Blogs for Borders is dedicated to American sovereignty, border security and a sane immigration policy. Posts and articles on issues related to our nation's borders, immigration policy, illegal aliens and amnesty proposals.
MAIN | JOIN | CONTACT | FEED

Saturday, February 06, 2010

True Immigration Reform


by TXPoet, Fort Hard Knox: The liberal left wing media, using Saul Alinsky’s guide, has portrayed the GOP as the Party of “NO”.  I think it is about time the GOP actually do something positive. The GOP representatives in Congress for whatever reason seem to always be on the defense. They are reactive instead of being proactive. GOP initiatives, if they are being proposed, never see the light of the media nor the blogosphere. The few initiatives that we have heard about are “compromises” or proposals to counter initiatives by the other side.

I believe it is time for the GOP to take the reins on Immigration Reform and make it their issue. Before the Nov. 2008 elections I wrote three articles on this subject:
Part I: The Silent Majority Wants Immigration Reform
Part II: Let’s Formulate a Plan for Immigration Reform
Part III: Immigration Reform Points

In the third article I offered some simple basic points that would reform the immigration laws. The only thing I would add to my previous reform proposals would be the repeal of the family reunification provisions of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act. If the GOP actually proposed reforms such as I have put forward they could actually get ahead of the power curve. If the GOP continues to sit back and do nothing they let the liberals dictate the terms.

Labels:

Friday, February 05, 2010

President Cuts Border Security in Proposed Budget

by Jim Kouri, Worth Reading: While telling the American people that national security is a priority in his administration, President Barack Obama submitted a 2011 budget proposal that includes cuts to U.S. border security. The proposed budget cuts include a reduction in Border Patrol agents and a cut in the amount of money allocated for the so-called "virtual fence" on the U.S.-Mexico border, which critics claim is a pipe dream in lieu of a real border fence.

In the midst of a firestorm over Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano's failure to appear before a Congressional committee hearing, officials from her office confirmed the proposed cuts on Monday.They said, however, that there would be no lay-offs of Border Patrol agents and the reduction in positions would be achieved through attrition as agents retire or transfer to other Homeland Security departments.

In order to ward off vocal condemnation of this latest Obama proposal, White House officials claim the cuts won't reduce the effectiveness of the U.S. Border Patrol, which President George W. Bush doubled in size. At it's apex, there were more than 20,000 agents assigned to northern and southern borders.

This latest White House attempt to reduce the amount of resources allocated for border protection will undoubtedly be met with resistance from the Senate and House of Representatives, who will be vote on proposed budget cuts, according to several national security experts.

"The Republicans are expected to kick up a fuss over this latest effort to minimize the protection of U.S. borders. But, this is an election year and Democrats do not want to appear weak on security, especially when control of both houses of Congress is at stake," said former NYPD detective and Marine intelligence officer Sid Frances.

"Look at it this way: New York City has a police department that numbers well over 40,000 officers and another 10,000 civilian employees, yet the U.S. Border Patrol agents, who are responsible for thousands and thousands of miles of border, number only 20,000. And Obama wants to cut that number," said Frances, now the owner of a private security firm. Obama's proposed budget cut also would eliminate $226 million that had been allocated for an electronic "virtual fence" system along the border. Known as "SBInet," the strategy is to install cameras, radar and sensors to detect humans and contraband coming into the U.S.

Obama White House officials told reporters that even though the President is seeking cuts in border programs, the administration is seeking an additional $10 million to create Border Enforcement Security Task Forces in Honolulu, San Francisco, and Massena, N.Y. These multi-agency teams work to identify and stop criminal organizations that transport drugs and other contraband across U.S. borders.

"This is only the beginning," said political strategist Mike Baker. "There will be more cuts made to Immigration and Customs Enforcement since President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others have been critical of agents going after illegal workers. This budget is going to be all smoke and mirrors."
--------------
Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he's a columnist for The Examiner (examiner.com) and New Media Alliance (thenma.org). In addition, he's a blogger for the Cheyenne, Wyoming Fox News Radio affiliate KGAB (www.kgab.com). Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty. He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He's a news writer and columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he's syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. Kouri appears regularly as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Fox News Channel, Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, etc.

