Here we go again…..
Below are two articles that can easily be found on the internet that deal with ILLEGAL ALIENS. Please note: I refuse to use made-up phrases to make the phrase ILLEGAL ALIEN somehow more palatable. If you cross our border Illegally, and you are an Alien, then I will forever consider you an ILLEGAL ALIEN. Now back to the articles. Over the last couple of days I have noticed that the ILLEGAL ALIEN issue has been slowly seeping back into the news cycle and it automatically made the hairs on my neck to stand up. Why? Read the two articles below and you will understand.
I will highlight in the color red, sentences and/or words that jump out at me, so this way nobody has to guess at what parts angered me. It is the attitudes in both of these articles that angers me. Why Americans are willing to flush ‘common sense’ down the sewer is beyond me. Unless of course… it is one more way to help bring down the USA!?
This first article is written fairly, even though it points out what some moron who coined the term “New Americans”. The second article has probably been written by either an ILLEGAL ALIEN or a Marxist, or both. Enjoy…
Illegal Immigrants or “New Americans”? D.C. Region at Center of National Debate
The Washington area is a microcosm of the nation’s attitudes on immigration. In January, Virginia’s legislature will consider a wide array of immigration proposals, including legislation mirroring Arizona’s controversial law that requires police to check the immigration status of an individual in any case of reasonable suspicion — which critics say will result in racial profiling.
And Frederick County Sheriff Chuck Jenkins was recently named one of the nation’s “toughest” enforcers of immigration law in a Fox News survey of immigration policy experts.
On the other end of the spectrum, Arlington County, where one in four residents was born outside the U.S., was thwarted in a recent effort to withdraw from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s “Secure Communities” program, in which fingerprints of arrestees are added to criminal and immigration databases for the purposes of identifying and deporting “criminal aliens.”
Also, during an October debate, Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley repeatedly referred to those in the U.S. illegally as “new Americans,” leading rival Bob Ehrlich to ask, “If someone breaks into my house, is that a new member of my family?”
O’Malley’s phrase was a capitulation in a war of euphemisms. In recent years, immigrant rights advocates have managed to convince many that the term “illegal immigrants” is a slur, with such slogans as “no human being is illegal.” Of course, no one is saying that the existence of these individuals is illegal — merely their status as migrants to the United States. The preferred term became “undocumented” Americans.
THE TERM “ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS” IS NOT A SLUR. IT LEGALLY AND TRUTHFULLY DESCRIBES SOMEONES STATUS IN THE USA. Gio-
If illegal immigrants are “undocumented,” shoplifters are merely “unreceipted.” No matter how you phrase it, a law has been violated.
I am deeply sympathetic toward anyone who wants to become an American. My own family came here from Scotland, Ireland and Italy, with only a distant Choctaw relation a true “native.” We live in a nation run by people with names like Obama, O’Malley, Mikulski — and Ehrlich. All of these families started out across the Atlantic.
Those who come here illegally are often embarking on an act of desperation. They often leave behind their families in order to make the arduous journey into the U.S., a journey that is fatal for some. They may be carted across the border in a poorly ventilated truck, or scramble through a desert where water is scarce. Once here, they take the least desirable jobs at the lowest pay, and must constantly fear detection.
But it’s still illegal.
The sad truth is that the United States cannot embrace everyone who wants to come. It is just not economically feasible, no matter how sincere the desire of those who want to come, nor the direness of their circumstances back home.
It would also be unfair to “create a pathway to citizenship” for them, as O’Malley has called for. That would allow the 13 million people who entered this country in violation of U.S. law to get ahead of the millions of others seeking to immigrate through legal means.
While the government of Mexico likes to kvetch about U.S. deportation policy, Mexico has much harsher immigration rules than the U.S., and a history of corruption and abuse toward those sneaking into Mexico across its own southern border. We are much more open, and more fair, than many of our critics.
A policy that allows many to come to the United States through proper channels — but that tells those who enter illegally that they may be sent back home — is entirely reasonable. Those who don’t like it might cry racism.
