. citizenship
    • Reunification of families separated by outdated immigration laws

    Source: http://metrolatinousa.com/printFriendly.cfm?articleID=113725

    Seems like a pretty radical set of policy objectives to me.

  5. Johnson said on 21 Sep 2009 at 9:24 am:
    Flag comment

    I hope that these violations have been documented and the IRS notified AFTER the event. Some video would be nice, if someone’s not too busy. We could pretend it’s an ACORN office…

  6. TrueBlue said on 21 Sep 2009 at 9:33 am:
    Flag comment

    Agree with “I’m just saying…” that all churches should be taxed. They are big business; some mega-businesses.

  7. Johnson said on 21 Sep 2009 at 10:25 am:
    Flag comment

    This is what we mean by separation of church and state. It’s one thing to preach tolerance and love, quite another to push the political side. Islam and Rev Wright are wonderful examples of politics in the pulpit. We’ve seen how that works out and we want no part of it.

  8. James Young said on 21 Sep 2009 at 10:45 am:
    Flag comment

    Don’t worry about the church, Greg. Attacking tax-exempt status is a penalty reserved only for churches which advocating on behalf of CONSERVATIVE causes.

  9. Karla H said on 21 Sep 2009 at 11:41 am:
    Flag comment

    1. It seems to me that an enormous amount of personal and political energy and money are being spent on this issue of illegal aliens. This should be resolved, and as soon as possible (IMHO). Now it is only muddying the waters around health care.

    2. I see the same problem with these endless wars.

    Our existing political problems have dragged on long enough. They have dragged across changes in administration. They are affecting more immediate issues. We have lives to lead and other things to do. Our government must sh*t or get off the pot.

  10. Pat.Herve said on 21 Sep 2009 at 12:54 pm:
    Flag comment


    I agree with you - the problem is that business want cheap labor, and want to exploit the illegal immigrants, as they cannot exploit young Americans in the same way.

    The only way to solve the Illegal Immigrant issue is to go after the employers full force. You can deport all you want, there is another coming over to fill the same job. I laugh when people want new laws enacted, when all it takes is to enforce the existing laws on the books. Or laws are created that is just so limiting that it is near useless.

    Example - look at the hands free laws - it pertains to voice calls, not texting - or using a GameBoy, etc.

  11. anon52 said on 21 Sep 2009 at 1:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    So instead of preaching to their congregations about sharing, these churches want to influence lawmakers and make us all “share”, whether we want to or not and whether we belong to their church or not. Any church that participates in this should have its tax-exempt status revoked. Then move on to the rest of them–they are just businesses. They have no right to force me, through Forms 1040 or 760, to financially help anyone, especially illegals.

  12. Greg L said on 21 Sep 2009 at 1:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    The following background paper by the Center for Immigration Studies “A Biblical Perspective on Immigration Policy” may be of interest to Christians looking for well-referenced material that would be useful in countering religious liberals having trouble understanding scripture:


  13. Citizen12 said on 21 Sep 2009 at 2:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    St. Anthony’s, Culmore United Methodist and the Dar Al Hijrah Islamic center are all basically in Bailey’s Crossroads. As the area has a 37% Hispanic population I would expect Moran to have a large local turnout.


    Perhaps the echo of power and influence from the days of the Holy Roman Empire still tug at the powers that be.

    Meanwhile we continue to do battle against the one-two punch from Washington.

    And they say bipartisanship has been dead in our nation’s capital.

    One side has given aid while they scramble across the border to help drive down the cost of labor and has granted them amnesty more than once.

    Concurrently the other side of the isle works to give them everything when they get here and continue the fight for yet another amnesty for the millions trying to get in before it takes place.

    Don’t it make you feel all warm and fuzzy to see them working so well together?

  14. The Patriot (Got E-Verify???) said on 21 Sep 2009 at 2:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    The article posted by Greg is excellent!

  15. Karla H said on 21 Sep 2009 at 2:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    “The only way to solve the Illegal Immigrant issue is to go after the employers full force.”

    Another way to resolve the illegal immigrant issue would be to grant all of them amnesty. Right? Would I like that? Probably not…

    I agree with you in that we should go after the employers. Whenever I apply for a new job I must fill out an I9 form to prove that I can legally be employed. Obviously illegals do not go through such scrutiny… which is a form of discrimination… against me (I should contact the ACLU ;^) To enforce our existing law (which I believe is perfectly reasonable) we should crank up E-Verify.

    But my original point is that Obama must call a shot on illegal immigration…. one way or another… before we can move forward. We need to know what the ground rules are for our society before we can discuss any new laws (e.g. health care). He must do this to be fair to the Joe Wilsons of the world.

    So, Pat, what I want to do is force Obama’s hand on illegal immigration. And I want to force it now. I want to bring the issue to a head, and get it over with. We’ve wasted enough energy in the past. Now we are wasting energy on new laws. Make sense?

  16. JTR said on 21 Sep 2009 at 3:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    I would suggest that ALL registered or likely voters in Moran’s district should receive the invite exactly as printed. I suspect there would be more than a slight uproar.

  17. Anonymous said on 21 Sep 2009 at 4:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    I think all churches should have a right to take stands for their faith. Should the Mormons lose their tax exempt status for their stance on gay marriage? Should the parishes that protest on Sudley Road lose their status for legal demonstration? I don’t think. I see no difference in this. If you don’t like the views of a church, don’t go there.

  18. Greg L said on 21 Sep 2009 at 5:42 pm:
    Flag comment

    No one is arguing that churches shouldn’t be able to speak out on matters of faith, but can they ignore the IRS regulations that govern the tax-exempt status that they enjoy? If they want to be political organizations, they cannot be tax-exempt. Those are the rules.

  19. a concerned citizen said on 21 Sep 2009 at 6:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    I hope you don’t take this as an extreme statement, but consider what would have happened during the Civil Rights era if churches whose representatives not only held meetings in but actually walked alongside Martin Luther King, Jr. chose instead to stay out of the national debate.