Labels: , , , , ,

Immigration reform risky for Dems

Gary Bauer shared this note today: If higher energy taxes, socialized medicine, failed stimulus bills, union bailouts and homosexual rights aren’t enough to get your blood boiling, get ready for amnesty. New York liberal Chuck Schumer reportedly struck a deal with Harry Reid and the White House to pass an immigration reform bill by April. It’s just one more part of Obama’s “Big Bang” agenda that Democrats are desperate to ram through while they control Congress. I don’t make a habit of giving Democrats advice, but in a column at POLITICO today, I suggest that they might want to avoid digging the hole even deeper with yet another risky legislative move.
------------------
by Gary Bauer, Contributing Author: Immigration reform may seem a distant priority for a ruling party that’s made the increasingly elusive goals of job creation and health care reform its primary focus in 2010. Nevertheless, President Barack Obama and top congressional Democrats have signaled that, as Obama said in his State of the Union address, “fixing our broken immigration system” remains at the top of their legislative To Do list before the midterm elections.

But Democrats push immigration reform legislation, which would include amnesty for illegal residents, at their own peril. With employment persisting at 10 percent, addressing immigration risks reviving the grass-roots backlashes that have thus far defined the Obama presidency.

Even before the president’s SOTU call to action, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), according to POLITICO, was “quietly spreading the word within the immigration community that he has the White House’s support to pass a bill by April.” Schumer reportedly struck a deal with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) that he and other liberal Democrats would not push hard to include illegal immigrants under health care reform as long as the White House committed to starting an immigration overhaul effort this year.

Undertaking immigration reform now would only slightly delay Obama’s promise to tackle immigration in his first year. It might also energize America’s 11 million Latino voters, including the 3 million Latinos who voted for the first time in 2008, ahead of what look like very difficult elections for Democrats.

But it also would very likely provoke an intense grass-roots backlash. In 2007, when immigration reform was last debated, legislation that included amnesty looked likely to pass until many members of Congress went home to find deep opposition among their constituents. Concerned citizens — many of them conservatives, but also including independents and moderate Democrats — voiced their opposition to amnesty in town hall meetings across the country, insisting that enhanced border security was needed first. Largely because of the grass-roots pushback against amnesty, immigration reform failed.

Today’s anti-amnesty backlash could be even more potent. For one thing, the American people are already in the mood to protest. As the tea party and town hall meeting protests showed, Americans across the ideological spectrum are fed up with a ruling party that’s out of step with their values and priorities. Part of the dissatisfaction stems from government bailouts of various industries that forced already financially strained taxpayers to foot the bill.

In his SOTU address, Obama discussed reforming immigration laws in order to “ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation.” That’s an approach most Americans can support. But the Democrats’ proposal includes an immigration amnesty that would reward those who by definition did not play by the rules.

Many Americans were furious over the bank and other industry bailouts because they intuitively understood that bailouts create moral hazards by rewarding bad behavior and incentivizing future bad behavior. Similarly, Americans recognize that granting amnesty to immigrants who entered the country illegally would reward an illegal act and offer future immigrants the incentive to do the same.

Then there is immigration reform’s effect on the economy. When grass-roots resistance killed immigration reform in 2007, the national unemployment rate stood at 4.5 percent. Today, unemployment is in double digits. Many economists believe large-scale immigration would make matters worse. Immigration exerts downward pressure on wages at the bottom of the labor market. And unemployment is highest among those groups that compete with new immigrants for entry-level jobs: blacks (30%), teenagers (27%) and those without a high school degree (15%t).

An influx of immigrants would also strain the welfare system. In 2006, Heritage Foundation immigration expert Robert Rector calculated that the net additional yearly cost to the federal government of benefits for new immigrants under the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, which included amnesty, would be $16 billion. “In the long run,” Rector concluded, “[the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act] would be the largest expansion of the welfare state in 35 years.”

The problem is that immigrants are disproportionately low-skilled (most illegal immigrants do not have a high school degree) and poor. Heritage research has found that such immigrants “receive, on average, three dollars in government benefits and services for each dollar of taxes they pay.” Those benefits and services include Social Security, Medicare, education and most of the more than 60 means-tested federal welfare programs, including food stamps, public housing, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and many more. In addition, Heritage research calculated that the cost of amnesty after amnesty recipients reach retirement would be $2.6 trillion.

Just as Americans reacted strongly to an attempt to overhaul health care because of its effect on their pocketbooks and the federal debt, many Americans would reject immigration reform legislation that aggravates an already perilous economic situation. Instead of taking seriously grass-roots resistance to amnesty, we can expect the left to react as it did when tea party protests and town hall pushback became obstacles to legislative success: to ignore or dismiss resistance to its agenda, then to attribute anger to ignorance or racism.

