Amnesty

Stop Amnesty campaign

Drew McKissick — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:09:21 -0400

As part of the next step in the evolution of the Conservative Outpost, we're launching the first of what will soon be many Internet based campaigns from within our site. The goal is to eventually have a section of our site where any registered user can go and create his or her own campaign, add petitions, fax messages, e-postcards, discussion groups, share files, etc.. In other words, be more effective. More on that in the future.

For now, the first such effort is our own "Stop Amnesty" campaign.

Those familiar with this site know how we feel about the amnesty issue. And you also probably know that the proponents of amnesty seem to never sleep... they just wait for us to go to sleep. They're there, in Congress, still working to pass some form of amnesty for illegal aliens. They've attempted to give tax rebates to illegals. They balk at building an actual border fence, focusing instead on a "virtual fence" - which we now find out is behind schedule too!

Our elected officials still haven’t gotten the message that the American public DOES NOT want amnesty for illegal aliens in any way, shape or form.

Don't let them get away with it! Sign the petition today and let your member of Congress know how you feel.

Even today, 14 members of Congress are suing the government to STOP building of the border fence alltogether - claiming that construction of it would violate the Clear Air Act!

These people have to be sent a message that the American people are fed up. Add your name to the petition today and then fax your members of Congress. A copy of the petition and signatures will be forwarded to Congress.

Then help us spread the word and forward a link to this website on to others!

"Virtual fence" delayed

Drew McKissick — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:55:02 -0500

Prepare to yell out loud.

The Bush administration has scaled back plans to quickly build a "virtual fence" along the U.S.-Mexico border, delaying completion of the first phase of the project by at least three years and shifting away from a network of tower-mounted sensors and surveillance gear, federal officials said yesterday. ...

The announcement marked a major setback for what President Bush in May 2006 called "the most technologically advanced border security initiative in American history." The virtual fence was to be a key component of his proposed overhaul of U.S. immigration policies, which died last year in the Senate.

Investigators for the Government Accountability Office had earlier warned that the effort was beset by both expected and unplanned difficulties. But yesterday, they disclosed new troubles that will require a redesign and said the first phase will not be completed until near the end of the next president's first term.

Those problems included Boeing's use of inappropriate commercial software, designed for use by police dispatchers, to integrate data related to illicit border-crossings. Boeing has already been paid $20.6 million for the pilot project, and in December, the DHS gave the firm another $65 million to replace the software with military-style, battle management software. ...

Boeing has said that the initial effort, while flawed, still has helped Homeland Security apprehend 2,000 illegal immigrants since September. It estimated in 2006 that it would spend $7.6 billion through 2011 to secure the entire 2,000-mile southern border, an ambition that was meant to win support from conservatives for legislation creating a guest-worker program and a path to legalization for 12 million illegal immigrants. ...

And then there's this:

The virtual fence was to complement a physical fence that the administration now says will include 370 miles of pedestrian fencing and 300 miles of vehicle barriers to be completed by the end of this year. The GAO said this portion of the project may also be delayed and that its total cost cannot be determined. The president's 2009 budget does not propose funds to add fencing beyond the 700 or so miles meant to be completed this year.

Well, as Gomer Pyle would say, "Surprise!, Surprise!, Surprise!". We're just shocked. You see folks, that's why conservatives don't want to hear ANY talk about amensty, or special visas, or guest-worker blah-blah-blah...not until you demonstrate that you can, will, and then DO secure the border.

For crying out loud, this is the United States of America. We put a man on the moon with computers that pale in comparison with today's pocket calculators, but we can't do something that countries have been doing since, well, since we learned how to stack rocks on top of one another.

The Chinese did it...

The Romans did it...

And now the Israeli's are doing it...

It's NOT complicated. This is NOT something that absolutely requires space-age technology and software programs that may or may not work. It's a fence. It keeps people out. Build it!

Stop Amnesty and Secure our Borders

Drew McKissick — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 16:27:10 -0500

We the undersigned call upon Congress to stem the tide of illegal immigration into our country by securing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws.

We support legislation that will:

Better protect our borders with more border patrol and the construction of a physical barrier against illegal entry into our country
Punish businesses that knowingly hire illegal aliens
Enlist local officials in the battle to enforce our immigration laws

We oppose legislation that will:

Grant amnesty to illegal aliens in our country
Give a “fast track” to US citizenship to those who have come here illegally

We feel that massive waves of illegal aliens are a burden to American taxpayers and a cultural burden to our society.

We demand that all members of the United States Congress support measures that will strictly enforce our laws and better protect our borders from illegal immigration.

Stop Amnesty

Who Pays for Amnesty?

