Saturday, November 26, 2011

Newt's Folly

GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has endorsed a form of amnesty for illegal aliens that apparently has the following features:
1) The illegal must have longevity.  Newt mentioned an example of 25 years in the United States.
2) He must have family roots here.
3) He must already have a job.
4) He must not have a criminal record.
5) He will not be offered citizenship.

From what I can see, he's not offering much.  In 2001, the Bush administration was comfortable with the figure of 3 million illegal aliens, far less than the 12 million here now.  So, what's he offering?  Maybe 500,000 green cards?

As for taking citizenship off the table, that means nothing to the illegal aliens.  Here's a chart showing the percentage of the 1986 amnesty group who later became citizens.
This illustrates the falsehood of declaring that illegal aliens want the American Dream.  They don't.  They want to work here and take advantage of our standard of living, but they really don't buy into our Constitutional Laws and our free market economy.

They are perfectly willing to live three of four families to a home and send $300 a month back home.  Our main source of all immigrants is Mexico, and their naturalization rates are pathetically low.  Only about 25% of eligible Mexicans bother to naturalize, despite campaigns like fee discounts, free classes and even programs to get them on the voter rolls, such as  the Al Gore "Citizenship USA" program in 1995.

It appears that Gingrich is offering a plum to attract brown voters without really doing much.  Such a move is smart, but oh so dumb.  Any form of amnesty is just plain wrong for America and sends the wrong message.  To reward bad behavior is never a good idea.  And any amnesty really fails to address the litany of local problems caused by black market immigration.

If we don't control entry, we lose everything afterwards.  Who are they?  Why are they coming?  Will they become a public charge?  Are they capable of self-insurance?  Will they need subsidies for food and housing?  Do we have the capacity to educate them?Are they healthy?  Do they have criminal intentions?  Are they terrorists?

They have bypassed the very reasons we have immigration laws in the first place.

And Newt is spitting in the face of our own unemployed as well as those who are waiting to come here legally.

Perhaps most important is the push back required to hold the line against the 165 million people in the third world who have an eye on the United States as their new home.

What do you do with the 12 million?  You enforce the law and they will self-deport.  Mandatory E-Verify and a review of the existing workforce will put pressure on those who have false documents and, more importantly, leave unscrupulous employers without excuse.  Prosecute the business owners and you will see a vast improvement in compliance.

Deporting people who are here illegally (rather than apologize for them) will send a message that it is no longer safe to live here without papers.  They WILL go home once they know we are serious about enforcing our laws.

Gingrich is dead wrong on this one.

Source link on chart:

Sunday, November 6, 2011

Free Baba Suwe!

How embarrassing!  After 25 days, they've got nothing for the evidence room.
"Leading Nigerian comic actor Babatunde Omidina, known by the stage name as Baba Suwe, raises his hands after being freed on bail for peddling on hard drugs by the Lagos High Court. Omidina was arrested last month at Lagos international airport on suspicion of ingesting drugs to smuggling to Europe but after 25 closely monitored bowel movements produced nothing suspicious" 

Follow the link for a photo (of Baba, not the bowel movement):

Friday, November 4, 2011

2012 - Year of the Illegal Alien

The presidential race is bound to be far different than 2008 when it comes to the subject of illegal aliens.

Rick Perry is proposing a guest worker program that will allow illegal aliens to get work permits, but not citizenship.  (The sleight-of-hand here is that only about 22% of Mexican immigrants actually want to become U S citizens.  They want the jobs and the freebies, but they don’t really care about naturalization.)

And, like George W. Bush, he demands that we don’t call it amnesty.  (That joke is no funnier this time around, Rick.)

I praise Perry for putting this on the table, because it smokes out the positions of the other candidates in the process.  Four years ago we didn’t really have that catalyst.  The strategy then was to avoid talking about it.  But the GOP debates have given an airing of the issue.  And that is likely to continue.

Chalk it up to the economy or the Tea Party or New Media, but the candidates can no longer hide from the immigration issue.

And the race card has been played so much that it no longer gets the attention of any but the most ardent Obama supporters.  You won’t change their minds no matter what you do.

Obama has made his bed and can only continue to preach legalization.  He’s got the party platform requiring it.  He’s got the unions demanding it.  He’s got the Latino activists crying for it.  He’s got an unkept promise hanging over his head.  The man has nowhere to run.

And his previous trick of isolating the message with Univision and Telemundo no longer works.  The information is out there to the general public as soon as he utters the words, and it only makes him look sly for trying.

And so, cracking down on illegal aliens sells well for the GOP.
1)     Conservatives like it
2)     The economy calls for it
3)     It separates them from the message on the left
4)     It speaks to the rule of law
5)     There are abundant examples to make the point

Still we must guard against proposals that appear to be fixing the problem, but really do not.  Perry’s guest worker permit is one of them.  It is very popular these days.  Utah has a bill in the works and even Obama is pushing for it.  It is nothing more than 245i on steroids.