    Separation of Church and State is a necessity; no nation should deny it’s members the freedom to express their religious convictions. But herein lies the necessary tension: all religions, because they represent an ethical and moral voice to the community, necessarily engage in politics, especially when politics challenges moral/ethical norms held by these faiths. Are there conflicts of opinion even within these faith communities? Of course. This is the value and appropriate context for a democratic people and nation. Both conservative, liberal, and any any other members of faith and non-faith in the spectrum of our nation ought to have the freedom to express their faith convictions. Would I want government to silence those who oppose abortion or euthanasia or stem-cell research? They have as much right to be protected by our Constitution as do those arguing for those issues.

    You want democratic freedom? Then allow for free expression and speech to win over hearts and minds. But do so civilly.

  20. legal2 said on 21 Sep 2009 at 7:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    Don’t we, the people, employ Obama? Then we should demand to see HIS papers! What’s more, Catholics should definitely bring this flyer to the attention of their pastors and bishops, explaining why there will be no more $ from parishioners on Sundays.

  21. Citizen12 said on 21 Sep 2009 at 7:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    One of the better presentations on the issue. Direct, concise, factual and easy to understand.


    Comprehensive Immigration Reform is neither.
    Yes Virginia, they do lie!

  22. Anonymous said on 21 Sep 2009 at 8:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    So, by your reasoning, the Catholic Church should pay taxes for their abortion protests and the Mormons for their overt support for Prop 9? Greg, I really don’t get you.

  23. Greg L said on 21 Sep 2009 at 9:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    My understanding is that independent entities protested abortion (such as the American Life League) and opposed proposition 8. If Churches engaged in overt political activity as a church, I believe that would call into serious question their tax-exempt status. That standard applies everywhere.

    Notice on this flyer that it’s clearly the churches themselves that are participating, not for instance a 501(c)(4) organization that has a significant proportion of their membership coming from one denomination. That’s a significant difference.

  24. a concerned citizen said on 21 Sep 2009 at 11:29 pm:
    Flag comment

    Do individuals possess the right to speak in favor of or against a policy, a piece of legislation, a policy maker? Yes. Do a collection of individuals possess the right to speak in favor or against the same? Yes. Which is why non-profits and for-profits frequently express their backing for specific policies and politicians. What does it require for a non-profit to speak on behalf of a legislative position? An agreement from their ranks. For example, MADD (mother’s against drunk driving) doesn’t hesitate to endorse local/state/federal legislature that supports keeping drunk drivers off our roads. Are they taxed? No. And should MADD endorse a candidate who made a strong push towards increasing penalties for drunk driving, would we consider that endorsement political? or would we deem it appropriate to their convictions and values?

    The reality is that faith informs many people of faith what their politics should be. And if you’re going to say faith ought to stay out of politics and not endorse or oppose positions contrary to that group’s value system, then let’s tell ALL groups to keep their opinions to themselves when it comes to specific policies.

    What you fail to see is that a faith organization makes its endorsements NOT on the question of a party or political group they are aligned with, but to the position any political group or individual makes on the ISSUE that is relevant to that faith organization.

    Which is precisely why entire denominations are given permission to express their views on such huge and looming legal matters as capital punishment, abortion rights, human trafficking, and on and on. And when a piece of legislation appears that addresses THAT SPECIFIC ISSUE, it makes all the sense in the world for that organization to back it. Faith groups are NOT endorsing a political party for that party’s sake - they are endorsing those positions which speak to their priorities when it comes to ethical/moral matters.

    And again, even within the same faith, there can be and are differences of opinion. But the greatness of our constitution is that we are allowed to nevertheless fight these fights we care deeply about.

    So let’s not confuse the real meaning of the separation of Church and State. In past cases, it had to be proven that a church or synagogue or mosque either had a repeated pattern of backing ONE party or CANDIDATE regardless of issues, OR that there was specific MONEY being aligned towards the backing of such a candidate.

    What would truly be un-American would be to restrict religious freedom by dictating that houses of worship cannot even hold meetings where one or both sides of an issue can be presented and debated. Good Lord! Do you realize that houses or worship were COMMON places for politics to be discussed throughout the history of our land? Want to guess where the founding Fathers of our nation often found themselves sitting and talking politics or rallying folks to hear a political speech?

    Let’s keep talking.

  25. a concerned citizen said on 21 Sep 2009 at 11:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    Also, is there anyone out there who is AGAINST immigration reform? The system is broken, regardless of which side you stand on. So let’s talk about what needs to be done, cause I don’t see 12 million undocumented people being shipped back across the borders anytime soon. Let’s talk about ways to enforce existing laws, but let’s also talk about the fundamental problem: if i’m starving and there’s food over the fence, guess what…i’m coming. in my neck of the woods, there’s been a rise in migrants from Guatemala. Guess what their occupation was? Farmering. What are they now? Out of work. Why? Something called CAFTA - another Free Trade agreement that benefited large U.S. farms, but killed the local small farmers in Guatemala. Want to get angry? Let’s get angry together at the large corporate farms and industrial giants backing them that’s creating even more joblessness and hunger for our neighbors to the south. I don’t get why middle class US citizens are getting angry at migrant undocumented workers - because the truth is that we’re both getting screwed by much larger interests - to whom we’re easy pawns, especially when all we do is attack each other.

    Someone, educate me on this.

  26. Anonymous said on 22 Sep 2009 at 4:46 am:
    Flag comment

    Remember when you were so glad to move from that low income neighborhood to a better one with meaningful schools for your kids? Well, now the problem is that the people from that old low income neighborhood is moving into yours! People moving next door that, under normal lending practices, wouldn’t be able to become your new neighbors based on income, which is usually based on the the type job held which is usually based on education. Now we have lawn care workers who don’t even speak English moving in next to accountants. Got to cause friction. Great for them, but bad for those who thought they left that scene behind. So while the accountant maintains his home and pays for his kids lunch, the new neighbor throws a couch on the front lawn and crows about his four kids getting free meals. THAT is why people are so up in arms about illegal aliens!

