Wednesday, May 30, 2007

"En su condición de Presidente," Bush Surrenders to Illegals: Forget Amnesty, It's Time to Raise the Mexican Flag.

Miss USA Rachel Smith was jeered and booed [video] mercilessly at the Miss Universe pageant by a Mexican audience angry at U.S. immigration policy. Despite the howls and chants of "Mexico! Mexico!" by the natives, Ms. Smith managed to stay poised, offering her Spanish-speaking hosts an enthusiastic, "Buenas noches, Mexico. Muchas gracias!"

The boorish display of those assembled in the audience shines a light on a glaring weakness in the fabric of Mexican society—blaming the endemic ills (poverty) of what’s wrong with their third-world country on outsiders (no! blame the “imperialists/gringos"). Perhaps if the hapless spectators exerted equal energy addressing the corruptness and ineptitude endemic to Mexican politics—judges, police, etc.—we could empathize with their plight.

And, here at home, we are witness to the same behavior—“undocumented workers” [ha!] storming our streets, protesting for rights in a country that does not belong to them. One can only imagine a group of retired Americans parading through Mexico City, demanding civil rights—and social security checks—from the Mexican government.

Call me a bigot—but do not call me stupid! When—and it is a matter of when—the 15 million criminals in this country get their amnesty, where are their (expected) entitlement monies going to come from to pay for their social security benefits, Medicare, housing, schooling, etc, (for they never paid taxes)?

Read my lips: Amnesty = Citizenship. Can U.S. taxpayers absorb the costs of an influx of millions of unskilled, non-English-speaking, migrants in the next few years?

Heritage Foundation scholar Robert Rector recently released a new study, entitled, “The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to the US Taxpayer.” In the report, Rector debunks two myths propagated by liberals and liars alike (a.ka. George Bush):
  1. Contrary to the purported economic benefits that immigrants bring with them when they cross the Rio Grande—“the doing work no one else will do argument” heralded by those pandering to special interest immigration lobbies—on average, low-skill immigrant households re­ceived $30,160 per household in immediate govern­ment benefits and services in FY 2004, including direct benefits, means-tested benefits, education, and popula­tion-based services. By contrast, low-skill immigrant households paid only $10,573 in taxes. Thus, low-skill immigrant households received nearly three dollars in benefits and services for each dollar in taxes paid (if at all).
  2. There is a common misconception that the low edu­cation levels of recent immigrants is part of a permanent historical pattern, and that the U.S. has always admitted immigrants who were poorly educated relative to the native born population. Historically, this was not the case. For example, in 1960, recent immigrants were no more likely than were non-immigrants to lack a high school degree. By 1998, recent immigrants were almost four times more likely to lack a high school degree than were non-immigrants.
  3. If the Bush-Kennedy amnesty bill passes, it is estimated that the burden imposed by low-skill immigrant households (per one-million illegal immigrant households) who get ‘probationary citizenship’ will raise the aggregate net tax by roughly 4 percent of each legal American household.
George Bush, were you not elected to protect our borders? Last October, Bush signed into law The Secure Fence Act of 2006, providing for 700 miles of border fencing. In the Roosevelt Room, upon signing the bill, Bush said: "The Secure Fence Act is part of our efforts to reform our immigration system. We have more to do. Meaningful immigration reforms means that we must enforce our immigration laws in the United States. It is against the law to hire someone who is here illegally. We fully understand that most businesses want to obey that law, but they cannot verify the legal status of their employees because of widespread document fraud. So we're creating a better system for verifying documents and work eligibility, and in the meantime, holding people to account for breaking the law."

To date, less than three miles of fencing have been built. And no people—read businesses—have been held accountable for breaking immigration law.

Bush, Ted Kennedy, big business—they all speak with blithe ignorance of the mess all their selfish interests have begotten upon this once-great country.

Curious as to why labor unions—think AFL-CIO—speak out in support of pro amnesty immigration ‘reform?’ Flooding the market with cheap labor would supposedly run contrary to their better interest. However, union leaders are not advocating on behalf of their current dues-paying members. They are—once again—positioning power to line their own pockets.

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, union membership rate declined from 20.1% in 1983 to 12.0% (of employed wage and salary workers) in 2006. So what if wages decline? Union bosses need numbers to boost aggregate dues payable (to pay for their own wages). “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses”—and the Mexicans!

And, we will not even speculate on backroom deals made by union leaders to register—and deliver—Spanish-speaking voters to the Democrats.

In history an additional result is commonly produced by human actions beyond that which they aim at and obtain -- that which they immediately recognize and desire. They gratify their own interest; but something further is thereby accomplished, latent in the actions in question, though not present to their consciousness, and not included in their design. – German philosopher
Georg Hegel (1770 – 1831)

More than 150 years-ago, President Polk (a Democrat!) planted the idea of “Manifest Destiny,” which took root among the American people. The consequences of this belief that the U.S. had a God-given right to occupy and "civilize" the whole continent lead to the
Mexican-American War (1846-1848), known in Mexico as la invasión estadounidense (the United States Invasion).

Santa Ana’s defeat led to the signing of The Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo (1848). The treaty called for the annexation of the northern portions of Mexico to the United States, which later became the U.S. states of California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Utah.

Not to devalue the injustices done to Mexicans more than a century ago—but, don’t blame me, my ancestors were laboring in wheat fields somewhere in the Ukraine (before they legally entered this country)

Sadly, I believe that historians will be re-writing the last chapter of the
Mexican Cession, the historical name of the present day southwestern United States ceded by Mexico in 1848.

What lands Mexico lost in war, they are winning back through their policy of a tacit invasion of the United States. With each passing day—as the number of illegal Mexicans in our country grows (compounded by births on U.S. soil), Mexico takes back a little bit more of their lost land(s) and culture.

Santa Ana, levantado de entre los muertos!

p.s. Dear Mr. Bush: You talk about "protecting our borders." When are you going to pardon Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean?--who never should have been sent to prison [for trying to actually protect our borders]! It speaks volumes when the drug dealer they were chasing has yet to see the inside of a jail cell.

The opinions expressed herein represent only those of the editor, David J. Phillips.


wcw said...


Briefly, immigrants are ever and always a net benefit to government budgets, since as a matter of definition, their ancestors are elsewhere. It's those Ukrainian forbears of yours that would be expensive were they on the public dime instead of resting in peace, not their hardworking progeny.

Worth looking up, moreover, is the phrase "lump of labor fallacy."

FD: first-generation

Anonymous said...

Right on! I agree 100% with every single word you stated above. When are you going to be running for President? You'll certainly get my vote as well as all of my friends and family.
Why is it you read virtually nothing about our streets being flooded with illegals? The only paper that I've read that addresses this problem is IBD.
Great web site by the way. Keep up the great work.
Your fan, Randy Martin

David J. Phillips said...

Nothing is absolute. Past generations of LEGAL immigrants may have been a net benefit to government budgets--but not this wave of ILLEGAL, low-skilled immigrants: reread my post--I address the net cost to taxpayers.

Thank you for your comments :)

Anonymous said...

I agree with you. Let us do something about this.
GET RID OF BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!