Far from being inspired by xenophobia or lack of compassion, however, opposition would come from Americans of all political stripes concerned about their jobs and a government increasingly willing to bail out those who do not play by the rules.

If Democrats are serious about reforming immigration, they should propose legislation that strengthens border security and cracks down on illegal hiring. A viable bill would also focus on promoting legal entry of highly skilled workers, who would be strong contributors to the government’s finances. It would also create a system of legalization that’s conditioned on verifiable reductions in the levels of illegal migration.

By pushing immigration reform, Democrats would provoke a grass-roots backlash that would build momentum going into the November elections. It would also allow conservatives to credibly argue that Democrats are placing partisan politics ahead of economic concerns, thus deepening the already pervasive disillusionment with Democratic-controlled Washington.
----------------
Gary Bauer is is a conservative family values advocate and serves as president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families. He submitted this article to the ARRA News Service Editor which also appears in his column in Politicol. Bauer was a former Republican presidential candidate and served as President Ronald Reagan’s domestic policy adviser. ARRA News Service

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, February 04, 2010

Interesting Canadian Perspective

Salute to Denmark. This could very well happen on our Continent!

Susan MacAllen, a contributing editor for Security Matters: Salute the Danish Flag - it's a Symbol of Western Freedom By Susan MacAllen.

In 1978-9, I was living and studying in Denmark. But in 1978 - even in Copenhagen, one didn't see Muslim immigrants.

The Danish population embraced visitors, celebrated the exotic, went out of its way to protect each of its citizens. It was proud of its new brand of socialist liberalism one in development since the conservatives had lost power in 1929 - a system where no worker had to struggle to survive, where one ultimately could count upon the state as in, perhaps, no other Western nation at the time.

The rest of Europe saw the Scandinavians as free-thinking, progressive and infinitely generous in their welfare policies. Denmark boasted low crime rates, devotion to the environment, a superior educational system and a history of humanitarianism.

Denmark was also most generous in its immigration policies - it offered the best welcome in Europe to the new immigrant: generous welfare payments from first arrival plus additional perks in transportation, housing and education. It was determined to set a world example for inclusiveness and multiculturalism. How could it have predicted that one day in 2005 a series of political cartoons in a newspaper would spark violence that would leave dozens dead in the streets -all because its commitment to multiculturalism would come back to bite?

By the 1990's the growing urban Muslim population was obvious - and its unwillingness to integrate into Danish society was obvious. Years of immigrants had settled into Muslim-exclusive enclaves. As the Muslim leadership became more vocal about what they considered the decadence of Denmark 's liberal way of life, the Danes - once so welcoming - began to feel slighted. Many Danes had begun to see Islam as incompatible with their long-standing values: belief in personal liberty and free speech, in equality for women, in tolerance for other ethnic groups, and a deep pride in Danish heritage and history.

An article by Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard, in which they forecasted, accurately, that the growing immigrant problem in Denmark would explode. In the article they reported: 'Muslim immigrants constitute 5 percent of the population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending.'
'Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark's 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country's convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes.'

'Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less to mix with the indigenous population. A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane.'

'Forced marriages - promising a newborn daughter in Denmark to a male cousin in the home country, then compelling her to marry him, sometimes on pain of death - are one problem'

'Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark's Muslim population grows large enough - a not-that-remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist eEstimates, every third inhabitant of Denmark in 40 years will be Muslim.'

It is easy to understand why a growing number of Danes would feel that Muslim immigrants show little respect for Danish values and laws. An example is the phenomenon common to other European countries and Canada: some Muslims in Denmark who opted to leave the Muslim faith have been murdered in the name of Islam, while others hide in fear for their lives. Jews are also threatened and harassed openly by Muslim leaders in Denmark, a country where once Christian citizens worked to smuggle out nearly all of their 7,000 Jews by night to Sweden - before the Nazis could invade. I think of my Danish friend Elsa - who, as a teenager, had dreaded crossing the street to the bakery every morning under the eyes of occupying Nazi soldiers - and I wonder what she would say today.

In 2001, Denmark elected the most conservative government in some 70 years - one that had some decidedly non-generous ideas about liberal unfettered immigration. Today Denmark has the strictest immigration policies in Europe. (Its effort to protect itself has been met with accusations of 'racism' by liberal media across Europe - even as other governments struggle to right the social problems wrought by years of too-lax immigration.)

If you wish to become Danish, you must attend three years of language classes. You must pass a test on Denmark 's history, culture, and a Danish language test.

You must live in Denmark for 7 years before applying for citizenship.