Drew McKissick — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 10:07:06 -0400

Quick history quiz. Who said the following: “This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this.”?

That was Ted Kennedy on the floor of the US Senate in 1986, pushing for legislation that successfully granted amnesty to several million illegal aliens that year.

There you have a good example of why the word “amnesty” is such a hot-button with politicians and the American public. Because the only thing that bill did successfully was grant amnesty.

Ted Kennedy’s promises of “securing the border” notwithstanding, we’ve since had another twelve to twenty million illegals sneak into our country. So here comes the amnesty crowd once again, claiming that without it our country will suffer plagues of uncut grass and unpicked cabbage.

The reason there’s such controversy over the use of the word amnesty is because its meaning is clear, and the American people oppose it in overwhelming numbers. As a result, the politicians duck and dive in trying to avoid using the word, or create a lawyer-like linguistic fog to confuse everyone within the sound of their voice.

Invariably in any conversation with proponents of the proposed amnesty scheme, they inevitably whip out the tired old bromide that the illegals “do the jobs Americans won’t do”. But are they sure? Or is it just that they do jobs Americans won’t do for a few bucks an hour cash-under-the-table – and with no FICA payments?

If we’re going to have an open and honest debate about one of the most important issues of our time, let’s all be honest and not try to confuse people. Be grown up enough to admit what you’re selling.

And speaking of selling, who’s going to pay for this bill? It has been well documented that low-skilled immigrants receive far more in government benefits and services than they pay in taxes. A recent Heritage Foundation study puts the number at a net cost of approximately twenty-thousand dollars per year per immigrant, which totals up to between 2.3 and 2.5 TRILLION dollars over the next two decades. But what’s a few trillion dollars between friends.

I propose that no such legislation be passed until Congress can verify just how much it will cost and where the money will come from. What happened to that “pay-as-you-go” budgeting we heard so much about – and that the Democrats demand be applied anytime someone suggests a tax cut? “Where will the money come from?” they cry. Well, where’s the money coming from to pay for amnesty?

What federal programs are going to be cut in order to offset the massive extra costs to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, subsidized housing and other social welfare programs? Surely not the newly legalized aliens themselves, since we’re told they’re here to do low paying jobs we won’t do. It’s hard to pay enough in taxes to cover your own weight on the social safety hammock when you’re at or below the poverty level.

So who’s going to cover the costs? The Senators and Congressmen who give us this bill? In a just world, yes, but sadly no. The correct answer is taxpayers. You know, those people who already give up about half of their gross income in federal, state and local taxes every year. The same taxpayers that will soon be hit up to cover the cost of the big I.O.U in the Social Security trust fund once the full force of the boomer generation hits their golden years.

Before Congress passes such a bill and ads several trillion dollars to our tax burden, let’s see some comparative analysis on how much we’d save if consumers had to absorb the increased costs to fruits, vegetables and landscaping if these jobs paid wages that wouldn’t require cheap immigrant labor.

The long and the short of this bill is that those who have broken our laws get preferential treatment in being able to stay – and taxpayers get the bill. It’s not just amnesty, it’s amnesty plus a massive transfer of wealth.

There’s a tax-revolt on the horizon in this country, and any political party that is on the wrong side when the time comes (or is seen as being part of the problem) will pay dearly at the ballot box.

Don’t’ want to pony up your share of a few extra trillion dollars in the coming years? Then call your US Senators and Representatives. Now.

Hooray for the House!

Drew McKissick — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 00:00:00 -0400

Thank goodness for the House of Representatives. Specifically, the conservative Republican contingent. Faced with pressure from the White House, the Senate, the business community and the media to support legislation that would result in amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, and open the door to tens of millions more in coming decades, they have wisely opted to stick with the people that put them in power. Namely, conservative Republican voters.

While it is not official yet, and keeping in mind that bad ideas in Washington are harder to kill than Dracula, the amnesty ridden version of immigration “reform” appears to be just that – dead. Why? For lots of reasons.

First, thanks to the overwhelming opposition on the part of grassroots conservatives all across the country. Their voices have been heard and their position was unmistakable. And the political implications of ignoring their position became equally unmistakable, at least to House members.

Also, thanks to the legal and illegal immigrant street protestors that paraded through our streets in favor of amnesty. Specifically, those that insisted on waving Mexican flags, flying the American flag upside down, voicing opposition to making English the official language and openly speaking in favor of a demographic “re-conquest” of the American South-west by Mexicans.