  27. GimmeABreaaaaak! said on 22 Sep 2009 at 7:34 am:
    Flag comment

    concerned citizen,

    We don’t have to deport XX million people, don’t have to kick down doors, don’t have to conduct raids. All we have to do is institute E-Verify and this will remove our extrememly lax sight verification system - a system so lax that employers get away with accepting 000-00-0000 as a valid SS#! Follow this up with no-match letters, letting businesses know that SS#’s and names & other data do not agree. Follow up with uncooperative employers and prosecute, prosecute, prosecute.

    Also insist that all persons be notified in case of multiple SS#. Are you aware that even if SSA or IRS have every reason to believe that you, who have had 20 or more years of paying taxes, keeping your info up-to-date, etc, are the victim of having somebody else use your SS#, they will not tell you. There should be a law that they must. However, if somebody using your SS# disappears owing taxes, the IRS can look to you to collect. You can likely prove that you don’t owe them, but it will take time and likely money to do so. That is your tough luck.

    FYI take a look at

    http://www.cis.org/IdentityTheft and


    if you want to learn a bit more about this subject and the effects of illegal immigration and for that matter a lot of LEGAL immigration on many of our most vulnerable citizens. Once made legal, unskilled workers can bring their siblings, parents, and grown children into the US via extended familiy reunification. These people can then get green cards and work, futher driving down unskilled wages and driving up unemployment. Who picks up the costs to the community for these workers plus our own unskilled citizens, who use more in services than they pay in taxes? We all do.

  28. M/M Stan Sobczynski said on 22 Sep 2009 at 8:20 am:
    Flag comment

    This is totally disgraceful and should be voted down. This is just another VOTE for the Liberals and Democrats. Moran needs to be voted OUT of office.

    These are mostly liberals with SEIU (a part of ACORN) bveing part of it and the Union that embraces obama.

  29. Citizen12 said on 22 Sep 2009 at 9:51 am:
    Flag comment

    My apologies for the bad link on previous post.

    This one should work.



    If you’re interested in how much it has cost, what it will cost after the amnesty and the impact of both illegal and LEGAL immigration on our social services subsidies programs. These are OUR tax dollars and they are working on taking even more.

    For all who are interested in somehow “making this work” your welcome to step up and pay for it yourself. Otherwise shut down the gravy train and send them home.

  30. Robert L. Duecaster said on 22 Sep 2009 at 1:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    The French have long tolerated unfettered immigration. That policy has resulted in economic and social chaos to the extent that the bulldozers (remember the scene in Solyent Green?) had to be brought in (from the WSJ):

    Associated Press
    CALAIS, France — French police bulldozed a squalid, sprawling forest camp known as the “jungle” near the northern city of Calais on Tuesday, detaining hundreds of illegal migrants who had hoped to slip across the English Channel into Britain.

    French Immigration Minister Eric Besson, who visited the site Tuesday, called it a “base camp for human traffickers” and said he would return the rule of law to the northern French coast.

    View Slideshow

    Associated Press

    Police evacuated migrants in the camp in Calais.
    The people camped there — mainly migrants from Afghanistan — have strained relations between Britain and France and become a symbol of Europe’s struggle with illegal migration.

    A total of 278 people — nearly half of them minors – were detained in the first part of the operation, said Pierre deBousquet de Florian, the top official for the Pas-de-Calais region.

    “This operation is not targeting the migrants themselves, it is targeting the logistics of the human traffickers … who exploit them,” he said.

    Refugees in jeans and sweatshirts, many appearing to be in their teens, carried knapsacks and blankets as they were led away in single lines by police. Activists yelled at the police with bullhorns, forming a human chain around some refugees, and briefly scuffled with police as they took the men and boys one by one.

    Several refugees appeared despondent about their fate, sobbing quietly as they squatted in the sand or stood in police lines.

    Mr. Besson said there was no violence in the operation and all personal belongings were collected and were being sorted out in the Calais mosque. Thirty interpreters and a medical team were helping authorities with the operation and 200 temporary beds were arranged for the migrants, the regional administration said.

    After the people were cleared out, authorities brought in bulldozers to raze the maze of makeshift tents built from sticks and sheets of plastic amid the sand and brush. Workers with chain saws cut down the trees and scrub brush that had supported the tents.

    Activist group Refugee Action called the police operation “horrific” and inhumane but agreed the camp shouldn’t have been permitted to sprout up in the first place.

    “They should never have been allowed to rot there like this. It’s appalling neglect and has allowed false expectation to be built up,” said Sandy Buchan, the group’s chief executive.

    British Home Secretary Alan Johnson said he was “delighted” that the camp was being closed. Britain has ruled out taking the migrants in, and Mr. Johnson said genuine refugees should apply for asylum in the country where they entered the EU.

    Most of the migrants reached Calais after costly and dangerous clandestine journeys across Asia and Europe, by foot or hidden in trucks and boats.

    The migrants try to elude the elaborate border security network, including heat sensors and infrared cameras, at the port of Calais or the Channel tunnel that carries Eurostar trains and other undersea traffic to Britain.

    Nearly a decade ago, many thousands made it across by slipping inside or under trucks traveling through the tunnel. Today only a few make it, but enough to sustain hope.

    Britain is viewed as an easier place than France to make a life, even clandestinely, a view perpetuated by traffickers and family members or friends already there.

    Mr. Besson said other, smaller camps scattered around the region — sheltering Iraqi Kurds and illegal migrants from other trouble spots — would also be cleared out Tuesday and in the coming days.

    He said each migrant was being offered individual options, and that to date 180 have agreed to return to their countries and 170 started applying for asylum in France. The others will be expelled from France, primarily to Greece, the point where most of the migrants first entered the European Union.

    Mr. Besson brushed off criticism that France was just passing the problem of illegal migrants on to Greek authorities.

    French activist group CSP59 said, “Expelling them will do nothing, just disperse them.”

    As many as 1,000 people at a time have called the “jungle” their home, but after Mr. Besson’s announcement their numbers dwindled.