That’s why O’Malley, the descendant of legal immigrants, calls illegal immigrants “new Americans.” The number of Latinos in the U.S. has swelled, and now forms a substantial voting bloc. To vote, of course, these Latinos must be citizens, and therefore in the U.S. legally. But those political activists who stand to gain from riling them up point to what they call the inhumane treatment of those who came illegally. And politicians like O’Malley want to win their support.
Many of those illegally entering the U.S. are Latino, though certainly not all. That makes it easy to pretend there is a racial element. And it’s true that Customs and Border Protection is more assertive along the Mexican border than on the Canadian one.
But there’s nothing racist about enforcing what is already a very liberal immigration standard.
Follow P.J. Orvetti on Twitter at @PJOinDC
Bigots Lose: Cali. In-State Tuition for Illegal Immigrants Upheld
The DREAM Act may have an uncertain future in the dysfunctional senate, soon to be populated with more short-term thinking nativist Republican members, but the state of California is not giving in to bigots. In a first of its kind ruling, the California Supreme Court unanimously upheld a state law providing undocumented immigrants with in-state tuition under certain circumstances. The high court rebuffed the plaintiffs’ argument that the state law violated a federal law banning educational benefits to illegal immigrants, based solely on residency. Justice Ming W. Chin found the state law constitutional because it “does not treat citizens worse than unlawful aliens.”
The challenge to California’s in-state tuition law was engineered by the virulent anti-immigration activist Kris Kobach, who authored Arizona’s draconian “show me your papers” law.
THEY CALL MR. KOBACH “VIRULENT ANTI-IMMIGRATION ACTIVIST” BECAUSE HE WROTE A LAW THAT REPLICATES OUR FEDERAL LAWS CONCERNING ILLEGAL ALIENS! Gio-
But the California Supreme Court found Kobach’s arguments did not hold water. The state law provides in-state tuition to all students who have attended high school in the state for three years, even if those students left the state after high school. Accordingly, the court ruled the in-state “exemption is not based on residence in California, which would run afoul of federal law.
The court was also persuaded by the intent of the legislature in drafting the law.
“The Legislature found and declared that ‘[t]here are high school pupils who have attended elementary and secondary schools in this state for most of their lives and who are likely to remain, but are precluded from obtaining an affordable college education because they are required to pay nonresident tuition rates”; and that ‘[t]hese pupils have already proven their academic eligibility and merit by being accepted into our state’s colleges and universities.”’
THEY ARE CHARGED NONRESIDENT TUITION RATES BECAUSE THEY ARE NONRESIDENTS AND ILLEGAL! Gio-
Besides Kobach, the top bigots in Congress, Reps. Steve King (R-IA) and Lamar Smith (R-TX) also supported the challenge to undocumented immigrants receiving in-state tuition, by filing an Amici Curiae brief with the court.
UPHOLDING THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT TURN SOMEONE INTO A BIGOT. THE WRITING OF AN ARTICLE LIKE THIS DOES! Gio-
When the Republicans resume control of the House in January, King, who once compared illegal immigrantsto a “cockroach” is expected to become Chair of Subcommittee on Immigration, while Lamar, who advocatesdenying birthright citizenship to”anchor babies,” would take control of the House Judiciary Committee.
Recently, a Republican Hispanic group urged soon to be Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) to reconsider the appointments of King and Smith to head the panels, because of their hateful rhetoric “that is aimed negatively toward Hispanics.”
NO, THEIR RHETORIC IS AIMED NEGATIVELY TOWARD ILLEGAL ALIENS, AS IT SHOULD! Gio-
The group Somos Republicans, writes: “Steve King and Lamar Smith have adopted extreme positions on birthright citizenship, and promise legislation that would undermine the 14th amendment of the constitution, which both swore an oath to uphold. While it is indeed the duty of the Judiciary and Immigration committees to oversee and enforce existing immigration laws, Representatives Smith and King have engaged in an ill-advised platform and rhetoric that has been perceived as insensitive with their inflammatory “immigration statements,” and this has caused an exodus of Hispanic voters to the Democratic party.”
SINCE WHEN IS UPHOLDING OUR LAWS CONSIDERED “EXTREME POSITIONS”? Gio-
The California Supreme Court ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Kobach and his fellow nativists should receive a more favorable reception from the divided 5-4 right-wing conservative court.
You can read the court’s entire opinion here.