Prove You're Here Legally Before Getting Gov’t Services, Voters Say
Most voters in the United States want stricter enforcement of immigration laws, and a vast majority say people should be required to prove they are in the country legally before receiving any federal, state or local services, according to a new poll.
“Before anyone receives local, state or federal government services, should they be required to prove they are legally allowed to be in the United States?” Rasmussen Reports asked likely voters.
Eighty-four percent of respondents answered in the affirmative, while nine percent disagreed.
“Most voters continue to feel that the policies of the federal government encourage illegal immigration,” Rasmussen commented.
In the same vein, the polling firm found that a solid majority oppose birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants.
It asked, “Suppose a woman enters the United States as an illegal alien and gives birth to a child in the United States. Should that child automatically become a citizen of the United States?”
No, said 61 percent of respondents, while 28 percent said yes, and percent were undecided. Under current law the child would automatically gain citizenship.
Sixty-three percent of unaffiliated voters, whom both party try to court each election season, agree with the majority that citizenship should not be automatic.
The pollster said the 61 percent result was “up slightly from last August but is the highest level of support for a change in the existing law found in five years of Rasmussen Reports surveying.”
Both questions came to prominence last year. In November, the California Supreme Court in a controversial ruling supported the right of illegal immigrants to get in-state tuition rates. The only requirement is that they are high school graduates and have spent three years at a California high school. Opponents say they plan to appeal the decision before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Regarding the birthright question, four Republican Senators introduced a bill on April 5 that would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to curtail automatic citizenship.
Under their proposal, a baby born in the United States would receive citizenship only if at least one parent is a citizen, a legal resident, or a member of the U.S. armed forces.
America’s illegal immigration problem is clearly out of control,” said Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), one of the cosponsors of the bill.
Rasmussen reported the results of its poll on Tuesday, and then followed up with another poll Wednesday showing that a majority of likely voters, 63 percent, say securing the border should be the top priority, ahead of legalizing undocumented aliens currently in the country.
Both polls were conducted on April 17 and 18, and carry a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points.
SOURCE
Pentagon Contradicts Napolitano's Mexican Border Assessment
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano’s recent description of a U.S.-Mexico border that’s “as secure as it has ever been" appear to be in direct opposition to a Pentagon assessment.
According to officials at Judicial Watch, a public-interest group that investigates public corruption and fraud, U.S. Defense Department officials believe the border is actually a gateway for Mexican criminal organizations that have infiltrated the entire country and joined forces with terrorist groups.
For months the nation’s Homeland Security Secretary has repeatedly insisted that everything is safe and secure on the southwest border, even as violence escalates and overwhelmed federal agents are increasingly attacked by heavily armed drug smugglers.
Just last month Napolitano declared that violence along the Mexican border is merely a mistaken “perception” because the area is safe and “open for business."
Furthermore, President Barack Obama's Homeland Security Secretary assured that “some of America’s safest communities are in the Southwest border region….”
During another speech, Napolitano accused critics of the Obama Administration of exaggerating the problems on the U.S.-Mexican border.
"Our nation's sovereignty is being violated and Americans killed by illegal aliens and all we get are photo opportunities with Obama Administration officials and scoldings from the Mexican government officials including President [Felipe] Calderon," said police officer Iris Veguilla, herself a Latino.
A top Pentagon official contradicts Napolitano's fairytale assessment, pointing out that Mexican criminal organizations extend well beyond the southwest border to cities across the country, including big ones like Atlanta, Chicago and Detroit, according to Judicial Watch.
Addressing a U.S. Senate hearing this week, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats William Wechslerwarned lawmakers that all their constituencies are confronted by the threat of Mexican drug cartels.
Even more alarming is that once in the United States, the Mexican criminal groups are becoming more dangerous by forming networks with each other and insurgent or terrorist groups. In some regions the “threat networking" not only engages in drug trafficking but kidnapping, armed robbery, extortion, home invasions and other serious crimes.
The threat is so great that the assistant Defense Secretary offered federal legislators military assistance in the name of protecting national security.
“Many of the global and regional terrorists who threaten interests of the United States finance their activities with proceeds from narcotics trafficking,” Wechsler reminded, adding that “extremist and international criminal networks frequently exploit local geographical, political or social conditions to establish safe havens from which they can operate with impunity.”
Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), a staunch supporter of tough immigration enforcement, once again called on Napolitano to resign last week. Tancredo has led many congressional efforts to protect the borders against illegal immigration.
An incident that involved a gunfight in December between Border Patrol agents near Nogales, Ariz., and armed drug smugglers has been a sore point with Tancredo. One member of the U.S. Border Patrol, Brian Terry, was killed by automatic gunfire during a shootout that highlighted the fact that U.S. law enforcement officers are out-manned and outgunned by Mexican criminals.
The Obama administration also claimed it increased the number of Border Patrol agents from about 10,000 in 2004 to more than 20,700 now. However, an examination of records reveals that the increase in border agents occurred during the Bush Administration when the number of agents reached upwards of 18,000 in 2008.
SOURCE
Background
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.
No comments:
Post a Comment