    In the camp before the raid, piles of garbage littered the scrubland. The illegal migrants, some as young as 14 years old, baked flat bread over a fire in a tin drum. The only amenities were a spigot of water at the entrance, a homemade toilet hidden behind plastic and, in a scrupulously cleared area, a mosque made of blue tarp and ringed with pots of flowers.

    In 2002, authorities dismantled a Red Cross-run camp in nearby Sangatte, which had been used by illegal migrants as a springboard for sneaking across the Channel. The migrants kept coming back even after the camp was shut down.

    Copyright © 2009 Associated Press

  31. Karla H said on 22 Sep 2009 at 2:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Also, is there anyone out there who is AGAINST immigration reform? The system is broken, regardless of which side you stand on.”

    Actually, I am against immigration reform. :^) I see no need for it. I think our immigration system works fine. It is discerning in that it gives preferential treatment to educated people, but there is a reason for this. We need doctors, engineers and scientists more than we need lawn cutters. We need people who pay taxes more than we need people who require social services. I do not see this as “racist”. I see this as how an economy must operate to remain viable.

    I DO see a need to reform the defense of our borders… because currently I see an insufficient amount on our southern border (as evidenced by the number of illegals sneaking in).

    How can I say this? I am a LEGAL immigrant. I found a job. I got an H1 visa. I worked that job for 2 years. I got a tuberculosis test, and got a green card. I worked more years. I applied for citizenship. I had a background check. I took a civics test and an English test. I provided fingerprints. I was finally granted citizenship to the greatest nation on Earth. The system worked fine for me. It followed a schedule. No paper work was lost. The immigration department did a good job. And I played by the rules.

    Having said that you will notice that I am pushing for Obama to work on our immigration issue before any further work is done. I want him to either say, “We are legalizing all border busters.” Or, “We are going to enforce our laws, crank up E-Verify, and start squeezing illegals out.” He owes this to me, Joe Wilson, and all the illegals. Why? It appears that health care cannot be discussed until we know what the ground rules for our nation are. I suspect that many bills will be reliant on how illegals will be treated. We cannot move forward until we resolve the illegal issue.

    If Obama says, “I am favoring illegals over law abiding taxpayers, and those who have played by the rules”, then I will look at all new bills one way. If Obama says, “We are a nation of laws, and those who have entered illegally must leave.”, then I will look at new bills another. I need to know whether the number of uninsured that we will ultimately be insuring with Obama’s plan will be 28 million… or 8 million.

    The folly has gone on long enough. Obama… put your cards on the table. I’m calling you.

    Am I making sense here? Do folks see what I am saying?

  32. Robert L. Duecaster said on 22 Sep 2009 at 3:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    You make perfect sense to me, Karla.

  33. GimmeABreaaaaak! said on 22 Sep 2009 at 4:43 pm:
    Flag comment

    “It is discerning in that it gives preferential treatment to educated people, but there is a reason for this. We need doctors, engineers and scientists more than we need lawn cutters. We need people who pay taxes more than we need people who require social services. I do not see this as “racist”. I see this as how an economy must operate to remain viable.”

    That’s a laugh! What you are missing, Karla, is that the single largest source of LEGAL immigration is familiy reunification, not brilliant scientists, engineers, doctors, etc. The siblings of an unskilled worker are not likely to be top-drawer doctors, scientists, etc. They are likely to be low skilled and poorly educated, just like their relatives who are sponsoring them. The worst thing we can do is leaglize the 12-20 million illegal aliens and then allow them to bring in their similar relatives. FWIW the realtives of a skilled engineer may or may not have equal talents.

    While we are at it, how much sense does allowing people who have been here for a relatively short amount of time and who may hold dual citizenshio in their country of origin (Ex Mexico) to have more say over who is allowed into the US (via family reunification) than people who have been here for generations and who hold no citizenship but in the US?

  34. Karla H said on 22 Sep 2009 at 5:43 pm:
    Flag comment

    I say we shove the issue down Obama’s throat.

    “Obama, I don’t know who is lying. You or Joe. Joe Wilson may very well have been right if your plan is to, in fact, legalize all illegal aliens once health care is passed. You must rule on the illegal alien issue first so Joe and I and others know the numbers for our health care system. This issue of illegals has gone on too long. Illegals are in limbo, and so is our legal system.

    Obama, “you won”. Who are you going to rule in favor of? Me, a lawabiding, taxpaying (formerly legal immigrant and now) citizen? Or a bunch of people who broke into my country and started crying racism when they did not get their way? If you rule in favor of me, then we crank up E-Verify and make a concerted effort to kick them out. If you rule in favor of them, then at least I will know how I should view the health care bill. Health care is predicated upon immigration. Make a call.”


  35. Karla H said on 22 Sep 2009 at 6:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    “That’s a laugh! What you are missing, Karla, is that the single largest source of LEGAL immigration is family reunification, not brilliant scientists, engineers, doctors, etc. The siblings of an unskilled worker…”

    I hear ya, Gimme! Chain migration. If it is direct relatives (spouse, children less than 18 years of age) then we must allow them in, and the H1 program should take this into account. If we want a noted scientist, then we must accept his direct family as well. Children over 18… nope! Second cousins… nope! They must apply on their own.

    Actually I am a dual citizen (since I am a legal immigrant). But I pay all my taxes to this country, so I only vote here. This is the only country which concerns me. I left my other “home” for a reason :^)

    And not to get off topic here… but it is my belief that a taxpayer should get one vote for every dollar of tax paid (that’s the way it is with my GE stock… what a concept!). If I “invest” more… then I should be allowed more votes. But I don’t think this will ever fly… it sounds too much like “only land owners can vote.”


  36. GimmeABreaaaaak! said on 22 Sep 2009 at 6:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    Great, Karla. I agree. If we allow an immigrant in, we should allow his IMMEDIATE family - spouse and minor children. Parents, siblings, adult children - no. They can apply on their own.

    “This is the only country which concerns me.”

    Well, then why not renounce your citizenship in your original country? Why are you hedging your bets? Anybody not willing to renounce prior allegiances should not be allowed to become a citizen. Period. What I fear I see is people willing to come here, make money, and leave when they feel like it. They can wreck the US beyond repair and then leave. Most US citizens don’t have that option. Nothing against you, Karla, but this isn’t a viable system…..

