Honorable Senator Rubio:
Less than a year ago, the president thwarted your sincere efforts towards comprehensive immigration reform and instructed DHS to implement the "Deferred Action" process for DREAMers. This pre-empted your legislative efforts just in time for the election. It prompted me to write this diary on RedState: "Another Step Closer to the Destruction of America Thanks to the Order-by-Fiat-in-Chief".
I expressed my opinion on the real threats to our great nation if immigration reform is done without the consent of We the People, namely what it will do to the fabric our country if it isn't done with assimilation in mind and with economic purpose.
All we hear is that the immigration system is broken. What exactly is broken? Is it that the system is broken or that the current laws are not being enforced? It would be easy for lawmakers to amend existing laws regarding entry timelines and the number of immigrants allowed in and for what purpose. But how do we know if it's broken if we don't have a national policy objective that is clear and measurable?
Sure our country benefits from legal immigration but only if it has sound policy goals of enhancing our economy and society at-large, stabilizing the population rate and maintaining our national heritage via shared values and a common language. Are these ideas even being discussed in the reform talks? Eliminating chain migration, origin quotas and the lottery system are reforms I'd like to see as these policies turn a blind eye towards economic policy goals and deny other applicants that may have more desirable skills that we need to fill known gaps.
Until this administration or any future one enforces existing laws, We the People don't trust that any new immigration legislation (especially amnesty by any other name) is focused on improving our lives nor will it serve our national interests and sovereignty, much less garner votes for a kinder and gentler GOP. This administration has proven numerous times that it has no desire to enforce existing laws, or at least those that it doesn't like. Does anyone expect this behavior to change towards new laws?
Here's an existing law that could potentially cost taxpayers millions and I'm curious if it's being enforced:
Responsibilities as a Sponsor (from the USCIS portal)
When you sign the affidavit of support, you accept legal responsibility for financially supporting the sponsored immigrant(s) generally until they become U.S. citizens or can be credited with 40 quarters of work. Your obligation also ends if you or the individual sponsored dies or if the individual sponsored ceases to be a permanent resident and departs the United States.
Note: Divorce does NOT end the sponsorship obligation.
If the individual you sponsored receives any * "means-tested public benefits," you are responsible for repaying the cost of those benefits to the agency that provided them. If you do not repay the debt, the agency can sue you in court to get the money owed. Any joint sponsors or household members whose income is used to meet the minimum income requirements are also legally responsible for financially supporting the sponsored immigrant.
*This was defined as Medicaid and TANF after the 1996 welfare reform law was enacted but again, this administration has unilaterally changed the welfare work requirements.
What are the benefits to the citizens including legal immigrants that followed the laws to come to the land of the free? It appears that a Gang of 8 politicians are crafting immigration reform laws behind closed doors with the sole purpose of improving the lives of the 11M illegals that broke the laws to get here.
A Rasmussen poll published on 3/27/13 stated,
"Part of the problem is that voters don't trust the federal government. Regardless of what laws are passed, few believe the government will even try to secure the border, and that's an essential part of the conversation. Even among supporters of "comprehensive" reform, 64 percent want the border to be secured first before any pathway to citizenship for those here illegally can begin."
Obviously border security is not a priority for Democrats and they have been crystal clear in voicing their opposition to it being a requisite of immigration reform, including the president and Sec. of DHS and a few of the Democratic Gang of 8 members. Some of the statements came after a few of the Gang of 8 witnessed an illegal woman climb a 20' border fence in AZ in front of their very eyes in broad daylight!
The Democrats are also on record during the Senate vote-a-rama that they will not withhold Obamacare benefits to illegals (*see the law above on means-tested public benefits and how they intend to break it since most of Obamacare is the expansion of Medicaid). The media is reporting that illegal entries have doubled since the talks began akin to the old gold rush. And now Sen. Leahy wants to rush a bill through without regular order. To your credit, border security and regular order are must-have items for your buy-in but unfortunately the writing of ill-will is on the wall.
So I am writing to you and all your fellow Republicans that we elected to represent us, to walk away from the push for this dishonest and fast-tracked bill that seems cosmetic just to check a box and say something was accomplished before it is too late. I'm begging you to walk away while you still can so that you remain a strong voice for conservatism and for the future of the GOP.