You must demonstrate an intent to work, and have a job waiting. If you wish to bring a spouse into Denmark, you must both be over 24 years of age, and you won't find it so easy anymore to move your friends and family to Denmark with you.

You will not be allowed to build a mosque in Copenhagen. Although your children have a choice of some 30 Arabic culture and language schools in Denmark, they will be strongly encouraged to assimilate to Danish society in ways that past immigrants weren't.

In 2006, the Danish minister for employment, Claus Hjort Frederiksen, spoke publicly of the burden of Muslim immigrants on the Danish welfare system, and it was horrifying: the government's welfare committee had calculated that if immigration from Third World countries were blocked, 75 percent of the cuts needed to sustain the huge welfare system in coming decades would be unnecessary. In other words, the welfare system, as it existed, was being exploited by immigrants to the point of eventually bankrupting the government. 'We are simply forced to adopt a new policy on immigration.'

'The calculations of the welfare committee are terrifying and show how unsuccessful the integration of immigrants has been up to now,' he said.

A large thorn in the side of Denmark 's imams is the Minister of Immigration and Integration, Rikke Hvilshoj. She makes no bones about the new policy toward immigration, 'The number of foreigners coming to the country makes a difference,' Hvilshoj says, 'There is an inverse correlation between how many come here and how well we can receive the foreigners that come.' And on Muslim immigrants needing to demonstrate a willingness to blend in, 'In my view, Denmark should be a country with room for different cultures and religions. Some values, however, are more important than others. We refuse to question democracy, equal rights, and freedom of speech.'

Hvilshoj has paid a price for her show of backbone. Perhaps to test her resolve, the leading radical imam in Denmark, Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban, demanded that the government pay blood money to the family of a Muslim who was murdered in a suburb of Copenhagen, stating that the family's thirst for revenge could be thwarted for money. When Hvilshoj dismissed his demand, he argued that in Muslim culture the payment of retribution money was common, to which Hvilshoj replied that what is done in a Muslim country is not necessarily what is done in Denmark.

The Muslim reply came soon after. Her house was torched while she, her husband and children slept. All managed to escape unharmed, but she and her family were moved to a secret location and she and other ministers were assigned bodyguards for the first time - in a country where such murderous violence was once so scarce.

Her government has slid to the right, and her borders have tightened. Many believe that what happens in the next decade will determine whether Denmark survives as a bastion of good living, humane thinking and social responsibility, or whether it becomes a nation at civil war with supporters of Sharia law.

And meanwhile, Canadians clamor for stricter immigration policies, and demand an end to state welfare programs that allow many immigrants to live on the public dole. As we in Canada look at the enclaves of Muslims amongst us, and see those who enter our shores too easily, dare live on our taxes, yet refuse to embrace our culture, respect our traditions, participate in our legal system, obey our laws, speak our language, appreciate our history....we would do well to look to Denmark and say a prayer for her future for our own.
H/T Blue Eye View

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, February 02, 2010

Illegal Immigration & Amnesty Issues Takes Center Stage in 2010 Elections!

ALIPAC: Illegal Immigration will be one of the top issues fueling a historic political backlash in the 2010 elections and Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) is launching their endorsement campaigns early this cycle with an unprecedented 65 candidates from 17 states in the first wave.

This initial group of endorsed candidates represent incumbents in Congress that ALIPAC has supported in 2006 or 2008 and challengers the organization supported in 2008 that lost by narrow margins. Candidates are selected and endorsed, if ALIPAC's research indicates they are aligned with the popular views of voters on immigration issues as measured by scientific and certified polls archived at alipac. us, which indicate a super majority of Americans support immigration and border enforcement instead of comprehensive path to citizenship amnesty.

ALIPAC has launched candidate endorsement and support efforts earlier in the election year than ever before for three reasons. One, the 2010 elections are expected to help defeat the Comprehensive Immigration Reform AMNESTY legislation H.R. 4321 supported by President Obama, Congressman Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and 90 Democrats in the House. Two, Republican and Democratic leadership out of DC are working overtime to try and field candidates who support the same Globalist agenda to trap voters and deprive them from a true choice on immigration issues. Three, ALIPAC intends to contribute more funds, send in more volunteers, and promote endorsements online, more than ever before.

"Americans are going to get one last chance to get things right at the ballot box in 2010" said William Gheen. "Many of us have fought hard to stop these nation destroying Amnesty bills to give voters one more chance to get it right. American citizens must rise up and lead the way for a peaceful and historic political revolution in 2010."