Then there was the bill itself and the amazing provisions it contained, such as:

Granting amnesty for those that have been here illegally, then giving them a fast track to permanent resident status and ultimately citizenship
Making illegals eligible to receive Social Security benefits for the work they have done while here working under fraudulent documentation – including fake or stolen social security numbers
The mere two-thousand dollar fine each illegal would be assessed to take advantage of the program
Granting complete amnesty to the businesses that openly flouted the law and hired the illegals in the first place
And requiring the US to coordinate with the Mexican government before any fence or other barriers could be put in place along the border

The long term demographic repercussions of the bill’s guest worker program were pointed out by a Heritage Foundation study, showing it would lead to more than an additional sixty-six million immigrants over the next twenty years. This was in addition to the ten or twelve million illegals that would be granted amnesty in the first place. Add to that allowing them to legally bring in many of their immediate family members, and the bill was shown to be the most drastic change in American immigration law since the days of Ellis Island.

Then there was the fact that it attempted to force those who wanted only to strengthen our border security to accept all these provisions as part of a “comprehensive reform” bargain. Not to mention that we’ve seen this movie before. Specifically In 1986, when immigration “reform” granted amnesty to millions of illegals in exchange for the political tradeoff of increased border security that never materialized. This time conservatives said “no thanks”.

And let’s not forget the Democrats, such as Harry Reid, who wanted to prevent Bush and the Republicans from achieving any notable legislative victories prior to the election. (note to self: send thank-you card to Reid) As a result, they have only succeeded in saving the Republicans from themselves and improved the odds that the GOP will retain both chambers of Congress this fall.

Add to that the recent letter to Bush and the GOP leadership signed by dozens of leading conservative intellectuals, authors and assorted activists which called the bill what it was, an incredibly bad idea. Then last, but certainly not least, was the recognition by the House GOP leadership that the bill was as a demographic, social and political time bomb.

The nail in the coffin appears to be the House leaders’ move to hold “field hearings” on the legislation in areas all over the country. In other words, air the bill’s laundry back home and let the locals do the dirty work and rip it to shreds. That plus a hearing schedule that doesn’t get under way until well into the campaign season tells me that the bill is dead.

But somebody get a wooden stake and let’s be sure.

Heritage study link: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/wm1076.cfm

Random Thoughts

Drew McKissick — Wed, 12 Apr 2006 00:00:00 -0400

How is it that prayer in schools constitutes a violation of the “establishment” clause of the Constitution today when holding church services in the chamber of the US House of Representatives did not represent an “establishment of religion” to the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution?

It is incorrect to say that religion is playing a greater role in politics, but rather that religious Americans are becoming more likely to base their electoral choices on their values. This is probably the result of more education and information as well as that they increasingly feel that fundamental issues are under attack, such as marriage, the Ten Commandments, abortion, prayer in schools, etc.. They are becoming more aware of political differences between candidates and political parties and are beginning to align their views with their electoral choices.

How have we let the immigration problem get to a point in this country where we have foreigners entering our country illegally, then holding mass rallies demanding their “rights”? Or that we change our laws to accommodate them.

When did “undocumented workers” become “guest workers” or just “immigrants”? And when did illegal immigrants become “undocumented workers”? For that matter, when did “illegal aliens” become “illegal immigrants”? When did the nomenclature of this debate change? And who sent out the memo?

We’re lulling ourselves to sleep with language that attempts to gloss over our problems or make them appear more fuzzy and less clear-cut. Sort of like the pro-abortion crowd refusing to call an unborn baby anything other than a fetus.

People who complain about political parties as being too extreme or not representative enough are those least likely to either have been and/or get involved in politics, thus becoming prophets.

American consumers have benefited from one de-regulation after another, such as telephone service, airlines and banking. In light of no evidence to suggest otherwise, what logic do opponents of choice in education rely on to support their claims that de-regulation – or at least de-monopolization – of public education would prove less beneficial?

One thought to consider is that the very laws being proclaimed by activist judges as not specific enough as to what defines a marriage (or married couple) lack such specificity primarily due to the fact that, when they were written, everyone was quite sure they knew what a marriage was.

Note that we’re not having this debate over the legal definition of marriage as the result of legislative action, much less public demand for such changes, but rather due to a series of actions by a handful of liberal activist state judges in a few states. And the potential impact of those actions on the rest of us by way of the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution.

The ultimate strategy is to use the “Full Faith and Credit” clause of the US Constitution as a loophole through which to drive a new definition of marriage and force it upon the entire country without so much as a debate or vote on the matter. They intentionally use sympathetic courts in liberal states as a vehicle for this strategy.

For those who are curious, or happen to be members of Congress, the definition of “amnesty” is: n 1: a period during which offenders are exempt from punishment 2: a warrant granting release from punishment for an offense [syn: pardon] 3: the formal act of liberating someone [syn: pardon, free pardon] v : grant a pardon to (a group of people). Not that facts should matter to members of Congress.