  37. park'd said on 22 Sep 2009 at 7:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    Isn’t this the senator that voted to continue the pedophilia activities of ACORN with our tax money? Someone needs to ask him why he feels it is necessary to condone activities like this. It’s shameful. He should be recalled over this because it’s an outrage. Even Webb voted to discontinue funding.

  38. Citizen12 said on 22 Sep 2009 at 7:37 pm:
    Flag comment

    Robert L. Duecaster said on 22 Sep 2009 at 1:23 pm

    ……(remember the scene in Solyent Green?) …..

    This may interest you

    Soylent Green Biscuit Company

    Regarding the camps in Europe, the invasion of illegal and legal immigrants from primarily poor Islamic nations is reportedly breaking the back of many of the European nation’s social programs.

    The problem here in America will go from bad to worse when the Presidents amnesty kicks in, creating millions of legal residents eligible to access all kinds of social programs well beyond heath care.

    Were talking trillions of dollars here. Where do you think the government will look to make up those new budget shortfalls?

  39. Karla H said on 22 Sep 2009 at 9:04 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Well, then why not renounce your citizenship in your original country? Why are you hedging your bets?” - Gimme

    Renounce my dual citizenship? Why? I like hedging my bets! When the USD goes down I buy gold! Is selling USDs anti-American? It may be the most American thing I can do! It tells Herr Bernanke to take his money press and “shove it”. Hedging is a great investment strategy! Here’s more:

    1. I am a capitalist, I enjoy working hard wherever I can, and being paid fair value.
    2. I look after myself. I don’t borrow, and I don’t lend. I do not like paying taxes to support people who don’t work. Some call this selfishness. I find “individualism” more palatable.
    3. The USA is a “collective”. It taxes me, thus imposing its will upon me. My original country is a “collective” as well. But a choice between 2 collectives offers more freedom than 1.
    4. To whom do I swear allegiance? If the USA got into a war, and fighting in that war benefited me, I would fight for the USA. Some may then say my allegiance is to the USA… but if you read this carefully, you will realize that my allegiance is to myself and that the USA has cleverly channeled allegiance to oneself into a means to protect an entire nation (the Founding Fathers WERE smart).

    Hmmm… capitalist, individualism, anti-collectivism, freedom… hey, those are great conservative values!

    I am not a “globalist” by any means. I worked and waited to get into the USA. I played by the immigration rules. I am a capitalist, and I play by capitalist rules. My position does not come (nor should it come) for free (given the current “rules”). I worked for what I have, I appreciate it. I do not abuse it. I make all my money here. I pay all my taxes here. I want those taxes to be spent on citizens (like me). The shooting of spies is completely justified in my book. I would never make a traitorous act against either country.

    “Most US citizens don’t have that option.” Everyone in the USA has the same option as me! Simply get a job in my country of origin, apply for a visa, work, apply for citizenship, take the citizenship test, background check, tuberculosis test, etc. and then you will have 2 passports… like me. My country of origin would welcome virtually anyone from the USA! But be prepared for lower pay, worse weather, poor food, high prices, and bad housing (and thus the reasons I left).

    Do you find anything above contradictory? Well then, try this… I am actually COMPLETELY in favor of open borders(!). Yes, if (IF) the USA had a completely capitalist society (e.g. all schools were private) then I believe people should be allowed to move freely from one country to the other. Everyone should be able to enjoy the same (and in fact more) freedom than I do! People are a commodity. They should flow like goods, according to supply and demand. But (BUT) when Juan Valdez moves from Mexico to the USA he would have to realize that to educate his 7 children in our private schools he would have to pay $10K/year… each! That may impact his decision. The reason I am against open borders (and illegal aliens) is that the USA is not completely capitalist. Illegals come here and suck up our social services (again, schools) without a commensurate contribution. The reason I am against illegal aliens is the same reason I am against socialism. Socialism encourages sloth, corruption, laziness. Capitalism encourages competition, work and productivity through reward.

    Does this make sense?

  40. a concerned citizen said on 22 Sep 2009 at 9:49 pm:
    Flag comment

    go back five, no, ten years. go back when unemployment levels were hanging around 4.5-6% in most regions of the united states. you know who were picking oranges, packing chicken parts, washing soiled sheets, and mowing lawns? yep, immigrants. both legal and illegal. you know who were serving burgers and working at Walmart retail stores? yep, immigrants, in their case, legal immigrants.

    Are there poor, uneducated, minimum-wage non-immigrants? of course - i see them aplenty in rural towns where immigrants haven’t yet established themselves. and why haven’t they? because those jobs are taken by non-immigrant poor willing to work long hours for freakin little pay. but the reality is that even in the best of times, when unemployment was low, we had millions of immigrants doing the kind of work that breaks backs for very little.

    if we begin with the premise that immigrants (let’s just speak of legal immigrants for now) have always taken the lowest bracket jobs, after which their children, now educated, moved up the mobility scale, then we have to make room for their presence here among us.

    i have a filipino friends who came on a work visa. once he received his green card, he applied for his IMMEDIATE family to come over (which meant four daughters and one son). you know how long it took for his last daughter to come, with no snags in the system? she was 16 when the process began. she was 34 when she finally was approved! 34!!! and for all that time she was not allowed to marry, because if she did, she would enter a new category/status, and risk being delayed or even outright refused. this is what i mean by a broken system!

    i’m not sure when’s the last time you looked at real cases of immigration these days. it’s not a joke when my immigration lawyer friend tells me there’s literally NO-WAY for those who pick crops or wash linens to get here legally into the states. there IS NO LINE to legally stand in for unskilled, uneducated workers - unless you’re family - in which case its a VERY LONG LINE.

    if you take all this to be true, or at least somewhat true, you have two choices:

    (1) accept that the US is basically a nation for educated, skilled workers (i.e. we now kick out the very people who were most of our ancestors - irish potato farmers, german laborers, english peasants with a dreams) - the American Dream is not for the down-trodden, but for the elite.


