Monday, May 16, 2011

No Voting Rights For Illegal Aliens - Ever!

For Dems, It's All About A Permanent Electoral Majority - Not Human Dignity

No one who broke our laws to enter this country should ever decide who becomes our president, a member of Congress, a governor or mayor, or a member of the local school board. This is the non-negotiable “die line” those who love our country must defend: We cannot permit a huge criminal voting block to determine our future. And every person who entered this country without our government’s formal permission is a criminal. Period.

Democratic Party operatives embed their public arguments for amnesty for eleven-million illegals in terms of human dignity and decency (they never mention votes). The examples they cite in their speeches and sleek commercials always feature hardworking moms with adorable kids who excel at school and, when not doing community service, dream of becoming physicians and curing cancer. Our laws are never mentioned. Nor is the multitude of illegal immigrant criminals who continue to violate those laws after breaking into our national home.

The reality? A few years back—before things worsened--40% of all federal convicts were Latinos, and 72% of those were not U.S. citizens. That tells us two things: First, native-born Hispanics are, on average, better citizens than a number of other ethnic groups. Second, a disproportionate number of illegal immigrants commit felonies. Contrary to Democratic Party bigotry, not all Hispanics are alike.

Those “cute-as-a-puppy” commercials and TV-news featurettes never get around to advertising the murderers, rapists and drug thugs covered in gang tattoos who haunt our cities and ever more small towns, or the fact that at least half of illegal-immigrant households are on at least one welfare-system program at taxpayer expense, or that the cost just to our education system of illegal immigration is between forty and fifty billion dollars per year. (Want to save a few billion a year? Defend our borders.)

Why does the Democratic Party relentlessly inflict this “illegals-are-just-like-you-only-nicer-and-better” propaganda on us? Is it because the party that supported slavery, then relied on the Ku Klux Klan for a full century, then re-enslaved African-Americans on its electoral plantations where their children receive inferior educations (thanks to the overseers in the teachers’ unions) and are discouraged from pursuing careers that might free them finally saw the light and decided to fight for a better future for minorities? Hell, no. Democratic Party support for amnesty for illegals comes down to one word: “Votes.”

So let’s call the Dems out. We’re not going to get an ideal solution to the illegal-immigrant problem. And we’re not going to line up eleven-million criminal invaders (that’s what illegals are, folks) and march them back across the Rio Grande. It just isn’t going to happen. But we can protect our system of government and our social values by insisting that, after ridding ourselves of every illegal with a criminal record beyond the initial border violation, a history of joblessness, or a gang tattoo (checking for them would be no more intrusive than what you and I endure at the airport), we create a new category of provisional residency leading—if the individual’s police record stays clean and he or she stays off dependency programs—to permanent residency without voting rights.

Of course, the Dems will howl that there has been no greater injustice in all of human history and that, in President Obama’s favorite phrase, “That’s not who we are!” (speak for yourself, Mr. President). But let’s apply common sense: How many illegals broke into this country because they hoped one day to participate in our national, state or local elections? Apart from the haters in La Raza, wouldn’t illegals regard residency without voting rights as a damned good deal? If they could choose that option, wouldn’t they jump at it? With all of the benefits of being Americans, except the right to distort our system of government?

They won’t be offered that option, though. Not if this administration has anything to say about it. Democratic Party power brokers wouldn’t accept such a reasonable compromise in a thousand years. Because the Dems don’t give a damn about little Luisa and her dreams of getting a Ph.D. in astrophysics, becoming an astronaut, writing symphonies, and dressing the sores of lepers in her spare time. They only care about the votes they hope to buy with total amnesty.

The fundamental purpose of the Democratic Party’s insistence on full citizenship for the criminals from abroad who live among us is the hope of creating a permanent Democratic majority in key states and nationally. The blunt truth that no Republican official will mouth is that, after creating their squalid electoral plantations—every one a domain of hopelessness and reliable Democratic majorities—the Dems now want to create barrio latifundias with electoral peons who will learn nothing in our schools (certainly not effective English-language skills) except that they owe their allegiance to the Democratic Party—and that race-hatred is America’s primary heritage.

From its long embrace of Communism to its current worship of invasive government, the now-dominant left wing of the Democratic Party has always been uneasy with our republic and the constitutional manner in which we allocate power through elections. The Dems’ attitude really can be summed up as “The masses are asses.” Elites know best, and those of us who didn’t go to top universities are better off as serfs controlled by a directorate of the intelligentsia. And, of course, no native-born American could possibly be as deserving as a criminal alien newly arrived from the underdeveloped world.

We’re reminded, again and again, that we’re a country of immigrants. Absolutely true. And we need continued immigration. But it must be legal. We have every right to decide who does and does not get to enter and remain in our country. And our consular officers—often destructively leftist in their orientation—need new regulations that discourage scamming the system and encourage the allocation of green cards to the young, healthy and educated.

Wouldn’t hurt a bit, if, for a ten-year period, the basic requirement for a green card was a four-year university degree plus the proven ability to speak and write fluent English (the ability would have to be double-checked at ports of entry, since too many of our consular officers have political agendas). Our current system is obsessed with making our society more “balanced,” meaning multicultural and dumbed-down. The left hates the America that was, despises the America that is, and is determined to design the America that will be. And it won’t be a democracy whose leaders are chosen by conscientious, literate citizens.

