Immigration

Do You Care About Immigrants' Rights?

davidswanson — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:19:39 -0500

Then please read the indictment of Dick Cheney posted here:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/37794

He is charged with influencing ICE to contract with for-profit prison corporations in which he himself has millions invested, and with assaults on inmates and detainees. Alberto Gonzales is charged with blocking investigations of those assaults.

Arraignment is Friday.

What Can Virgil Goode Do For You?

KFP — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:33:42 -0400

Virgil and Tom faced off for the first time on August 13th in a forum
that demonstrated the wide gap between the two of them - especially
when it comes to immigration policy. Virgil has repeatedly touted his
fence: "There's no way a 12 foot ladder will cross this fence."

A little help of some visual aids would be useful in understanding
Virgil's complex "3 tier" fence policy that was outlined in 5 parts?

A win for Perriello in my book. I can't wait for the next showdown between these two.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMIeE7ZxDXE

Rep. Virgil Goode Swears He Doesn't Hate Immigrants

davidswanson — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 17:33:31 -0400

By David Swanson

Congressman Virgil Goode recently responded to a statement I'd blogged about him. Here's what I wrote and his response:

"The Unitary Executive is scheduled to disgrace the grounds of Thomas Jefferson's house, Monticello, in Charlottesville, Va., making a speech on the morning of July 4, 2008. The event is open to the public, and is Monticello's annual Independence Day Celebration and Naturalization Ceremony. Numerous immigrants will become citizens in an event besmirched by the presence of a war criminal, and held in the district of Congressman Virgil Goode, whose entire reelection campaign platform consists of hatred for immigrants."

Goode replied:

"The blogger's statement is false. I do not hate anyone. The blogger also does not distinguish between legal and illegal aliens. The illegal aliens have not followed the process and procedures that those being sworn in as citizens on July 4th have followed. The illegals and the proponents of amnesty want to jump in front of those going through the legal process."

So, Goode's concern is to get all legal would-be citizens through the process quickly without any law breakers slowing any of them down or cutting in line.

Except that Goode has repeatedly said that he wants to reduce legal immigration, wants to undo legal immigration policies that allow people to legally immigrate from the Middle East, and that he is motivated in these positions by his fear of Muslims taking over his supposedly Christian country. He also has a habit of sliding back into discussing illegal immigration while keeping the focus on Muslims, whom he considers "potential terrorists."

When Congressman Keith Ellison proposed to be sworn into office using a Koran, Goode sent the following words in an Email to his constituents:

"When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand.

"I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran.

"We need to stop illegal immigration totally and reduce legal immigration and end the diversity visas policy pushed hard by President Clinton and allowing many persons from the Middle East to come to this country.

"I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped.

"The Ten Commandments and 'In God We Trust' are on the wall in my office. A Muslim student came by the office and asked why I did not have anything on my wall about the Koran. My response was clear, 'As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia in the United States House of Representatives, The Koran is not going to be on the wall of my office.'"

If you go to Goode's campaign website at http://www.virgilgoode.com you'll find this right at the top:

"Illegal immigrants take jobs from our citizens. I'm working to stop illegal immigration and secure America's borders. We must keep America strong and free by supporting the war on terrorism. While the United States has had a number of successes in fighting those who want to destroy America, our borders are porous and are far too open to illegal immigrants, potential terrorists, and drug dealers."

Now, maybe that's not hatred in Goode's mind but purely the encouragement of fear and hatred in potential voters. But which is worse?

There's an even more revolting manipulation of citizens' attitudes going on right now in Virginia's Fifth District. With Governor George W. Bush scheduled to speak at Monticello on July Fourth, local Republicans, whose attitudes toward immigration have always roughly paralleled those of Goode, and who have never before gone out of their way to promote Monticello's annual immigrant naturalization ceremony as a sacred and monumental event, have shifted gears.