    (2) get ready to pay $10 for a Big Mac, and pay $150/night to sleep at a motel 6 - because if you want to eliminate those willing to work hard for little, in hopes of making e a better future for their kids, then you better be willing pay a lot more for skilled workers without jobs who necessarily do menial tasks, but only for higher wages;


    (3) recognize that the US will ALWAYS need basic labor and basic services - and the faster we honestly assess what the market really looks like, how many worker visas we really need, then we can actually create a functional immigration system that’s truthful to our desire for cheap services, while giving unskilled laborers a chance to discover their American dream.

    what do you think?

  41. ... said on 22 Sep 2009 at 9:55 pm:
    Flag comment

    “get ready to pay $10 for a Big Mac”

    Economic fallacy, like the $10 heads of lettuce.

    Get a clue.

  42. a concerned citizen said on 22 Sep 2009 at 9:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    P.S. gimmee..thanks for the links.

  43. Anonymous said on 22 Sep 2009 at 10:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    I wouldn’t pay a buck for a Big Mac let alone ten of them.

  44. Karla H said on 22 Sep 2009 at 10:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    “if you take all this to be true, or at least somewhat true, you have two choices:” - a concerned citizen

    If we continue to bring in unskilled labor then aren’t we running a Ponzi scheme? Immigrants come in… they move up the ladder… and then we need even more immigrants to support the previous immigrants.

    I was always hoping for “door number 3″… technology that would reduce our need for cheap labor. But necessity is the mother of invention… and the necessity hasn’t arisen because of the constant influx of cheap labor. Japan has the necessity, and they are inventing robots.

    And I suspect that any new technology must be matched with birth control. Humans are designed to live in a world where 50% of the children die. We no longer live in that world. I suspect the guy who invented fertilizer was thinking that no one ever need starve again. But we now have more starving people than we did before the invention of fertilizer, because its invention has allowed us to breed more.

    I don’t think we can keep growing our country by 100 million every 20 years… and the planet by 1 billion every 10. We better find another way out. Technology is my bet.

  45. Dave in PWC said on 23 Sep 2009 at 12:01 am:
    Flag comment

    I agree with you Karla. You have made very good points. $10 big macs is just another liberal scare statement

  46. Citizen12 said on 23 Sep 2009 at 9:42 am:
    Flag comment

    a concerned citizen said on 22 Sep 2009 at 9:49 pm
    go back five, no, ten years……


    Let’s go back a little over 20 years ago. Paper routes, lawn mowing, fast food and many retail jobs were filled not by immigrants but American high school kids, college kids, semi retired and part timers looking for extra income. It is not like these jobs went undone. Then Reagan granted an amnesty with the commitment on tighter security and employment/citizenship verification would be the norm. It’s been a downhill slide ever since.

    The legal immigrant is not the issue. That’s a moot point. Bringing that up just clouds the issue. The immigrants of previous generations, before the establishment of existing laws are not the issue. Thats a moot point. Bringing them up just clouds the issue. While the wait time to enter America for many seems too long, why should we reward the law breakers, the illegal ones? That IS the point.

    It’s not the taxpayer’s responsibility to subsidize the business interest who hires cheap labor. It’s not the taxpayer’s responsibility to subsidize people who feel entitled to things they cannot afford, be it a new car, a home or children. Let’s not forget that the consumer in search of the cheapest price in town is also subsidized by the taxpayer as well.

    The way the system has evolved many find it easier to make ends meet NOT being employed. This country has supported and subsidized the unskilled low wage earner through its social services programs for many many years. We need to put them to work, not import millions more.

  47. a concerned citizen said on 23 Sep 2009 at 10:50 am:
    Flag comment

    vast majority of any business expense goes towards salaries and benefits. want to increase the profit margin? keep salaries low, keep prices reasonable, sell lots and lots when your product is of an lower quality (e.g. big macs; the “success” of WalMart). why do US textile companies have all their production plants in china, indonesia, and latin america? yep, low wages means higher profits. now let’s move those jobs back to the states. result? yep, more expensive jeans and nike shoes for your little ones.

    did i grow up watching Leave it to Beaver and see all the happy teenage kids flipping burgers? sure. but that’s the point! that was twenty/thirty years ago. that’s NOT ten years ago. if you’re a family in the middle, you’re NOT going to send your kid to flip burgers. not when the competition is sending their children to business internships or to language camps or to “fill out my college resume” programs. if you can’t see that change, then you’re getting ready for extinction.

    are we living in the same U.S. here? i thought it was a given that the middle class is rapidly disappearing. it’s in THIS world that the present issue on immigration, both legal and necessarily illegal (necessarily because i still can’t come up with an argument as to why someone would risk their LIVES giving their life-savings to cross a border with thugs - unless they felt it NECESSARY) takes on a global component.

    i appreciate the observation that we seem to have no problem letting goods and finance flow from poorer nations into our own, but not its people. let’s take the economic scenario a step further.

    forget low-wage jobs that most teens i know are reluctant to take (meaning the white teens i know - again, this may be different in areas still majority anglo). what about blue-collar jobs? they’re disappearing non incrementally, but exponentially.

    i agree, when robotics becomes affordable and profitable, then both low-wage and blue-collar jobs will disappear entirely. then all of humanity will make a radical evolutionary leap into either “star trek” utopia or “blade runner” technocratic goth-world. but until that time, this issue of immigration is at heart an increasingly real question of SURVIVAL. blue-collar workers are losing their survival skills. and as much as you tell Joe car-manufacturer to get another degree in computer technology, the truth is, Joe’s a gonner. he’s a dinosaur.

    you want to keep your fast foods and clothes cheap (a head of lettuce won’t hit $10 because we have enough crap to keep making billions of them, and because, check this out, because our government already pays out millions upon millions so farmers WON’T make more - but people? last time i checked, we don’t have robots to replace them, and we still want our fast food to be fast and our hotels cheap), then we have to address the REALITY that those jobs are not being over-run by anglo kids anymore.

    i’m beginning to think this blog is dominated by folks who are all high-tech industry folks or doctors or lawyers. any blue-collar folks out there worried about your future? cause we’re already on the cutting block.

    i actually like a picture of america where we have all income levels. i like the picture that folks can work hard and make their way up. let’s not forget that when we’re talking about how our taxes are beings sucked away by illegals, the MAJORITY of those who receive social welfare benefits, who are in poverty in the US, the MAJORITY ARE WHITES. they’re us. the one’s i see in my neighborhood working two jobs at minimum wage, wanna guess who they are?

