Those most harmed by illegal immigration are the U.S.'s poor

Jeanie Fusaro's response to my commentary on immigration is correct: I am a racist. That's usually the first thing thrown out when anyone disagrees with pointing out the illegal immigration problem.  Now that we have established that, maybe we can talk about facts and my opinion piece.

I wrote the letter from the perspective of someone who has been to the border many times, and seen first-hand the damage caused by illegal immigration.

I am new to Fayette County and can see the stark differences in a state which still (for now) enforces its immigration laws and a state and city which does not.

It's easy for someone who lives in the suburbs to wishfully say let's have an open door policy of let the taxpayers foot the bill, when they do not live in the middle of those who the taxpayer is supporting.

Oh, don't get me wrong, people are people, and generally they go about their everyday lives working, going to school, raising their children, and being decent neighbors.

But in Texas there are "coyotes" that get paid for getting pregnant woman across the border just in time for their child to be born in the U.S. But must this happen on the back of taxpayers?

When I see these everyday examples: our hospitals being used as emergency rooms for pregnancies and healthcare, even for minor instances, I know the taxpayer is footing the bill.

For those going to work and being paid under the table, I know an American worker is not getting hired. When our schools are being overcrowded, and teachers have to slow down the curriculum for those who do not speak English, my child is being left behind and not getting the full attention. Kudos to Fayette County schools for providing the non-English speaking students additional resources for this; but again, with taxpayer money.

Assimilation was a process which occurred much quicker years ago in 1895 and before the entitlement society made taxpayers responsible. This was before the August 2000 Clinton Executive Order requiring all agencies receiving federal funding to provide bilingualism and the 1986 amnesty (Reagan later admitted he regretted this because of a Democratic majority in Congress and due to it creating an even bigger magnet for those coming to the U.S. illegally).

We now have chain migration to go along with the world's most open country for legal immigration, which needs to be streamlined to allow a more balanced country of origin process.

The largest number of legal immigration? Mexico. The largest number of illegal immigrants? Mexico and those passing through it.

Illegal immigration (through deportations/lawsuits) and chain migration has so clogged the immigration process, that legal immigration is more difficult.

In 1895 you did not have mass transportation allowing for ease of illegal drugs, human trafficking and criminal gang members slipping into the country. Yes, I know, not all illegal immigrants are gang members or carrying illegal drugs, but those activities are increasing due TO illegal immigration.

This current President has stopped the enforcement on illegal immigration by directing Homeland Security to ignore the prosecution and deportation of illegal immigrants except the most extreme violent offenders.

Kind of like saying let's just ignore the drunk drivers except for those who actually crash and cause injury to others.

Bush tried to pass an amnesty program, and thank goodness it did not pass. But at least he left enforcement in place.

It would be great if we all had a universal translator. Bilingualism is great for an individual but unless you expect every citizen to learn every language to communicate with every other person, then we as a nation need the one thing that holds us together as a nation (remember E Pluribus Unum). We need a common language.

And no matter how hard ethnic groups try to rewrite history, our country's founding documents are based on the English language and our common language is English.

In Houston, south Florida and California a person cannot even obtain employment without knowing Spanish, because those who come to this country are not required to learn English. If they are not required to learn it, (the entire print media and government documents in Spanish that make English irrelevant) why bother teaching English or becoming proficient?

It's an endless cycle. I know those who have been in this country for years and still make no effort to learn English. I've seen parents scold their children for speaking English instead of Spanish.

Those most harmed by illegal immigration are the poor in this country, regardless of skin color. They have to compete with illegals who will work for slave labor wages; and when businesses take advantage of illegal immigration, it is a form of modern day slavery.

Americans will pay more for a head of lettuce if means not using more taxpayer money for hospitals, jobs and schools.

So, when the conversation about illegal immigration moves beyond "you are a racist," then facts can come out and an intelligent discussion can be made for greater enforcement of our southern border.

Illegal immigration also robs the south of the border countries of their most valuable resource: their people.

SOURCE





Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship

A Response to the National Foundation for American Policy

 A high-immigration group called the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) recently released a report on the alleged costs of ending the current application of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause. The report claims that if the United States were to stop granting automatic citizenship to children born here to foreign tourists and illegal aliens the result would be increased cost to taxpayers, a caste system, a shadow economy and a national ID card, among other things.

A new Memorandum from the Center for Immigration Studies explains why the NFAP report's fears are unfounded. While there may be plausible arguments for maintaining our current citizenship rules, the new CIS paper, "The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship: A Response to the National Foundation for American Policy", addresses and debunks the NFAP's claims. The paper is online  www.cis.org/Alleged-Costs-of-Ending-Universal-Birthright-Citizenship">here

Among the findings:

A costly bureaucratic overhaul would not be necessary as the United States already has most of the means in place to administer tighter citizenship rules.

Ending citizenship at birth to the children of tourists and illegal immigrants would not require Americans to sign up for a national ID card.

A narrower application of the Citizenship Clause would not result in a caste system or stateless children.

Underground economic activity, which exists regardless of citizenship rules, can be curbed through better enforcement of immigration law.

Congress can likely change the current application of the Citizenship Clause through a simple legislative fix.

The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820,  Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076.  Email: center@cis.org. Contact: Jon Feere, (202) 466-8185, jdf@cis.org

The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institution which examines the impact of immigration on the United States.  The Center for Immigration Studies is not affiliated with any other organization