VIP Lawyer Network
Services 4 LawFirms
High Net Worth
Connect to us
Make us Homepage
The leadingimmigration lawpublisher - over50000 pages offree
Copyright© 1995-2013ILW.COM,AmericanImmigration LLC.
Please email your letters to firstname.lastname@example.org or post them directly as a comment below.
CIR and SB744 Part 1
The August 27th ID Comment: "The Moral Dream" fails in the attempt to establish a connection between MLK's "dream" and the Civil Rights movement & the present propaganda regarding SB 744 and CIR. The former (blacks) were citizens and had broken no laws to get here or while they were here (at least en mass or to the degree) which can't be said of millions of illegals. Why should the "people demeaned by unjust laws" be exempt from reasonable entry restrictions? As citizens, we are
all subject to reasonable laws. Perhaps "the largest persecuted population in the nation today" are not "immigrants", but US citizens who after becoming the most immigrant friendly nation in the world are
now expected to welcome millions uninvited and unscreened law breaking invaders competing with US for scarce resources including jobs.
Regarding the article: "Has the Supreme Court's Voting Rights Decision Ended Hope for CIR?" by Roger Algase http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?7469-...y-Roger-Algase one can only say --- Let's hope so! The special interests never tire of attempting to imposing their nefarious wills upon the citizens in pursuit of profits and undeserved advantages.
As Peter Brimelow, editor of Vdare ( www.vdare.com ) points out: "Although immigration doesn't benefit Americans in aggregate, it does benefit some Americans at the expense of others. It does this by
increasing competition for jobs and thereby depressing wages. The accepted estimate: immigration redistributes some 2 to 3 percent of GDP from labor to the owners of capital. In 2013, that's about $300
billion-$450 billion, a very large number. And remember, the 2013 Amnesty/Immigration Surge bill could triple legal immigration. So we could be looking at a diversion of income amounting to more than a trillion dollars. This is a looting of the U.S. economy that can only be compared to the Russian oligarchs' theft of assets as the Soviet Union collapsed. It explains the extraordinary parade of plutocrats, for example, Sheldon Adelson, Mark Zuckerberg, Michael Bloomberg, Paul Singer, the Koch brothers-currently pushing the 2013 Amnesty/Immigration Surge bill. When Americans hear that immigration will spur economic growth, they should read: Permit more plutocrat plundering of
America's middle and working class. American politics seem have entered a new Gilded Age, with politicians (and journalists) all too eager to do the bidding of high-tech Robber Barons."
As noted authority Frosty Wooldridge points out in his informative article, CIR and SB-744 should be referred to as THE NATIONAL SUICIDE AMNESTY BILL!! "In a few words, S744 will destroy the fabric, viability and cohesiveness of America and it will totally destroy our environment, quality of life and standard of living. You pursue national suicide with this bill. Stop doing it to our country and future generations. If the House of Representatives passes Senate Amnesty Bill 744, the United States of America will be flooded with over 100 million immigrants within the next 37 years by 2050. (Source: US Population Projections by Fogel/Martin ; PEW Research Center; U.S. Census Bureau.) The consequences explode off the charts as to water shortages, energy exhaustion, resource depletion, lowered quality of life and degraded standard of living. If the bill passes, we face......" http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty878.htm
Retired Adm. James A. Lyons the commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations points out SB744's security shortcomings: "The Senate bill essentially turns the United States into an enforcement-free zone for three years. During that time, no illegal alien can be put into removal proceedings without an opportunity to apply for amnesty, unless convicted of a felony or three separate misdemeanors. The threat posed by Hezbollah and al Qaeda terrorist cells in South and Central America cannot be dismissed by an administration's decree. Fixing our porous borders is one of combating the threat of terrorism that America faces. Any immigration bill must have enforceable border-security measures as a key national security element in protecting our country." Read more:
In summation, the only Reform needed is to make illegal presence and hiring a Felony and to end birthright citizenship by illegals. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, has introduced H.R. 140, titled the Birthright
Citizenship Act of 2013:
CIR and SB744 should fail and probably will as have past efforts based upon the merits and lack thereof and nothing could be more in tune with MLK's dream speech 50 years ago which called for decisions and a society based upon meritorious content, not appearances or hypocritically contrived subtrafuge by special interests.