    $10 lettuce guy, give me more 411 if i’m wrong in my assessment of costs - in particular the difference between labor costs and product costs when the government steps in to subsidize certain interest groups - like farmers and their lettuce fields.

  48. The Patriot (Got E-Verify???) said on 23 Sep 2009 at 12:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    “concerned” stated: ” the MAJORITY of those who receive social welfare benefits, who are in poverty in the US, the MAJORITY ARE WHITES.”
    Please provide a valid reference to substantiate this statement.

  49. a concerned citizen said on 23 Sep 2009 at 7:36 pm:
    Flag comment

    Patriot, try these spots:

    Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Statistical report from 1995
    • 1.5 million black americans, 2.1 million white americans, 0.8 million latino hispanics
    • note that in terms of percentages, black americans constitute a significantly higher percentage in relation to their population than white americans

    Food Stamps statistics from 2005
    • 10.7 million white americans, 8.3 million black americans, 4.8 million latino/hispanics, less than 1 million others

    U.S. Census Bureau: Food Stamp Receipt and Public Assistance statistics 2008
    http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2008.html (download excel file Table C7)
    • food stamp receipts: 5.6 million white americans, 3.5 million black americans, 2.7 latino/hispanic americans, 0.8 million others
    • public assistance: 1.4 million white americans, 1.1 million black americans, 0.7 million latino/hispanic americans, 0.2 million others

    Now some comments:

    People RIGHTLY argue that exact numbers don’t reflect percentages of the whole (i.e. though more white americans receive public assistance, they are nevertheless a small percentage of all white americans; whereas the percentage is significantly higher for black americans and latino/hispanic americans.

    Still, the observation is that in terms of sheer numbers, welfare is caring for many and all groups - and the winner by a slight margin in terms of actual numbers, anglos.

    I couldn’t find statistical data differentiating between recent immigrants and longer standing groups in terms of welfare recipients. anyone know where some hard data on this might be found?

    citizen 12, i whole-heartedly love the picture you paint. how i wish we could be there again when flipping burgers was a respectable summer job for kids and retirees didn’t mind contributing for a bit of loose change. alas, those days are gone. big business and markets are driving us to extremes - extreme poverty or extreme wealth. and in this landscape, it may seem easy to blame illegals, but they’re a part of that extreme world. want to check illegal immigration? check capitalism run amok and restore a sense of dignity to all work, make homes affordable for all people, and don’t turn the U.S. into a nation of stockbrokers, insurance giants, and CEOs with posh bonuses who won’t mow their own lawns or walk their own dogs or raise their own kids. guess who they hire?

  50. GimmeABreaaaaak! said on 23 Sep 2009 at 9:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    Concerned: You are most welcome for the links. I particularly like CIS because they carefully footnote their stats. Nothing like being able to cite sources!

    Karla: “Does this make sense?” Uh, no. Actually. You have a very odd notion of the concept of citizenship. Believe me, no offense, but it’s not all about you, whatever you have been led to believe.

    Concerned citizen sez “it’s not a joke when my immigration lawyer friend tells me there’s literally NO-WAY for those who pick crops or wash linens to get here legally into the states. there IS NO LINE to legally stand in for unskilled, uneducated workers.”

    Well it all depends. There are work visas for farm labor and the limit on them is none. That’s right - no limit. HOWEVER the business bringing them in has to agree to a certain wage, some benefits, and certain amount of labor (as in x months, not just as long as needed - 3 hours, 3 days, 3 weeks, etc). The Biz interests don’t want to do this. It’s easier to hire illegals for as long as they want them, pay as little as they can get away, with and give zip as benefits.

    And why should the US permanently allow in people who are unable to take care of themselves and will depend on substantial public assistance? We have plenty of these in the US now. Do you really want third-world living conditions in the US? That’s where we are heading.

    And FWIW most countries have far stricter immigration rules than the US, which is why relatively few US citizens could go to most decent countries if they wanted to. Bill Gates and his billions are welcome anywhere. An average $45,000-a-year white collar guy even with a BA/BS isn’t. There are people whose families have lived in Japan for generations who are still not considered citizens. Think about that.

    And again, Karla: As for mechanization, the US is actually behind some countries as far as farm mechanization is concerned. Why would Farmer Ag-biz buy a really expensive machine which he then has to (1) “feed”, (2) “house” (3) maintain and fix, and (4) replace at great expense after it wears out when he can hire low-cost illegal aliens and (1) let them go to local food banks, etc (2) let them figure out where to live and if it’s 20 to a house, it won’t be in HIS neighborhood, (3) drop them off at the ER when they need “fixing”, and (4) simply bring in the next batch when they wear out? He privatizes the profits and socializes the costs. Nice business plan if you can get it.

    Also when the labor he brings in drives wages so low that US citizens can’t take the jobs without relying heavily on social services, who pays? All of us do. He pays too but the profit he gains more than offsets his payment. We OTOH don’t get his profits; he does.

    But Karla you are on to something: Back during the last great wave of immigration, there were no social services to speak of. And about 30-40% of the LEGAL immigrants who came to the US WENT BACK HOME. We are now seeing some immigrants going home as jobs dry up.

    So where does this lead:

    In addition to H-1B IT specailists training their replacements, we now have housekeepers having to train their replacements? DOES THIS MAKE SENSE? No……

  51. Johnson said on 24 Sep 2009 at 2:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    Let’s enforce the law. Period.