Really, let’s call the Dems out. If they truly care about giving cuddly illegals the opportunity to unfold their supposedly enormous gifts, live better lives, and rescue our economy, fine: Let’s make a deal (but booting out all criminals is non-negotiable, too). The illegals who measure up—who have a consistent record of employment, no government-aid claims and no police records--get to stay, with every right and opportunity except the vote. And their children who are born on our soil after they receive permanent residency will enjoy full voting rights when they come of age, just like others born legally on our soil. It’s the greatest deal on earth. All the Dems have to do is to prove their humanity and compromise on a single issue.

Think they will?

The first response will be that it’s un-American to have “second-class citizens.” Fine. Don’t call them “citizens.” Call them “residents.” We already have various classes of residency. We can, through legislation, create another. And, frankly, I’m not interested in the party of slavery, then and now, telling me what’s un-American.

As for Hispanics, the Dems are virulently racist, lumping them all together as a group and failing to recognize their individuality and patriotism. Millions of native-born Hispanics are thorough patriots who do not welcome the crime, fecklessness and degradation that illegal immigrants bring to their communities. But to the Democratic Party’s propagandists, all olive-skinned, tan, brown or white folks with a last name such as Gutierrez or Sanchez are oppressed victims who have no stake in our brutal, imperialist society. And the Dems would love to do to Hispanics what they’ve done to African-Americans: Destroy their strong family values, addict them to government programs, discourage them from pursuing good educations and liberating careers—then herd them to polling stations to vote for Democrats anointed by party commissars.

Ultimately, the Dems are going to lose. Our Hispanic fellow citizens just aren’t going to let themselves be dragged backward. And the Dems sense it. So they’re chasing a block of eleven-million uneducated criminals whose poor English-language skills exclude them from full participation in the work-force or our society. That’s the future of the Democratic Party, as the likes of Senator Harry Reid or Representative Nancy Pelosi see it.

To prevent that future from becoming a reality we need to concentrate fiercely on a single battle cry: “No voting right for illegal aliens—ever!”


Thailand interested in unloading its refugees onto Australia too

They'd be mad not to. The mad one is Prime Minister Gillard

THAILAND has expressed interest in striking a similar asylum-seeker deal with Australia to the one proposed by the Gillard government with Malaysia.

The development came as Immigration Minister Chris Bowen said a boatload of 32 asylum-seekers intercepted off Western Australia would be sent to a third country, even though the deal with Malaysia has yet to be finalised. Australia is in talks to swap 800 asylum-seekers for 4,000 genuine refugees currently living in Malaysia.

Australia has been seeking a regional solution to the issue of asylum-seekers, and has also approached Papua New Guinea about reopening its Manus Island detention centre.

Last night Thailand's foreign minister Kasit Piromya said Thailand would be interested in considering a swap arrangement similar to that Australia had reached with Malaysia. “I think the agreement between Australia and Malaysia on this particular model based on, I think, five to one ratio is something that the rest of us will be interested to look at,” Mr Kasit said after bilateral talks with Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd in Bangkok.

He said many countries had been looking for a way to deal with an influx of asylum-seekers. “I think the Australian-Malaysian likely agreement would provide some sort of certainty and also a model for others to study,” he said. “I think the whole issue could be discussed further by all the other countries involved.”

Many of the refugees Australia is set to take from Malaysia are from Burma, and travelled to Malaysia via Thailand.

Mr Rudd said he and Mr Kasit discussed the broader issue of asylum-seekers. “So what we discussed in particular was the ongoing support which our friends in Thailand need to sustain something in the order of 110,000 people spread across nine camps,” Mr Rudd said.

The asylum-seekers intercepted off Western Australia on Friday night are the first to arrive since Labor's announcement of its agreement with Malaysia. Believed to be from Afghanistan and Pakistan, they will be taken to Christmas Island for identity checks.

However Mr Bowen said they would then be taken to a third country, although he would not say what country that was. “It's well known we've been in discussions with Papua New Guinea. It's well known we are in discussions across the region,” he said. “We have an agreement to enter into a bilateral arrangement with Malaysia. “I am not going to flag which country these people will be sent to, but they will be held at Christmas Island, pending removal to a third country.”

Mr Bowen added: “My message to people smugglers and to asylum-seekers is very clear. “We will not be accepting and processing people for asylum claims who arrive in Australia by boat.”

Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said the arrival showed people-smugglers had not been put off by Labor spin on a people-swap deal with Malaysia.

Mr Bowen could not say where the group would be sent because the government had no deal with Malaysia, PNG, East Timor or anywhere else, Mr Morrison said. “Having realised that by announcing their panicked deal before it was agreed and operational they had issued an invitation to people smugglers, Minister Bowen is now trying to shut the gate once, in this case, the boats have bolted.”

Mr Bowen had not confirmed if Malaysia had been specified as a place asylum-seekers could be transferred to under Australian law, Mr Morrison said. “Unlike on Nauru or Manus Island, Australia will have no role in looking after the welfare of those potentially transferred to Malaysia under their five-for-one people-swap deal.


No comments:

Post a Comment