Opposition to amnesty for illegals blocked in most of the media

The MSM shut out of anti Amnesty opinion remains virtually total (excepting the comment threads). But the memo apparently did not reach the Daily Light of Waxahachie Texas which allowed a really superb exception Why immigration amnesty should and will fail by Jan Ting Thursday, March 14, 2013

The so-called comprehensive immigration reform proposed by a group of Senators and President Obama amounts to immediate amnesty for millions of immigration law violators, the lifting of limits on future immigration, with some window dressing designed to assuage skeptical voters.

We’ve seen this act before. The 1986 amnesty promised to fix the immigration problem by amnestying 3 million immigration law violators, strengthening the border, and penalizing employers for hiring illegal immigrants. It didn’t work then, and it won’t work now.

Ting grasps that Amnesty means accelerated immigration

The Pew Research Center estimates that the U.S. population will increase from 300 million to over 400 million by 2050, mainly because of immigration, and that’s if we do nothing. And expect 600 million by the end of the century, again if we do nothing.

Another amnesty will accelerate that rapid population growth. Where will another 100 or 300 million people obtain schooling and health care and energy to heat their homes? Where will they drive and park their cars? Anyone here concerned about the environment, waste disposal, open space preservation, clean air and water?

He understands Amnesty’s cost

The United States is experiencing a protracted period of unemployment still hovering around 8 percent. Prolonged unemployment is a tragedy of broken lives, broken families, foreclosed homes, and life without health insurance. Legal immigrants, including those amnestied, will be able to compete with unemployed Americans for jobs.

And a major motivation

If we’re willing to accept unlimited immigration in order to keep wages low and corporate profits high, we should just say so and stop paying billions of dollars annually for all the immigration enforcement window dressing.

And (I think) the other

I think the American people want to enforce a numerical limit on immigration, even if it means turning away people who look like our ancestors.

Behaviorally as well as visually!

Jan Ting is an interesting man. The son of Chinese immigrants and a law professor at Philadelphia’s Temple University, he was the Republican candidate for Senate in Delaware in 2006. According to his Wikipedia entry he was subsequently forced out of the party in 2008 for supporting Obama over McCain. He  “…cited his concerns about John McCain's immigration policy and support for the Iraq War” the latter a very valid point in my personal opinion.

Although this is said to be a syndicated column, I can find no sign any other newspaper picked it up.

What a comment on the totalitarianism of the MSM on Amnesty that this well-argued piece by a highly credentialed observer could only be published in the newspaper of a Texan town with a population of barely 30,000.

SOURCE





Unlikely that immigration reform will save GOP among Latinos

In the November presidential election, the GOP got just a quarter of the Latino votes in the country. And the party is hoping softening its rhetoric and fighting hard for immigration reform could help it expand its tent.

But a Latino Decisions, a Latino public opinion firm, poll out Monday reveals that it is just a first step to get the Latino vote.

An estimated 63 percent of Latinos know someone who is an illegal immigrant making the issue of reform more than a policy decision; its a personal one.

According to the survey, 32 percent of Hispanic voters would be more likely to vote for a Republican candidate if the party showed it was engaged in passing immigration reform and "used party votes" to approve the bill, but nearly 50 percent said it would have absolutely no effect on their vote.

In another possible scenario, if the Republican-controlled House of Representatives blocked comprehensive immigration legislation, 47 percent of Latino voters said it would not have any impact on how they voted, while 39 percent said they would be less likely to cast a ballot for a GOP candidate.

The long and complicated battle to find common ground on the immigration reform issue has failed before. And while bipartisan groups of lawmakers in both the House and the Senate are working around the clock to finalize a bill, sticking points remain.

Whether or not the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the country should have to wait in line to get legal status and whether they should be put on a path to citizenship are among the top issues remaining.

The Latino Decisions poll showed 49 percent of Hispanic voters believe that Congress should require illegal immigrants to wait anywhere between one to five years, before they should be allowed to get on a path to citizenship.

Another issue fraught with peril is determining the number of guest workers allowed in the country.

Labor Unions and business owners disagree on the right number of foreign workers that should be allowed to flow into the country. Unions would prefer the number stays low in order to avoid an influx of workers and force wages down. Whereas groups like the Chamber of Commerce would like to see more guest workers, arguing that foreign workers are sometimes the only ones willing to do jobs Americans either won't do or are not qualified for.

"The solution may be a market-driven cap where more immigrants come into the country when the economy is good and when the economy is bad, the government allows fewer immigrants," says Brent Wilkes, the national executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens, a centrist group that fights for comprehensive immigration reform.

But workers are not the only point that could blow up immigration reform.

As if immigration reform was not controversial enough, the issue of gay, binational couples is another area that could bring the negotiations to a screeching halt.

While straight, married couples can sponsor their spouse for green cards, the Defense of Marriage Act bans the federal government from recognizing gay marriages. Therefore, gay couples sometimes must choose to live elsewhere to stay together. The Senate's bipartisan group of lawmakers recognized gay marriage could put a wrench in their negotiations and failed to include provisions to protect gay couples in their framework. Meanwhile, the White House outlined it as of critical importance for them.

SOURCE