There is absolutely no need to rush legislation that will effect all citizens without hearing our voices. And why are the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO involved in policy making? Why aren't the voices of the American people, the most important constituents, at the negotiating table before any bill is passed or are We the People irrelevant? Is our only choice to voice our opinion at the voting booth after a bill is passed?
We don't want another bill like Obamacare that was pushed through without the consent of We the People to quote Rep. Pelosi: "we have to pass the bill so we can find out what's in it". Personally, I'm all for legal immigration and would contend that most Americans and Republicans are too. But any form of amnesty is not beneficial to the citizens our country or the rule of law that makes our country unique. Grant the 11 million illegals guest worker status so they can come out of the dark but that's it; no pathway to citizenship. Living without fear of deportation is a reward for being able to remain here and perhaps the only concession some are seeking.
There is only one way to factually determine the security of our borders and the sincerity of any lawmaker that wants immigration reform for the betterment of law abiding citizens: by We the People witnessing the enforcement of all current immigration laws for a few years or at least a year before passing any more that by
default historical data won't be enforced.
I implore you and all Republicans to do the right thing and slow this process down so it is done thoughtfully with the well-being and the consent of the taxpayers in mind that will inevitably have to foot the bill for more social program dollars while our country is flat broke; neither of those thoughts seem to be a top priority.
I'll leave you with this ominous and foreboding speech from a Democrat from 2005:
I HAVE A PLAN TO DESTROY AMERICA
Published: 07/11/2006 at 1:00 AM
Editor’s note: In 2004, Richard D. Lamm, former governor of Colorado, addressed a conference sponsored by the Federation for American Immigration Reform in Washington. The following remarks are reprinted with his permission.
|Richard. D. Lamm|
I have a secret plan to destroy America. If you believe, as many do, that America is too smug, too white bread, too self-satisfied, too rich, let’s destroy America. It is not that hard to do. History shows that nations are more fragile than their citizens think. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and they all fall, and that “an autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.” Here is my plan:
- We must first make America a bilingual-bicultural country. History shows, in my opinion, that no nation can survive the tension, conflict and antagonism of two competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. One scholar, Seymour Martin Lipset, put it this way: “The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon – all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with its Basques, Bretons and Corsicans.”
2. I would then invent “multiculturalism” and encourage immigrants to maintain their own culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal: that there are no cultural differences that are important. I would declare it an article of faith that the black and Hispanic dropout rate is only due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out-of-bounds.
3. We can make the United States a “Hispanic Quebec” without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently, “The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved, not by tolerance, but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically, and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.” I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with a salad bowl metaphor. It is important to insure that we have various cultural sub-groups living in America reinforcing their differences, rather than Americans emphasizing their similarities.
4.Having done all this, I would make our fastest-growing demographic group the least educated – I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50 percent dropout rate from school.
5. I would then get the big foundations and big business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of victimology. I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was all the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.
6. I would establish dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would “celebrate diversity.” “Diversity” is a wonderfully seductive word. It stresses differences rather than commonalities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other – that is, when they are not killing each other. A “diverse,” peaceful or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together, and we can take advantage of this myopia.
Look at the ancient Greeks. Dorf’s “World History” tells us: “The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshiped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic Games in honor of Zeus, and all Greeks venerated the shrine of Apollo at Delphi. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet, all of these bonds together were not strong enough to overcome two factors … (local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions …)” If we can put the emphasis on the “pluribus,” instead of the “unum,” we can balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.
7. Then I would place all these subjects off-limits – make it taboo to talk about. I would find a word similar to “heretic” in the 16th century – that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like “racist”, “xenophobe” halt argument and conversation. Having made America a bilingual-bicultural country, having established multiculturalism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of “victimology,” I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra – “because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good.” I would make every individual immigrant sympatric and ignore the cumulative impact.
8. Lastly, I would censor Victor Davis Hanson’s book “Mexifornia” – this book is dangerous; it exposes my plan to destroy America. So please, please – if you feel that America deserves to be destroyed – please, please – don’t buy this book! This guy is on to my plan.
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.” – Noam Chomsky, American linguist and U.S. media and foreign policy critic.
The photograph is from an exhibit called "Forgotten Gateway: Coming to America Through Galveston Island"