To listen to them now, you'd think there was nothing of more heartfelt importance to them in their lives than honoring newly naturalized citizens. Sure, they're excited about Mr. 23% coming to speak, but their focus is all on the holy undisturbability of the naturalization ceremony (understood to encompass Bush's speech). The point, of course, is to try to shame any protesters of Bush and depict them as protesters of something else. The real shame, though, is how many Democrats obediently bought into that suppression tactic even before it was articulated. How well we've been trained! Local political pundit Larry Sabato told the newspaper that Bush is bravely stepping outside of his usual bubble by speaking in Charlottesville where most people don't like him. Sabato failed to mention that the majority of the tickets to the event had been given away to handpicked supporters.

The only thing I find encouraging is how many of Goode's misrepresented constituents have tried to persuade Monticello to uninvite Bush and how many are insisting on rallying in protest of Bush on the nearest accessible road. A coalition of groups and individuals plans to protest, including RVA4Peace, the Augusta Center for Peace and Justice, CODEPINK Women for Peace both National and Charlottesville, AfterDowningStreet, Democrats.com, and Charlottesville MoveOn.org. Many other people expected to participate are not members of any of these groups. The protest will take place at Route 20, outside and a ways removed from the grounds of Monticello. To join in, meet at 6 a.m. (or come as early as you can - we'll be there for hours) on Friday, July 4, at Quarry Park, the entrance to which is on the west side of Rt. 20 just north of Interstate 64.

Illegal Alien Giveaways

gwennm — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 13:49:31 -0400

Something needs to be done about these free programs. Gwenn

Subject: Letter by Flordia Teacher

Letter by a Florida teacher................ A teacher speaks

This is a subject close to my heart. Do you know that we have adult
students at the school where I teach who are not US citizens and who
get the PELL grant, which is a federal grant (no pay back required)
plus other federal grants to go to school?

One student from the Dominican Republic told me that she didn't want
me to find a job for her after she finished my program, because she
was getting housing from our housing department and she was getting
PELL grant which paid for her total tuition and books, plus money left
over.

She was looking into WAIT which gives students a CREDIT CARD for gas
to come to school, and into CARIBE which is a special program (check
it out - I did) for immigrants and it pays for child care and all
sorts of needs while they go to school or training. The one student I
just mentioned told me she was not going to be a US Citizen because
she plans to return to the Dominican Republic someday and that she
"loves HER country."

I asked her if she felt guilty taking what the US is giving her and
then not even bothering to become a citizen and she told me that it
doesn't bother her, because that is what the money is there for!

I asked the CARIBE administration about their program and if you ARE
a US Citizen, you don't qualify for their program. And all the while,
I am working a full day, my son-in-law works more than 60 hours a
week, and everyone in my family works and pays for our education.

Something is wrong here. I am sorry but after hearing they want to
sing the National Anthem in Spanish - enough is enough.

Nowhere did they sing it in Italian, Polish, Irish (Celtic), German
or any other language because of immigration. It was written by
Francis Scott Key and should be sung word for word the way it was
written. The news broadcasts even gave the translation -- not even
close.Sorry if this offends anyone but this is MY COUNTRY

IF IT IS YOUR COUNTRY SPEAK UP -- please pass this along.

I am not against immigration -- just come through like everyone else.
Get a sponsor; have a place to lay your head; have a job; pay your
taxes, live by the rules AND LEARN THE LANGUAGE as all other
immigrants have in the past -- and GOD BLESS AMERICA!

PART OF THE PROBLEM

Think about this: If you don't want to forward this for fear of
offending someone -- YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM!

It is Time for America to Speak up If you agree -- pass this along,
if you don't agree --- delete it!

Out of Iraq Town Hall Meeting

harleymeyer — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 21:23:06 -0400

An Out of Iraq Town Hall meeting in the month of April will be held in Tucson, Arizona - 7th Congressional District. The time and the date of the meeting to be announced. The actual topics to be addressed at the Town Hall meeting will be released about one week before the meeting. To be a part of this meeting contact info@harleymeyer.com

Contact Info: info@harleymeyer.com

Harley Meyer

Independent Candidate for US Congress

7th Congressional District Arizona

www.harleymeyer.com

Amy Goodman Confronts Lou Dobbs With His Racist Lies

davidswanson — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 10:49:57 -0500

This is very nice to see.