ALIPAC is encouraged by the recent victory of Scott Brown in Massachusetts where Brown made it very clear he opposed any form of Amnesty for illegal aliens and favored immigration enforcement instead as one of his top issues listed on his campaign website. ALIPAC would like to see many candidates state their opposition to the Obama and Gutierrez supported Amnesty bill HR 4321 in their campaign materials.

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Very Quick Review of Obama's SOTUS

What Obama Seemed to Say About Immigration in the State of the Union

by Roy Beck: Pres. Obama's obtuse sentence on immigration in his address to the nation revealed a great fear of how the American people would react if he directly called for more foreign workers and for permanent jobs for the estimated 8 million illegal foreign workers.
He seemed to be trying to signal to the supporters of amnesty and "comprehensive immigration reform" that he was still behind them but in words that the voters watching on TV wouldn't understand:
We should continue to work at fixing our broken immigration system to secure our borders and enforce our laws and ensure that everyone who plays by  rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation. -- Pres. Obama, State of the Union Address
Reading those words literally, I would have to say I agree. The people who have "played by the rules" are the legal immigrants who are already here.  I and NumbersUSA wholeheartedly want all of them to become fully integrated into our society, contributing to our economy and enriching our nation.

Of course, we know that Mr. Obama was actually talking about the foreign workers who have played by the rules . . . except for the teeny tiny infraction of violating their visas or entering the country illegally or taking a job and government benefits without federal authorization. The President has repeatedly and within the last month asserted that unauthorized aliens in this country should get to keep their jobs and become U.S. citizens.

But the President couldn't bring himself to utter the words "comprehensive immigration reform" or "path to citizenship" or "legalization" or "more immigration" in his State of the Union Address. And that is surely a sign of some good news for the 23 million U-6 unemployed Americans who want a job but cannot find full-time work.

If the President really believed that putting Americans back to work were an emergency that called for tough measures, he would have announced a suspension of most new immigration of foreign workers and mandated E-Verify verification to keep illegal aliens out of U.S. jobs. But at least it sounded like the American voters have persuaded the White House that "comprehensive immigration reform" is far more controversial than all the items he was happy to mention directly in his address.

And for that, we can thank the millions of you Americans who have contacted the White House in the last year to express your opposition to "comprehensive immigration reform."

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, January 23, 2010

Symbolism That Matters -- Signing the Chaffetz/Kratovil Anti-Amnesty Resolution

By Roy Beck, Founder & CEO of NumbersUSA I'm hearing complaints that H.Res. 1026 doesn't do nearly enough to correct our immigration problems. You are right. It doesn't do nearly enough. Yes, it is only a "sense of Congress" resolution. It is non-binding. It does not fix any problems. But it does provide us an opportunity to get Members of Congress on record without having a vote on an amnesty bill.

Here is why that is important. Because NumbersUSA activists and others have been so successful in pressuring Congress the last two years, we have been spared the trauma of having an amnesty bill on the floor of the Senate or House for a vote. But that means we have no record of where Senators stand on amnesty since 2007 and for House Members since 2005, unless they have co-sponsored a pro-amnesty bill. As Members of Congress face challenges in their Party's primaries this spring and summer and then from the other Party in the fall, voters need to know precisely where the incumbents stand on amnesty.

Until today, we couldn't really provide a good read on most Members. Now, however, the anti-amnesty resolution tells us which Members will publicly oppose all kinds of amnesty, plus insist on attrition through enforcement to move illegal foreign workers out of their jobs.

Almost everybody will say they oppose "amnesty." Even most of the Members who are co-sponsors of Rep. Gutierrez' (D-Illinois) pro-amnesty bill tell the public that they oppose amnesty. But what is their definition?

The Chaffetz/Kratovil bill takes away the wiggle room. First, it says Congress should not "legalize, grant amnesty for, or confere any other legal status condoning the otherwise unlawful entry or presence in the United States of any individual." And then to make it even more clear what the signer thinks should happen to illegal aliens, it calls for mandatory use of E-Verify by every employer for every employee so that none of the illegal aliens can keep their jobs and support themselves in this country.

Friends, this resolution is a promise with teeth. We will soon find out which Members of Congress were faking it the last few years in promising us that they wouldn't vote for an amnesty.

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

NO AMNESTY!!

