BUSH MUST CONTROL THE BORDERS
By Andrew Selepak*
The President continues to promote a dubious “guest worker” program that is based on a claim that has no evidence to back it up, and Bush, at this point in his presidency, has to know it. What’s fascinating to watch is how the media, who are extremely tolerant of illegal immigration, refuse to hold Bush accountable for his deceptions on this matter.
The biggest deception?some would call it a lie?is that Americans won’t work at certain jobs that have to be filled by illegal aliens, and that it should be U.S. policy to make these illegals into American citizens.
Speaking of jobs Americans won’t do, here’s one our President won’t do?solve the illegal immigration problem. We know what the solution is. It is to control the borders with more border agents and military personnel, erect a fence, and prevent illegal aliens from taking jobs that Americans would do if the illegal aliens were not putting downward pressure on wages and benefits. That requires punishing companies that hire illegals.
Blind To Truth
As a former businessman and self-styled “conservative,” the President has to know that capitalism only works when employers are forced to pay higher wages and offer better benefits because of a legitimate shortage of those willing to do the job. How many Americans would turn down a job cleaning toilets if it paid $40-50,000 a year or more? These are not jobs that Americans won’t do. These are jobs that most Americans are not willing to take when competing with an illegal immigrant work force that keeps wages and benefits artificially low.
The President seems to be in a state of disbelief about why his party got thumped in the recent elections. In a 25-minute interview in the Oval Office with three Washington Post staff writers, Bush blamed the Republican losses in the mid-term election partly on frustration over Iraq, but also “a sense that people’s votes were being taken for granted?ethics disputes, and just a lot of signals that said it’s time to?that people wanted a change?you’ve got a guy using earmarks to enrich himself; there was sex and all kinds of issues that sent the signal that perhaps it was time to give another group a chance to lead.”
Bush was partly right. Republicans did feel their “votes were being taken for granted.” Republicans lost the mid-term election because they didn’t come through on their promises. But one of those promises was to stop illegal immigration, an area in which Bush continues to pursue a failed policy.
It is easy to understand why Bush is glad to be working with a Democratic Party-controlled Congress; it will allow him the opportunity to pass legislation that was not popular with his conservative base, or the majority of Americans: “I view the elections as an opportunity to say to all of us in Washington, ‘Let’s work together.’ People want that. And what are some issues we can work together on?energy, or immigration, budgetary reforms, I mean, there’s a lot.”
Bush later added, “I gave a comprehensive speech to the country from the Oval Office, prime time, about how I thought we ought to move forward on immigration. I still feel very strongly about that. And I hope that Congress will join me on a comprehensive bill.”
Bush’s plan is for a massive guest-worker program and virtual amnesty for the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country right now.
Bush went on to claim that, “if you notice from the recent enforcement activities that ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] took, there are a lot of people who are using forged documents to do jobs Americans are not doing. And my attitude is that there ought to be a way for people to come to this country on a temporary basis and fill those jobs in an open way, a transparent way.”
The enforcement the President is talking about was the recent sweep of six Swift & Co. meatpacking plants by ICE. In this six-plant sweep, ICE arrested nearly 1,300 illegal immigrants, many of whom are suspected of stealing the identities and Social Security numbers of American workers. So the President was correct, these were 1,300 jobs that “Americans are not doing.”
Americans Will Work
But what the President doesn’t mention is that Swift is now offering better wages, benefits and bonuses. What’s more, local union official Bill Hoppes says that between 40 and 50 new workers have been hired at the Grand Rapids, Colorado plant since the raids, and that “The lion’s share of these people were Caucasian.” In Greeley, Colorado, where Swift is headquartered, Local 7 union president Ernie Duran said 75 new workers had been hired in a week, including 30 Caucasians, 15 Somalia immigrants, seven Hispanic immigrants, and the rest U.S.-born Hispanics.
United Food and Commercial Workers spokeswoman Jill Cashen told the Associated Press, “To me, it’s an example that when you make the job more attractive you get a different kind of applicant.” In other words, when wages and benefits are better, there is no job that Americans won’t do. This fact completely undercuts the President’s argument for his guest-worker/amnesty program.
But Bush deliberately ignores this. Once again trying to sell the guest-worker/ amnesty plan he is hoping to pass with a Democratic Congress, Bush tells the Post, “There is a better way to treat people, and there’s a better way to deal with the issue of finding workers Americans are not doing, to fill on a temporary basis. And, therefore, there [sic] need?and that in itself will take pressure off our borders?if people feel like they can come in on a temporary, legal basis, they’re not going to have to sneak in?it’s a comprehensive reform of the immigration system that is going to make our borders more secure. I strongly believe that is important, and look forward to working with people on the way forward.”