CIR and SB744 Part 2
[ Related References: ]
James A. Lyons, Jr.
Admiral, USN (Ret)
LION Associates, LLC
LYONS: The national security component of immigration reform
The ?Gang of Eight? bill does little to protect the border
By James A. Lyons
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Illustration by Hunter/ The Washington Times more?>
In the various efforts to reform the U.S. immigration system, often
overlooked in the debate is its impact on national security. The recent
communications intercept of al Qaeda's intent to conduct a terrorist
attack or series of attacks against U.S. facilities in the Middle East
and North Africa should also remind us of the likelihood of terrorist
cells on American soil.
It is an acknowledged fact that since we have refused to secure our
borders, we have facilitated the transit and infiltration of al Qaeda
affiliated terrorists and narco-terrorists who are now living illegally
in the United States.? This is a serious national security issue, as
manifested by the Boston Marathon bombing.
It should be equally disturbing that the Obama administration has
cavalierly designated aliens ? whether legal or illegal ? as
"customers." According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Director Alejandro Mayorkas, these "customers" are to be "fast-tracked"
to "get to yes" on their applications. What this means is that the
director has instructed his staff that their job in processing
applications is to "get to yes," no matter the issue. With such a
directive, national security issues are obviously ignored or bypassed.
Under current rules, the legal immigration procedures are as follows:
Applications submitted with verified proof of identity.
In-person interviews must be conducted, usually by a representative of
the State Department.
Applicants must submit fingerprints, which are then checked by the FBI.
Trained adjudicators run background checks through the Treasury
Enforcement Communications System, which includes immigration, criminal
and intelligence databases.
If derogatory information is found based on the background check, then
the case is referred to Immigration and Custom Enforcement so applicants
can be further investigated, located and, if warranted, placed into
While the current procedures are not perfect, they are effective under
normal processing procedures. However, when U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services receives a sudden large volume of applications, as
with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (President Obama's version
of the Dream Act), the following occurs:
No proof of identity is required.
No in-person interviews are conducted.
Background checks are superficial. "Hits" are not checked to determine
if an arrest resulted in conviction.
Information about applicants who are denied Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrival status may not be turned over to Immigration and
Customs Enforcement for removal processing.
Safeguards in the current application process are not only violated, but
ignored under this accelerated process with an obvious adverse impact on
national security. Will the Senate's immigration-reform bill fix these
problems, as well as President Obama's version of the Dream Act? The
short answer: Unlikely.
There are a number of major problems with the "Gang of Eight"
immigration-reform bill, many of which adversely affect national
security. They promise the bill will end illegal immigration with tough,
new enforcement procedures. If it were only so. One of the basic
problems is that the border-security enforcement "triggers" are weak and
interior enforcement is basically excluded. It is a boon for illegal
aliens legal status and work permits are given before any enforcement
procedures are implemented.
The border-security "triggers" only require the Department of Homeland
Security to demonstrate that plans for developing border security have
started before illegals are then given legal status. Worse, after 10
years, legal permanent residence can be given without enhanced
border-security implementation. Regardless of the many enforcement
provisions in the bill, the bill leaves it up to the administration to
decide what provisions to enforce. An administration official will have
the authority to issue waivers for almost every enforcement provision.
The Senate bill calls for the completion of an electronic biographic
entry-exit system for use at all seaports and airports, but it excludes
106 land-border entry points where most crossings occur. Current law
requires biometric at all entry points.
In short, the Gang of Eight bill codifies a dangerous process by
granting the Department of Homeland Security wide discretion in
determining which documents are acceptable as proof of eligibility and
identity, exempting amnesty applicants from in-person interviews, and
not specifying how complete background checks should be. It also
prohibits application information from being turned over to a law
enforcement or intelligence agency unless the agency specifically
requests it as part of an ongoing investigation.
