Free-for-All Looms for Illegal Aliens

"A page of history is worth a volume of logic."

— U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, 1841–1935

History, however, will not be the lodestar of congressional Democrats drafting their immigration agenda for 2007.

Failing to learn from its past mistakes, Congress is doomed to repeat the history of flawed U.S. immigration legislation set in motion by the Immigration & Naturalization Services Act of 1965 (INSA). That insidious law laid the foundation for the open-door free-for-all we underwrite today.

Subsequent immigration laws, especially Ronald Reagan's Immigration Reform & Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), have managed to push open that door ever wider.

The new Democrat-controlled U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate (by a slim margin and pending the health of Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D.) have a strong supporter in the White House for a 2007 version of nouveau émigré legislation.

U.S. citizens, be prepared for a wide-open immigration policy, despite what history would teach us.

An Alphabet of Entitlements

If past is prologue, then the United States is in for yet another budget-busting round of amnesty that may deal the death blow to Social Security as we know it. On Jan. 4, 2007, a secret agreement between the United States of America and Estados Unidos Mexicanos was made public. The agreement, in the mill for several years, will reward Mexicans in the United States illegally with Social Security benefits that will cost U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars.

President George Bush apparently favors the agreement.

These benefits will be in addition to the billions of dollars in benefits that illegal aliens and their families already receive.

Among these are federal food stamps; Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) food subsidies; Medicaid for children of illegal aliens (children born in the United States are citizens, but older siblings often are here illegally), Section 8 housing, Supplemental Security Income (SSI, a federal program funded by general tax revenues), and a lengthy list of other alphabet entitlements.

The Democrats' 2007 immigration agenda features a "pathway to citizenship," which is another name for amnesty for illegal aliens, based on last year's legislation passed by the then-Republican-controlled Senate but stalled by the more conservative Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

Some 16 of those Republican House members are now gone from Capitol Hill, as is their amnesty roadblock.

Although House Speaker Nancy Pelosi failed to list "comprehensive" immigration in her First One Hundred Hours agenda, it will likely be the only 2007 legislation to win White House backing. That pyrrhic victory, however, may well serve to energize the Democrat's liberal-progressive agenda.

Social Security may be the immediate victim of "comprehensive" immigration legislation, but the long-term damage is a further chipping away of U.S. sovereignty.

Crime Pays for Illegals

The granting of legal residency and then citizenship to the millions upon millions of illegal aliens presently in the country and the millions more poised to come will embolden them to declare that crime does pay.

Crossing U.S. borders without inspection, visa overstays, and entries with false and fraudulent documents are, as of this date, still federal crimes in the United States of America. Those persons who cross the U.S. border illegally are de jure (by law) criminals.

This self-evident truth is contrary to the warm and fuzzy picture painted by immigration advocates who portray such aliens as law-abiding, which they are not. Illegal aliens also are de facto criminals.

If they break U.S. immigration laws with immunity, why should they obey any U.S. laws?

The answer is that many do not.

Growing numbers of illegal aliens are habitual lawbreakers. Homocide statistics for the United States in 2006 rank gang killings as a major factor, with many of these killings committed by members of illegal alien gangs such as the notorious MS-13 gang introduced by El Salvadorians in Los Angeles.

INSA and IRCA

The drafters of the Immigration & Naturalization Services Act of 1965 (INSA), have enabled illegal entry and violent crimes by aliens. Even worse, they have skillfully structured U.S. immigration law to weaken the cultural heritage of the United States — a heritage forged in a "melting pot" of legal immigrants from many nations. INSA and its offspring are absurd in the reading — look up the exact wording of the "family unity" and "amnesty" provisions, as just two examples.

These laws have resulted in global disdain for U.S. immigration policy, defiance of immigration law enforcement, and absolute contempt for U.S. borders.

The fruit of a flawed foundation is an unstable structure, and the open-door policy triggered by INSA has resulted in a steady attrition of U.S. culture and the rise of demographic enclaves that refuse to assimilate. Defiant illegal aliens, in contrast to previous generations of legal immigrants, are changing the United States, before our eyes, into a pluralistic nation lacking a national identity.

The social contract is broken.

Non-assimilation is balkanizing a once-united and thus strong people and eroding the ideals of the Republic. Balkanization in the new millennium is giving rise to a national and international vacuum in leadership and civil order.

The enactment of INSA in 1965 changed the demographics of U.S. immigration abruptly.

This single law changed the immigration dynamic, tilting favored status to immigrants from Third-World countries. INSA was a reaction, its drafters said, to a perceived favoritism of European migration that discriminated against Third-World peoples. The year 1965 came in the midst of President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.

The White House, the U.S. Senate, and the U.S. House of Representatives were controlled by Democrats, who stated without reservation that the Hart-Cellar Senate bill (which became INSA) was a major part of the "Great Society" goal of multiculturalism. INSA proponents, at the same time, assured the electorate that nothing would change for them, that U.S. culture, ethos, heritage, and principles would be preserved. These counter-intuitive assurances by politicians with an agenda have proved utterly false, supporting the effectiveness of the big lie said loud and often.

The nation ought not forget the empty assurances of Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), who in 1965, as chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, declared: "First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same . . . Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset . . . It will not relax standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs . . ."