An Ol’ Broad’s Ramblings:
New Amnesty Bill referred to as: “IMMIGRATION REFORM!
by J. D. Longstreet
Between now an the November Mid-term election Americans can prepare for yet another attempt by the democrats to shove through the Congress an Amnesty for Illegal Aliens bill. Oh, it won’t be called that, of course, but in essence, that will be exactly the intent of the bill. Look for a bill with the keywords “Immigration Reform” in it.

The fact is, the Dems want the votes of the illegal aliens and the Republicans want the cheap labor. That be over simplification, but it sure does get at the truth of the matter.

Back last summer we warned this would happen. Now, I’m just an Ole Country Boy, down here in the swamps of North Carolina, and I saw it coming, even then. You see, the Obama Regime and the socialist Congress have been using the old magician’s trick of misdirection to attempt to move unsavory legislation through the congress and signed into law before you and I figure out what hit us. At least SOME Americans have awakened to their underhanded methods are crying “foul!” I’m just one of them.  Read the whole post here.

I am so sick of people sneaking into this country and expecting us to be all lovey dovey towards them. I am beyond disgusted by the people who are supposedly committed to protect the CITIZENS of this country from harm are the very ones who would see harm done. I don’t give a flying flip what your country of origin might be, Mexico, Ireland, China….whatever. If you can’t come in through the front door, LEGALLY, get your sorry ass out of my country! I am revolted by an administration who would target an elected law enforcement officer who stands by his oath.

Before anyone gets their knickers in a twist, and start screaming “racist”, “bigot”, etc., think about this….it’s not only people “just looking for a better life” who are sneaking in through the sieve that are our borders. It’s also potential terrorists who would blow your children into so many pieces, you’d have to use a mop to clean them up, and slit your throat not thinking twice. It’s drug dealers who have been waging war against the innocents in Mexico, who kidnap and murder on a regular basis.

We are a land of laws. When the so called powers that be go out of their way to break our own laws, then it’s past time to replace them with those who take our Constitution seriously. Reagan was wrong to grant amnesty, and so is Obama!

Labels: , , ,

Monday, January 18, 2010

New Jersey & Free Speech

censorship The Oakland Journal: A New Jersey state judge, James Hurley, has made international news with his recent decision to shut down three websites dedicated to the debate on the H1-B visa situation in America. H1-B is a visa that allows companies in America to import workers from other countries to fill positions that cannot be filled by American workers. These jobs usually require a specialized skill, but the categories have become so all encompassing that to list them here would be impractical.

Many of the positions filled are in the technology industry, and increasingly the health industry, but all are normally considered higher paid positions. Critics of the program claim H-1B visas are used to bring in foreign workers and artificially keep wages lower. Claims of fraud were confirmed with a government report in 2008 that showed a 20 percent violation rate amongst employers exploiting the H-1B visa program.

The debate on the pros and cons of the H1-B visa program is ongoing in Congress as it decides whether to expand the program to allow for an additional 300,000 work visas. While part of a comprehensive immigration reform bill that would provide additional bureaucracy to assure compliance, congressional representatives are concerned with voter perception of allowing more workers into a country while unemployment steadily hovers at 10%. The alleged H1-B abuses by Apex Technology are aggravated by their promotion of off-shore outsourcing in which they promise ” …IT staff at a fraction of the cost of a US employee”.

The court decision by New Jersey’s James Hurley focused on Apex Technology which relies heavily on the H1-B program to import workers for placement in some of America’s largest corporations. Apex sued claiming the websites allowed defamatory posts to be published on: EndH1b.com and ItGrunt.com, and GuestWorkerFraud.com. Judge Hurley’s decision captured media attention because he chose to shut down entire websites rather than focus on the disputed claims. This has raised alarms of censorship and sets a precedent for websites such as Amazon.com, and numerous other websites hosting personal opinions, reviews and criticisms to be shut down. (one site remains active)

The action has labor rights activists, free speech activists, and even some beneficiaries of the H1-B visa program united in voicing opposition to the court decision. Many foreign workers hope for the opportunity to live and work in the United States, but they can often be subject to abuse in their places of employment. In what are sometimes described as H1-B “sweatshops”, workers can be dismissed with no reason and forced to leave the United State immediately. This, along with lower wages, are some of the problems faced by H1-B workers.

Free speech activists view the forced shutting down of the entire websites as a direct threat to the First Amendment, and a particular threat to the growth of online discussion groups and political debate. Labor activists claim abuses in the H1-B program are under reported, and while not addressing the veracity of the particular claims against Apex, they consider this over-reaching court decision a boon for companies seeking to skirt the laws.

H/T Eric Smith on FaceBook for link to article.

Labels: , , , ,