A terrorist or drug cartel member who has not been fingerprinted would
be able to apply for amnesty under a false identity. He would be issued
official ID and travel documents under that name.
The Senate bill essentially turns the United States into an
enforcement-free zone for three years. During that time, no illegal
alien can be put into removal proceedings without an opportunity to
apply for amnesty, unless convicted of a felony or three separate
The threat posed by Hezbollah and al Qaeda terrorist cells in South and
Central America cannot be dismissed by an administration's decree.
Fixing our porous borders is one of combating the threat of terrorism
that America faces. Any immigration bill must have enforceable
border-security measures as a key national security element in
protecting our country.
Retired Adm. James A. Lyons was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific
Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.
CIR and SB744 Pat 3
Related Ref Cont.
By Peter Brimelow, Editor, VDARE.com
[This is actually my daughter Felicity, taken on St. Felicity's Day,
March 7th, 2013. Felicity will still be a young woman in 2042 when
current immigration policy is projected to have driven American
whites-known until the 1965 Immigration Act as "Americans"-into a
minority in the country that their forefathers built].
OF COURSE, that's what the Treason Lobby wants you to believe-that
America is asleep, and that the Schumer-Rubio Amnesty/ Immigration Surge
bill can be smuggled through when Congress returns this fall.
And, of course, at VDARE.com we know this is (yet another) Treason Lobby
We see it in our traffic (thanks, readers!).
We see it in the ferocity with which ordinary Americans eviscerate the
endless Main Stream Media/ Treason Lobby propaganda in their postings on
the comment threads.
We see it in the fact that the Amnesty/ Immigration Surge timetable has
slipped, from "before July 4th" to "before the August recess" to
We see it in the fact that the Treason Lobby still will not admit that
what it is demanding is Amnesty-and is more than ever afraid to hold
Town Halls/ public meetings where Americans can appear and protest.
But we absolutely must see it in your (TAX DEDUCTIBLE) donations-NOW!
For the third time in seven years, American patriots are making a
goal-line stand-against an essentially identical Amnesty/ Immigration
For the third time in seven years, the issue turns not on
inside-the-Beltway maneuvering, but on the protests of grass-roots
Needless to say, it is extremely annoying to be once again making a goal
line stand like this.
And-speaking personally-I blame this protracted failure to move off the
defensive on the Politically Correct timidity of the foundation-funded
Inside-The-Beltway Immigration Patriot Establishment-to say nothing, of
course, of the donor-dominated legislative class in Washington DC, which
is (with a few honorable exceptions) is simply unspeakable.
Nevertheless, I believe that the fact that the Amnesty/ Immigration
Surge issue is now universally acknowledged to have moved to the
grassroots vindicates VDARE.com's strategy of providing facts and
analysis, without charge, regardless of Political Correctness or
inside-the-Beltway considerations, to the American people.
The facts and analyses we provide are ammunition for American patriots
in their battles across the land.
At VDARE.com, we really believe that "ye shall know the truth, and the
truth shall make you free."
But we can only do this with your help.
Let me say also, as a battle-scarred veteran of the immigration debate,
that I do see real signs of movement.
In the last several months, there has finally been some MSM discussion
of the extent to which the Amnesty/ Immigration Surge is suicide for the
Republican Party-and whether the GOP's problem is really its failure to
appeal to Hispanics, or rather its failure to motivate its (many times
larger) traditional white a.k.a. American base.
At VDARE.com, we have been writing about this issue for thirteen years.
It got us banned from the Republican booster site FreeRepublic.com back
This is not, of course, because we care about any particular political
party. It is because we saw that the immigration-triumphalist narrative
promoted by the MSM is simply false.
However, this is no mere theoretical point. It's dynamite.
If professional politicians can be induced to see that the MSM narrative
is false-no easy task-they can next be induced to see the need, and the
utility to their careers, of an immigration moratorium.
Who knows? Perhaps the next step will be MSM discussion of the extent to
which immigrant workers are displacing Americans workers.
Uniquely, VDARE.com has been providing monthly tracking of displacement,
based on our analysis of federal government employment data, since 2004.