Another cop-out is the old “Build the dang fence,” message.  Border security IS important, but inadequate by itself.  Candidates need to talk about E-Verify, visa control, interior enforcement, detention beds, fed-local cooperation, making unlawful presence a felony, tightening up ID theft punishment, worksite raids…

There are large numbers of people watching for the message, and far more outlets for reliable media information.  Candidates can no longer control the message by controlling the old media.  And conservatives are tied together with e-mail, newsletters, blogs, websites, Facebook, Twitter…the narrative is wide open this time around.

Link to Perry’s amnesty program:

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Whose money is it anyway?

Remember the Drew Carey improv show, "Whose line is it anyway?"

Well, thanks to Tyler Hensley, a young man from Napa, we have the political equivalent of that question.
On September 12, 2011, Tyler asked the GOP Presidential candidates:
"Out of every dollar that I earn, how much do you think that I deserve to keep?"

 Mormon apostle Dallin Oaks made a similar point regarding tax deductions at a recent Senate hearing on charitable donations,  He said, “Some economists and other scholars contend that this is, in effect, a tax expenditure because tax revenues are reduced by the benefit granted. In other words, because the government could have denied the charitable deduction there is a government expenditure in its granting the deduction and forgoing the revenue. By that reasoning the personal income we think is ours is really the government’s because of its choice not to take it away by taxation. That is surely an attitude not shared by most Americans.”  (October 18, 2011 Senate Finance Committee Hearing)

Here is a transcript of the answers given to Tyler's question at the debate:  

QUESTION: Hi. My name is Tyler Hensley (ph). I'm from Napa, California. My -- well, first of all, thank you guys for coming out tonight. My question is, out of every dollar that I earn, how much do you think that I deserve to keep?

REP. MICHELE BACHMANN, (R-MN.), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Oh, I love that question. I love that question.



BLITZER: Governor Huntsman?

FORMER GOV. JON HUNTSMAN, (R-UT.), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I've come out with a tax program that basically simplifies, lowers, flattens the rate, why? Because I did it as governor in the state of Utah; I believe that that experience means something.

And I look at people who are earning, you in the workplace, trying to make ends meet. You ought to be given a competitive tax code. We need to clear out the cobwebs. We need to clear out the deductions, the loopholes, the corporate welfare, and all the subsidies. And for you, you know, we leave it at 8 percent, 14 percent, 24 percent. Those are the three rates that I think would work on the individual income side.

On the corporate side, I think we recognize the reality that a whole lot of companies can afford to have lobbyists and lawyers on Capitol Hill working their magic. Let's recognize the reality that they're all paying 35 percent. We need to lower that to 25 percent. So let's phase out the corporate subsidies and clean out the cobwebs and leave it more competitive for the 21st century.

I can tell you, by doing that with our tax code -- and I know, because we did it in a state that took us to the number-one job creator in this country -- it will leave you and your generation a whole lot better off.

But the thing that you all need to be worried about is the debt that is coming your way, because we have a cancer that is eating away at the core of this country called debt. And it's going to eat -- eat -- eat alive this country until your generation gets active in the 2012 election cycle and finds a leader who can address debt and growth.


BLITZER: Thank you, Governor.

Speaker Gingrich, some of the biggest companies in the United States, the oil companies, they got -- I guess some would call government handouts in the form of tax breaks, tax exemptions, loopholes. They're making billions and billions of dollars. Is that fair?

FORMER REP. NEWT GINGRICH, (R-GA.), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You know, I thought for a second, you were going to refer to General Electric, which has paid no taxes.


You know, I -- I was -- I was astonished the other night to have the president there in the joint session with the head of G.E. sitting up there and the president talking about taking care of loopholes. And I thought to myself, doesn't he realize that every green tax credit is a loophole...


... that everything he wants -- everything General Electric is doing is a loophole? Now, why did we get to breaks for ethanol, breaks for oil and gas, et cetera? We got to them because of this idea, which the young man just represented. If we make you -- if we make it possible for you to keep more of your own money, you will do more of it.

We have a simple choice. We can depend on Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, or we can encourage development in the United States of manufacturing, as Rick said. We can encourage development of oil and gas. We can do it by saying we're going to let you keep more of your money if you create more of what we want. I'm for an energy- independent America, and that means I favor people who create energy.


BLITZER: But I just want to follow up, Mr. Speaker. If you eliminate some of those loopholes, those exemptions, whether for ExxonMobil or G.E. or some other companies, there are those who argue that is, in effect, a tax increase and it would violate a pledge that so many Republicans have made not to raise taxes.

GINGRICH: Yes, a lot of people argue that. They're -- they're technically right, which is why I'm -- look, I'm cheerfully opposed to raising taxes. This government -- we have a problem of overspending. We don't have a problem of undertaxing.

And I think that it would be good for us to say, we're not going to raise any -- which is why I'm also in favor of keeping the current tax cut for people who are working on Social Security and Medicare. I think trying to raise the tax on working Americans in the middle of the Obama depression is a destructive policy. So I don't want to have any tax increase at any level for anyone. I want to shrink government to fit income, not raise income to try to catch up with government.

So, I guess none of the candidates had an answer for him.  Too bad, because the foundation of policy is ideology, and none of the candidates did very well, did they?