And of course Joe Klein is being corrected from all sides for the most recent of his many many lies.

And an NIE now stands in the way of Cheney's Iran lies.

Anybody else want to say something true, maybe this is the moment.

Should Democrats Get Tough on Employers of Illegal Immigrants?

Bob Fertik — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 13:44:55 -0500

The problem of illegal immigration is a difficult one and so are the solutions, which is why I don't write about it often.

Just like my own great-grandparents, today's immigrants are coming here to find a job that pays enough to raise a family on, because they can't find such jobs in the countries they are leaving.

But of course they drive down wages for workers who were born here or went through the nightmare of legal immigration.

George Bush and the Republicans have done nothing to control illegal immigration for the past seven years. But that didn't stop them from running vicious anti-immigrant ads to beat Democrats in this week's elections.

Election results show those immigration ads did not kill Democrats, and some bloggers think Democrats can safely ignore the issue, or deflect it by focusing on trade.

I'm not sure I would agree. Just because immigration didn't kill Democrats in 2007, we can't say they didn't cause a lot of pain.

And with every poll showing our presidential candidates in a virtual dead heat with their candidates, why should we wait for Republicans to figure out how to perfect their use of immigration to beat us in 2008 - just as they did with gay marriage in 2004?

I'd like to see Democrats stop playing defense on immigration, and start playing offense. And I think the best way to play offense is to get tough on employers who hire illegal immigrants.

How exactly? I'm not an expert on the details, but the comprehensive immigration reform bill supported by Democrats (and George Bush) includes tamper-proof SS# verification of new employees, backed by tough penalties for employers who fail to perform the verification.

So why don't Democrats separate that piece from the omnibus bill and push it through Congress now?

Republicans will oppose such a bill for one simple reason: it hurts the greediest business owners, who are one of the GOP's most important constituencies.

But that's a fight Democrats should relish.

What would happen to the 12 million illegal immigrants who are looking for work? Law-abiding companies would turn them away, so they would have to find non-corporate cash-paying jobs with small businesses (i.e. construction) or individuals (i.e. housekeeping). Of course many of them already have such jobs.

Are there any Democratic constituencies that would oppose such a bill? Perhaps the unions that organize low-income workers, whether they are here legally or not - the United Farm Workers, SEIU, and Unite/Here come to mind. But if they have legitimate concerns, I'm sure the legislation could be tailored to address them.

Is this a workable plan? I don't know. What do you think?

Texans to Bush: Get Off Our Lawn!

davidswanson — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 09:04:10 -0400

Now, this is encouraging: Texas activists, politicians and local law enforcement are uniting to oppose Bush's plans for a border fence in their backyard. Here's the story.

Terror = Treason?

Chip — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 02:35:54 -0400

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune that he has a "gut feeling" that the US has entered into a new period of increased risk of terrorism.

Let me get this straight - Chertoff has a "gut feeling" that the US is on the verge of another terrorism attack.

I'm getting a gut feeling that this is a impending Wag the Dog operation as Bush continues to feel the increasing public scorn for his commutation of Scooter Libby's prison sentence, the mounting public opinion against the war, the plummeting Bush-Cheney public approval ratings, the defection of Republican senators from the "all war, all the time" Bush war agenda, the backlash from claiming executive privilege for the RNC emails originating in the White House, the White House refusal to allow aides to testify before congress, the burgeoning congressional investigations...those are just a few of the high points from which it's important to distract the public's attention.

But there's more, and even more reason to be concerned about the Bush administration's handling of national security. ABCNews is reporting that an alQaeda cell is either in or en route to the US.

Bush doesn't want to offend our ally, Pakistan's Musharraf, where the US has provided $10 billion in aid since 911, but of which less than 1/10 - $900 million, has actually gone for the country's development, according to a report issued by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. According to the report's author, Frederic Grare, "The question is the extent to which this money has effectively increased U.S. and international security," the report said.