It's amazing that this displacement issue hasn't surfaced already, given
that it's all too obvious that neither party has any idea what to do
about the chronic high unemployment that persists in the aftermath of
the 2008 Crash. Maybe it will surface now.
Stranger things have happened! (See above).
And all by themselves, these two arguments will revolutionize the
Because arguments do ultimately shape policy. But money matters too.
Indeed, perhaps the single biggest change in public discourse since
VDARE.com first went live on Christmas Eve 1999 is an increased general
awareness of donors and of how they, and the professional campaign
consultants who live off them, distort political debate. New York Times
columnist Ross Douthat calls this phenomenon "donorism."
The classic case: Mitt Romney's hapless 2012 Presidential campaign,
which was quite clearly run to maximize donations at the expense of
issues that motivate the GOP base. Immigration was merely one example.
After the primaries, Romney stopped even hinting at resisting illegal
immigration. Instead, he explicitly promised both to increase legal
immigration and to get "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" a.k.a. an
Amnesty/ Immigration Surge passed in his "first year." (Yes, yes, I know
this is contrary to MSM myth, but VDARE.com documented the disgraceful
Romney's reward: humiliating defeat, due to record low white turnout.
But his consultants got to spend some $1 billion on themselves!
And big donors really really want an Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill.
The Sunlight Foundation has reported that they have spent $1.5 billion
lobbying for it since 2007. (And that doesn't include this year's
At VDARE.com, again I think uniquely, we have used standard economic
techniques to explain why this is happening.
Although immigration doesn't benefit Americans in aggregate, it does
benefit some Americans-at the expense of others. It does this by
increasing competition for jobs and thereby depressing wages. The
accepted estimate: immigration redistributes some 2 to 3 percent of GDP
from labor to the owners of capital. In 2013, that's about $300
billion-$450 billion, a very large number. And remember, the 2013
Amnesty/Immigration Surge bill could triple legal immigration. So we
could be looking at a diversion of income amounting to more than a
This is a looting of the U.S. economy that can only be compared to the
Russian oligarchs' theft of assets as the Soviet Union collapsed. It
explains the extraordinary parade of plutocrats-for example, Sheldon
Adelson, Mark Zuckerberg, Michael Bloomberg, Paul Singer, the Koch
brothers-currently pushing the 2013 Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill.
When Americans hear that immigration will "spur economic growth," they
should read: Permit more plutocrat plundering of America's middle and
American politics seem have entered a new Gilded Age, with politicians
(and journalists) all too eager to do the bidding of high-tech Robber
The good news: money without ideas doesn't work. (Ask Mitt Romney).
The Treason Lobby needs to outspend immigration patriots by a thousand
to one, lie that what it's doing is not Amnesty but "immigration reform"
(an immigration moratorium would be "immigration reform" too) and try to
smuggle through the logically-unconnected legal immigration surge
because what it is doing is all intensely unpopular with Americans. And
more immigration just makes the problems worse-politicians trying to
"get it behind" them are just going to be bitten in the buttock.
CIR and SB 744 Part 4
Related References Cont.
www.ilw.com (Immigration Daily)
Comment: The Moral Dream
On the fiftieth anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream"
speech, NBC News reports that some immigration advocates are making
connections between Dr. King's themes and immigration, and adopting a
"moral tone". Fifty years ago Martin Luther King Jr. fought for human
equality. But in his fight he did not focus on policies, he focused on
the moral dignity of a person regardless of their race. He knew what he
wanted to see in the world and he worked to close the gap between his
vision and reality. Today in 2013, we are faced with the same issue of
human equality as we did in 1963, but this time as it relates to
immigration. Advocates sometimes get caught up in the minutia of public
policies but they must, like Dr. King did, remember there is a bigger
vision that needs to be achieved - a restoration of full human dignity
to a people demeaned by unjust laws. America has progressed through its
young history by extending its founding vision of "All men are created
equal" progressively to more and more people - to women through women's
suffrage, to African Americans through emancipation and civil rights. It
is high time that this American dream, which was also Dr. King's dream,
be applied to the largest persecuted population in the nation today, its
immigrants, by passing comprehensive immigration reform. Please let us
know your thoughts by writing to us at email@example.com.