  52. Brittancus said on 25 Sep 2009 at 1:30 pm:
    Flag comment

    E-verify could become a very significant immigration enforcement weapon, as it’s shown to work extremely well? Opponents have used the courts in erroneous lawsuits as a delaying factor but failed to impress a Maryland federal judge. This application discloses unauthorized immigrants in the workplace, being continually modified in its operation as spreads into the business world. It now has been unleashed on government contractors and subcontractors to locate illegal foreign labor. We should reward those government public servants who have battled outside special interest groups for American workers. But denying elected office to those who tried to kill or weaken its capabilities. Americans should harass their politicians to enact E-Verify permanently and prepare its operational program offering many uses in the incessant law enforcement fight.

    In credit practices it could determine a person’s right to buy any vehicle, if in the United States illegally. It could also disrupt radical organizations like ACORN that was instrumental in assisting foreign nationals buying house mortgages, which had a major impact in the real estate collapse. E-Verify could help emergency rooms identify illegal immigrants using forged documents and enable law enforcement to track the employer. That business should be forced to pay for the person’s injury or treatment instead of the proverbial taxpayers. Schools, colleges could check new student admittances for their immigration status. The E-Verification identification system could accomplish numerous other extraction processes, in determining a person’s right to government benefits.


  53. fed up said on 25 Sep 2009 at 3:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    “$10 big macs is just another liberal scare statement”

    also a wonderful demonstration of their grasp of economics, or the lack thereof.

  54. Anon35 said on 25 Sep 2009 at 3:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    What’s up with the illustration for this thread. Does that little girl actually have her hand in a fist like the black panthers??? She looks like she’s ready to punch someone out!

  55. red, white and blue said on 25 Sep 2009 at 8:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    Immigration reform is a joke. Illegal immigration has virtually altered all of our lives, our schools, our work, our government, virtually all facets of our lives.
    If the law was followed, we would have no need for the BS of immigration reform. Such a term is only for those who want to legalize everyone who crossed the border and those who will continue to cross the border. There is NO intent to halt or stop border crossings regardless of the show of a “fence” so there is no real intent to curtail the flow and stop illegals; just the BS talk of weak politicians.

    We are flat being overrun with illegals and all the grief that is coming with it that will absolutely change the landscape of this country forever - and yes, that is bad, not good.

    As for the churches, it is just one more example of laws being broken and the lack of government resolve to stop it.

    We, the People, haven’t been running this country since the 60’s. Politicians have annoited themselves, expanded our bloated government and wrote regulations, law and created of a bureacracy that is out of control and spent every penny we can make in our lifetime. Illegals become legals with the stroke of a pen after a straw vote and then its done. They win, we continue to lose and for what purpose, what gain?

  56. Cynic said on 27 Sep 2009 at 3:19 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anon35 said on 25 Sep 2009 at 3:58 pm:

    “What’s up with the illustration for this thread. Does that little girl actually have her hand in a fist like the black panthers??? She looks like she’s ready to punch someone out!”

    She had punched someone out - with the help of the liberals, liberal politicians, and their corrupt supporters - she - along with the other millions of illegals - has punched out America!

    Wonder if the intent of that illustration is to play upon our sympathies?

    Anyone showing sympathy for illegals is showing misplaced sympathy!

  57. Anon35 said on 27 Sep 2009 at 6:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    Cynic -

  58. Bridget said on 27 Sep 2009 at 7:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    Garden variety “Sun King” communist propaganda graphic art:





  59. Bridget said on 27 Sep 2009 at 7:57 pm:
    Flag comment


  60. Cynic said on 27 Sep 2009 at 9:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Illegal Aliens (666)”

    Under categories, on the right. Now is not that an interesting number!

  61. Citizen12 said on 28 Sep 2009 at 12:05 am:
    Flag comment

    a concerned citizen said on 23 Sep 2009 at 7:36 pm

    CC - the picture I painted had more to do with the distribution of labor than what race is getting assistance.

    Business has always been able to drive down the cost of labor when there is a surplus of it. With the first and second amnesty, along with the blind eye on our borders, the surplus of unskilled and semi skilled labor went sky high.

    This surplus has also been compounded by the continued outsourcing of jobs both in the manufacturing and business services industries. This has resulted in the reduction and stagnation of income, shifted the working demographics and increased the demand for assistance from all social services resources.

    It is easy to blame the illegals for many reasons. It’s also easy to blame everyone who gives them assistance, those who fail to enforce our laws and others who break them.

    What is difficult is getting any positive action taking place after we have identified the target areas for correction. As we have seen, when the political structure fails to fear the people it no longer even tries to cover up its corruption.

    I will point the finger at both political parties, shady business people and all people, illegal or otherwise that exploit the system that the tax paying citizens of this country put in place.

    The only way to raise wages and improve the quality of life for all economic levels will be to reduce the surplus of labor.

    As far as who will get hired to mow lawns, walk dogs and raise kids……get rid of the illegal people, cut back on social services and start putting able bodied people to work weather they want to work or not.

  62. Anonymous said on 28 Sep 2009 at 5:41 am:
    Flag comment

    Unemployment among 16 to 24 year old Americans seeking employment is up to 52.2 percent … FIFTY TWO-Point-TWO PERCENT!!!

  63. Cynic said on 28 Sep 2009 at 8:30 am:
    Flag comment

    52.2% by Anonymous -

    Well, are not the liberals trying to get it to 100.00%?

    Why should citizens work when we can have illegals do our work at recuced wages - but at much higher social costs (much higher taxes)?

  64. Bridget said on 28 Sep 2009 at 5:35 pm:
    Flag comment




  65. Cynic said on 29 Sep 2009 at 8:56 am:
    Flag comment

    Here is a riddle that appeared in one of my e-mails. Who knows the answer?

    Why is it that if you cross the North Korean border illegally you get thrown into prison and get 12 years of hard labor?

    If you cross the Iranian border while out supposedly leisurely hiking in the hills you get arrested and imprisoned.

    But ……if you cross the U.S. Border illegally you get a drivers license, a Social Security card and free health care.

    Who’s bright idea was this?

Comments are closed.

Views: 3238