Sen. Kennedy has proved to be either a poor prognosticator or a purposeful deceiver. INSA has achieved the goals that he and the law's other main movers Jacob Javits, R-N.Y. and Herbert Lehman, D-N.Y. in the Senate and Congressman Emanuel Celler, D-N.Y., desired a minority-oriented multicultural America, where people of European descent lose ground. The resulting politically correct secular pluralism goal of the "Great Society" legislation, augmented by U.S. Supreme Court decisions, has trumped legitimate civil discourse with claims of "racism."

Secular pluralism began the chipping away of the national sovereignty of the United States. It has facilitated the debasement of Western civilization and has empowered those who would undermine the founding concepts of the U.S. Republic. Legislation does not evolve in isolation; laws have consequences.

A prime example is the Immigration Reform & Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), which began as the Simpson-Mazzoli bill authored by Sen. Alan Simpson, R-Wyo., and Congressman Romano Mazzoli D-Ky.

The bill had two salient provisions: amnesty and employer sanctions. Supporters of the bill, including Sen. Kennedy, D-Mass., promised that these provisions would stop future illegal immigration.

As we well know, amnesty merely served as a welcome mat for a new wave of illegal aliens, and employer sanctions were not enforced.

IRCA amnesty resulted in a dramatic increase in illegal immigration. Street-smart foreign nationals realized that the U.S. Congress had no genuine desire to control the U.S. borders or stop or even limit illegal immigration.

IRCA amnesty was hyped by immigration special interest groups as an opportunity to obtain legal status for those seeking U.S. economic and welfare benefits in the United States. Since 1987 (the deadline for IRCA amnesty), more than a million aliens have entered the United States illegally each year assuming that amnesty had become part and parcel of U.S. immigration policy.

They are about to be proved right.

In retrospect, IRCA employer sanctions can only be characterized as a bureaucratic joke; they were never meant to be enforced. The U.S. government, under Republican and Democratic administrations, never made any effort to seek meaningful employer sanctions against big business, whose members were, after all, major campaign contributors to Republicans and Democrats.

Labor unions joined big business in supporting the entry of illegal aliens into the United States to replenish their shrinking membership numbers and to enhance their political influence.

Unintended Consequences

Open-door immigration proponents have their own agenda. Among these proponents are Jewish, Catholic, and Lutheran activists. California State University-Long Beach professor Kevin B. MacDonald has researched and written on Jewish immigration motivations.

In The Culture of Critique (1998), professor MacDonald asserts that from 1881 onward, people of Jewish descent have been actively involved in shaping U.S. immigration policy and, in 1965, were instrumental in the passage of INSA.

Their minority status in the ethnically and culturally homogeneous U.S. society led them to support altering the immigration quota system to increase the numbers of non-European people.

MacDonald concluded that Jewish interests in the United States advocated liberal immigration policies to provide a U.S. sanctuary for those fleeing anti-Semitic persecution worldwide. Multiculturalism, he observed, serves Jewish interests by making them just one of numerous ethnic and religious groups.

The dilution of political, ethnic, cultural, and religious entities prevents a cohesive grouping that could unite in anti-Semitism. Jewish interests favor a multicultural nation, one divided ethnically, religiously, and socially, which tends to be a safe haven for all.

In practice, however, multiculturalism presents more problems than it solves.

Jewish interests are joined by the Catholic bishops, the Lutheran synods, and other religious organizations in supporting open-door immigration. Mainstream religious organizations seek easy entry for their co-religionists (or potential converts) to the United States, an economically vibrant, politically stable, and humane country in contrast to the brutal, impoverished, oligarchic countries of Mexico and other developing nations.

Smaller religious denominations, among them Buddhist, Hindus, Muslims, Taoists, and Zoroastrians, also aid and abet illegal aliens to advance similar agendas, but have less influence.

Resulting demographic changes are influenced by a range of religious beliefs.

Hispanic aliens are largely Roman Catholic, while East Asian, Middle East, and African aliens are largely Muslim.

In the United States, Hispanics now are the largest minority followed by African-American citizens and illegal black aliens. Today Hispanics and Muslims (legal and illegal) are registering more births per family than are non-Hispanic/non-Muslim citizens, by 3-to-1.

Republican candidates tend to seek the educated Hispanic vote, while Democrat candidates reach out to unskilled, uneducated, and illegal aliens (such as those defiantly waving Mexican flags in street demonstrations).

Democrats believe such persons can be easily influenced to vote (illegally if need be) for Democrats, with promises of yet more entitlements. No one has taken a close look at how many U.S. elections are being decided by illegal voters. U.S. laws dictate that only U.S. citizens have the vote; and to become a U.S. citizen, a person must read and speak English.

The growing campaign for bilingual ballots is an indication that non-English speaking, non-citizens are not only voting in U.S. elections but are being allowed and encouraged to do so.

This continuing dissemblance of U.S. heritage by legislative initiatives is indispensable for the special interest groups that consider the United States too Western civilization-oriented. As a result of incessant legislative attacks and Court decisions, U.S. values have eroded over the past four decades. History demonstrates that a democracy without values easily converts to totalitarianism and the tyranny of a minority.

What can the nation do to resolve the worsening immigration free-for-all? U.S. citizens can keep informed on Senate and House immigration bills. They can insist that their elected officials read and understand proposed immigration bills as well as the compromises that come out of House-Senate legislative committees.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/1/8/103246.shtml