CIR and SB744 Part 5
Has the Supreme Court's Voting Rights Decision Ended Hope for CIR? By
Roger Algase - Blogs - ILW.COM Discussion Board
Immigration Law Blogs on ILW.COM
Has the Supreme Court's Voting Rights Decision Ended Hope for CIR? By
I very much want to believe that the House of Representatives will come
around and pass CIR within the next few months and that 11 million
people will soon be given a fair and realistic opportunity for
legalization and eventual permanent residence and US citizenship.
I also want to believe that the badly needed streamlining in our legal
immigration system contained in the Senate-passed CIR bill, S. 744, will
also take place. Like most other immigration supporters, I find it
difficult to imagine that a reform which has such wide support among so
many different interests in both parties - including business groups,
labor unions, and evangelicals - and which is backed up by compelling
objectives such as racial equality, family unity and humanitarian
considerations - not to mention having the likely support of a majority
of the House members, if both parties are included (as Chris Musillo
points out in the August 26 ID) could possibly fail.
So when I read all the doom and gloom about CIR's chances - including
some of my own previous blogging posts - I really want to believe: No!
CIR can't be allowed to fail! As in the famous "Black Sox" baseball
scandal almost 100 years ago, I want to shout: "Say it ain't so, Joe!"
Besides, there are encouraging stories in the mainstream media about how
immigration opponents are not making as much noise or showing up at
rallies in as great numbers as expected during the August recess.
See, for example, Jennifer Rubin's August 22 Washington Post column:
Immigration Reform Survives August and Molly Ball's August 27 article in
the The Atlantic: Immigration Reformers are Winning August.
Everything we need for reform to succeed is in place, it seems - except
the support of anywhere near the majority of House Republicans which
Speaker John Boehner needs to bring CIR to the House floor, if he has
the slightest intention of keeping a job which he has no apparent wish
to give up.
But everything else looks great for reform, we are told - except for the
minor detail of other influential House Republicans such as Judiciary
Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, who is against a pathway to
citizenship for all but the few unauthorized immigrants who might be
qualified through "normal channels", who talks about making legalization
itself dependent on achieving impossible to fulfill enforcement goals
first, and who seems determined to avoid a Senate-House conference at
Not to worry, the optimists tell us. Give it time. October is just
around the corner. If nothing happens then, there is always next January
- and beyond. (Of course, there will also be a minor distraction next
year known as an election campaign, but hey, we have to be optimistic no
matter what, don't we?) Somehow, even the House Republicans will
eventually come around, and maybe a few of them might already be
thinking of doing so - one day.
Besides, demographics are on the side of reform, and no one can win a
fight with history.
I have very great admiration and respect for the optimists - I share
their vision of reform, and I earnestly hope that they will be proven
right and I will turn out to be as totally wrong as anyone could
possibly be about whether CIR will pass any time soon.
But there is one nagging source of doubt over the chances for
immigration reform that we cannot wish away - namely the Supreme Court's
decision this past June striking down Section 4 of the 1965 Voting
All discussion of immigration reform has to begin with the fact that 71
percent of Latino voters chose to re-elect President Obama in the 2012
election, just as Euclidian geometry must start with the proposition
that two parallel lines can never meet. Otherwise, there is no point in
having a conversation.
(OK, I don't know if Euclidian geometry really starts with that - I was
a terrible high school math student - but I do know that there is no
Euclidian geometry without it - there may be other types.)
If Latinos - and Asians - had not turned away from the Republicans in
droves last year, we would not be talking about any realistic chance for
immigration reform this year. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) would not be
warning about how the GOP is in a "demographic death spiral", and there
might not even have been any bipartisan Gang of Eight, let alone 14
Republican votes to pass CIR in the Senate.