Aside from the fiscal accountability issue, and the fact that the hefty funding hasn't improved the existence of the populace of an underdeveloped country while precariously propping up a military dictatorship (Musharraf never renounced his role as Chief of the Army Staff, contrary to Pakistan's constitution), the American taxpayers' money also hasn't bought much consideration from the Pakistani president, either.

The serious impacts of the policy of accommodation practiced by Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf toward the Taliban and its extremist supporters in Pakistan have been dramatized by the clashes between security forces and Islamic extremists at the Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) in Islamabad.

That crisis came only a few days after a report in the New York Times on June 28 that the Pakistani Interior Ministry had warned Musharraf earlier in June that a "general policy of appeasement towards the Taliban" had "further emboldened" the Islamic extremist forces.

But despite these indications that the news from Pakistan is likely to shed a harsh light on its Pakistan policy, the Bush administration has continued to offer unqualified endorsement of Musharraf's policy toward terrorism. Efforts by journalists to elicit an expression of concern about the implications of the violence in Islamabad from State Department spokesman Sean McCormack produced only reassuring phrases that there is "still a lot more to do" in regard to Islamic extremists in Pakistan and that "we support [Musharraf] in those efforts".

The Bush administration knows that Musharraf has been playing a double game over al-Qaeda and Taliban networks. Four months earlier, it had tried to exert quiet pressure on Musharraf over the issue, but had also continued its policy of portraying Musharraf as a loyal ally in the "war against terror", even after he signaled his rejection of any pressure.

Vice President Dick Cheney visited Islamabad in late February, accompanied by Stephen R Kappes, deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), when unnamed US officials told the Washington Post that there was evidence al-Qaeda operatives in camps in Pakistan had resumed training of foreign jihadis. Just hours after Cheney had reportedly delivered a warning that aid would be cut by the US Congress if something was not done, the Musharraf government issued a statement insisting that "Pakistan does not accept dictation from any side or any source"....

Musharraf's failure to act against religious extremists and their madrassas is widely understood to be part of a fundamental strategy by the military regime of using political parties that embrace extreme Islamic ideology as a political base of support for the military dictatorship to ensure against the return of democratic forces seeking to reverse Musharraf's 1999 coup.

There's evidence to suggest that Musharraf's government has negotiated with and harbored terrorists.

The Musharraf government's deals with pro-Taliban groups in 2004 and 2006 in the border provinces of South and North Waziristan helped the Taliban generate increased manpower and logistics support for cross-border raids into Afghanistan by Taliban guerrillas based in those provinces.

According to a report by the International Crisis Group last December, after the September 2006 accord, the government "released militants, returned their weapons, disbanded security check posts and agreed to allow foreign terrorists to stay if they gave up violence". The new accommodation with the Taliban "facilitates the growth of militancy and attacks in Afghanistan by giving pro-Taliban elements a free hand to recruit, train and arm", the report said.

Bush maintains an irresponsible, reckless policy of not upholding his oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution by securing our national borders against illegal immigration using our existing laws, meanwhile funding massive amounts of federal aid to Pakistan where it is misappropriated - where Pakistan's actions actually support terrorist operations - and so is ineffective in enhancing our national and international security.

According to a House Committee on Homeland Security report:

During 2005, Border Patrol apprehended approximately 1.2 million illegal aliens; of those 165,000 were from countries other than Mexico. Of the non-Mexican aliens, approximately 650 were from special interest countries. Special interest countries are those “designated by the intelligence community as countries that could export
individuals that could bring harm to our country in the way of terrorism.”1...Federal law enforcement estimates that 10 percent to 30 percent of illegal aliens are actually apprehended...

Data indicates that there are hundreds of illegal aliens apprehended entering the United States each year who are from countries known to support and sponsor terrorism.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement investigations have revealed that aliens were smuggled from the Middle East to staging areas in Central and South America, before being smuggled illegally into the United States.
Members of Hezbollah have already entered the United States across the Southwest border.
U.S. military and intelligence officials believe that Venezuela is emerging as a potential hub of terrorism in the Western Hemisphere. The Venezuelan government is issuing identity documents that could subsequently be used to obtain a U.S. visa and enter the country.