Yes, there were a few people like Ann Coulter and other far right
extremists who argued that the Republicans don't need minority voters,
only more white ones, but it was hard to wave away the 2012 election
results. That is, until this June's Supreme Court Voting Rights Act
But after the Supreme Court struck down the most powerful and effective
part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act - Section 4 pre-clearance - the
unthinkable question arises - what happens if Latinos, African-Americans
and other minorities don't vote in future elections - because they can't
Then why would Republicans need to support immigration reform any more?
We have all assumed that even without Section 4, the Voting Rights Act
still has some teeth in it. The US Department of Justice only needs to
work a little harder to bring lawsuits against bigoted voter ID laws and
other types of voter suppression scams in many Republican states and
everything will be fine, or so the conventional thinking goes.
But an August 26 POLITICO article Obama's big voting rights gamble
challenges this easy assumption and raises questions which could, among
other things, put the entire concept of immigration reform in jeopardy,
now and for the foreseeable future.
The link is:
POLITICO's argument is that the remaining section of the VRA which the
Justice Department apparently intends to use in forthcoming lawsuits
against Republican voter suppression laws in Texas, North Carolina and
perhaps other states, Section 2, may be too weak to be effective.
POLITICO writes that even though Section 2 bans voting laws or practices
which result in discrimination against minority voters, there could be
obstacles to winning lawsuits based on this section:
"Until now, the Justice Department hasn't used Section 2 to challenge
voter ID laws like the one in Texas - the provision has mostly been used
in lawsuits against at-large elections. Hasen [Rick Hasen, a University
of California - Irvine Law Professor and Editor of the Election Law
Blog] says it will be an uphill battle for the department: The Supreme
Court has generally upheld voter ID laws, and other courts have read
Section 2 narrowly."
POLITICO also writes:
"Spencer Overton, a law professor at The George Washington University
who served as a deputy assistant attorney general under Holder, says
it's tough to predict the outcome because Section 2 'is well-tailored to
address discriminatory redistricting, but is not tailored to address
other discriminatory voting devices, like barriers to the ballot."
POLITICO also quotes another election law professor, Rick Pildes of New
York University, as suggesting that the Justice Department may be
overlooking protections against voter discrimination outside the VRA,
such as in the 14th Amendment.
Texas and North Carolina are not the only Republican states which have
rushed to impose draconian voter suppression measures in the wake of the
Supreme Court decision. POLITICO reports that four other Republican
states have enacted voter ID laws this year, and one state, Indiana, has
strengthened an existing law.
If immigration supporters want CIR to succeed, we will have guard
against complacency or wishful thinking about reform, and become more
knowledgeable about voter discrimination law.
The biggest danger to immigration reform is that House Republicans may
be expecting that voter suppression measures against minorities in many
states will allow the GOP to take over the Senate in 2014 and the White
House in 2016. As long as that is a realistic possibility, there is
little motivation for Republicans, who depend on white voters for their
base, to support CIR. Why should they?
If Latino, African-American, and other minorities, as well as normally
Democratic-leading younger or less affluent Americans, are not allowed
to vote, it might not be the GOP that could be in a "death spiral", but
hope for immigration reform instead.
In an upcoming post, I will look at Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
in more detail, along with court decisions dealing with that Section.
« 50 yrs After MLK Had A Dream, DREAMERS Are Fighting Against Racism.
By Roger Algase Main From African-American Rights to
Immigrant Rights in 50 yrs. By Roger Algase »
CIR and SB744 Part 6
Related Ref. Cont.
"Ending birthright citizenship for children born to illegal aliens"
WASHINGTON – Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, introduced H.R. 140, titled the
Birthright Citizenship Act of 2013, to amend Section 301 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals
born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United
States at birth. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has introduced a companion bill
in the Senate.
If passed, the bill will insert clarification language for the term
birthright citizenship, as established by the U.S. Constitution, by
adding: "(b) Definition – Acknowledging the right of birthright
citizenship established by section 1 of the 14th amendment of the
Constitution, a person born in the United States shall be considered
'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United states for the purpose of
subsection (a)(1) if the person is born in the United States of parents,
one of whom is....
Continue reading at URL:
This entry was posted in No Stinking Amnesty on August 1, 2013