If the Border Patrol is only apprehending 10-30% of the illegal aliens, and 650 of those were from "special interest" countries, then not securing our nation's borders using existing laws is a dereliction of duty by Bush, as is not funding legislation passed to improve border security against illegal immigration.

After all, as Ronald Reagan said in his speech "Our Noble Vision: An Opportunity for All": "Democratic nations do not wage war on their neighbors. But make no mistake, those who would hang a "Do Not Disturb" sign on our shores, those who would weaken America or give Castro's terrorists free rein to bring violence closer and closer to our borders are doing no service to the cause of peace."

Our Constitution defines treason as: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

Is Bush giving terrorists free rein to bring violence closer and closer to our borders?

And isn't that treason?

Conservatives Call for Bush's Impeachment

Chip — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 19:14:21 -0400

A while ago I suggested that the pro-impeachment coalition join with the anti-illegal immigration forces because of Bush's treason in not securing our country's borders and not enforcing our existing immigration laws. Non-enforcement of existing laws has made this a complex issue, but the complexities can be simplified by enforcing the existing laws.

If we sincerely believe that impeachment is a patriotic imperative, then we also must take a honest look at why we would not join with conservatives to insist that our national sovereignty be protected by enforcing existing immigration laws before any new laws are contemplated, much less enacted. For the government to simply say: "Whoops, we let this get out of control, so now we want to fix by repeating the mistakes of twenty years ago" is unacceptable - and will result in even bigger future problems.

Of course, from the standpoint of political ideology, it's understandable that suggestion would receive a lukewarm reception. So, here are a few actual postings that lead me to conclude that the pro-impeachment coalition should team up with the anti-illegal immigrant forces. Can you imagine yourself agreeing with any of the sentiments?

I have been a bushbot for the past six-and-a-half years. I defended the man through thick and thin, but his insistence upon granting amnesty to illegals was the last straw. I am all for letting the Democrats impeach him, because it will keep him too busy during the last 18-months of his term to get even with us for thwarting him.
Today? I believe that the government purposely leaves the border unprotected and interior laws unenforced. I believe that the Republican Party is a globalist corporatist party that elects men who promote a Third World invasion of our nation for their corporate lobby financers. I have researched the lies perpetuated by the MSM, and realise they have basically been lying about everything this entire time.
No easy answer. Bush still holds the power. We have a President that will not enforce our borders or help to punish employers of illegals. It's going to be a hard nut to crack. Bush may now even do less as a way of getting back. It looks like it is going to be up to the individual states for a while, until we elect someone will to protect this country. Impeachment has a nice ring to it!
It's time we now demand Bush's impeachment--this can also be done by the immigration restrictionist websites. We have a right to expect the President, who swore an oath, to uphold the laws of the land. Bush has refused to for 7 years, now the time has come for his impeachment and it must be us, the Republican base, who leads this charge.
If we can get him impeached, no President in the future will dare try this stunt again!!!!
Let's get this man impeached!!!!!!

You're right - a lot of us did a lot of calling, faxing, visiting senate offices in person, e mailing, etc. We need to follow through with impeachment. Some say it won't help since Bush has a little over 1 yr left, but if anything, it'll send a helluva message!!
Help prevent another bloody revolution...IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY
I voted for Bush twice (best of bad choices) Can't we help get him impeached? No wonder everyone hates his guts. He thinks he knows what is best for us, so he can't tell us what he's doing or why. Reminds me of that old 60's song that goes "...you can't even run your own life, I'll be damned if you'll run mine."

If you can, then we are a step closer to impeachment of the lawless Bush and Cheney when we recognize that these are the sentiments of conservatives. It shouldn't be too surprising that an executive branch that has acted as though it was above the law - indeed, validates that by commuting Scooter Libby's prison sentence - would propose a solution to indemnify lawbreakers from the legal consequences of their actions, to the benefit of their corporate benefactors whose profits increase from the lower labor costs of non-unionized illegal workers.