That’s true: Bush’s amnesty and guest worker program will temporarily take “pressure off our border” because everyone south of the border who wants in will be welcomed by Bush and the Democrats with American jobs and American services like schools and health care.
This would be the second major amnesty bill passed by the U.S. Government. The first was the Simpson-Mazzoli bill that gave amnesty to illegals in 1986. There were less than five million illegal immigrants in this country then; now there are as many as 20 million. It failed then, and there’s no reason to believe it won’t fail again.
It looks like Bush and the Democrat House and Senate will propose another amnesty bill, only this time there is no Republican majority in the House to stop it. But what happens to the 20 million illegal immigrants when the amnesty plan is passed by a Democratic Congress? Will these “new Americans” do the jobs that Americans won’t do?
Or will we then need to be replaced by 20 million more illegal immigrants?
Bush’s fallacious argument is based on the notion that being American makes people too lazy to work jobs in construction, meatpacking, agricultural work, and other labor-intensive occupations. But what happens when the 20 million illegal immigrants are granted amnesty and become Americans? Once the fear of breaking the law is removed from the equation, what is to stop these new Americans from deciding they don’t want to do these jobs that other Americans won’t do?
Instead, there will be 20 million new Americans who demand higher wages and increased benefits. Wages will go up, benefits will be increased, and either Americans will then take these jobs, leaving millions of “new Americans” out of work, or millions of “new Americans” will keep their jobs at higher wages and join unions, and their wages will go to support union causes and candidates. Amnesty will mean increased wages, benefits and prices, more union members, and 20 million new voters who in all likelihood will be counted on to vote Democratic.
The Bush immigration policy is based on a deception which the Democrats embrace and the media are prepared to overlook.
As reported by Wes Vernon in the AIM Report, the deception appears to be part of a Bush Administration plan to effectively erase U.S. borders and establish a North American Union to facilitate the flow of people and goods from Mexico into the U.S.
POST COLUMNIST LOVES ILLEGALS
It is an obvious fact that our liberal media generally support illegal immigration, amnesty, and an open border policy. Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell justifies this media bias by saying that “Journalists tend to be softhearted toward the afflicted or the underdog, which tends to make them less critical of illegal immigrants.”
But you would think the Washington Post could find a better argument for its advocacy and support of illegal immigration other than trying to make readers feel sorry for those who broke our laws.
But on December 7, 2006, the Post provides another example of an illegal immigrant that we are supposed to feel sorry for. This time, however, not only are we to forgive their lawbreaking, but we are supposed to admire their perseverance in breaking more of our laws.
A Post column by Marc Fisher purports to tell the story of Marina Alvarez, who illegally came to the U.S. 13 years ago at the age of 16 from El Salvador. The Post tells us that Alvarez “learned English” and bought a house for herself “and her two U.S.-born children” but was arrested last spring just days before closing on the home. Working at a Chesapeake Bay Seafood House, Alvarez was pulled over for “following another car too closely.” The officer who pulled her over learned she had a ten-year-old arrest warrant out on her from federal immigration authorities. Alvarez, pregnant at the time, was sent to a detention center.
Dem Helps Illegal
Alvarez, however, was released from the detention center with help from a U.S. Senator. Alvarez’s attorney told the Washington Post that Senator Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) negotiated Alvarez’s release. The Post, which identifies Alvarez as a Howard Country (Maryland) resident, even though she is actually an illegal immigrant, will have to wear an ankle bracelet monitored by federal authorities while she awaits a decision on her appeal to avoid deportation.
So more taxpayer money will have to be spent to monitor Alvarez. And with a U.S. Senator now supporting her cause, it would appear her chances of winning her appeal have greatly increased. The Post doesn’t say why a North Dakota Senator would intervene on the behalf of an illegal immigrant from El Salvador who was residing in Maryland. It is all the more strange because Sen. Dorgan does not have a strong record of supporting illegal immigration. In fact, in May of this year, Dorgan was one of only 36 Senators who voted against S. 2611, the Senate Amnesty Bill, and Dorgan has received a grade of B+ on his immigration reduction report card for recent voting on illegal immigration by Americans for Immigration Reform.
The U.S. government still plans to deport Alvarez, but she says she will not be taking her children with her, although they could get sent back as well. There is no mention of the child she was pregnant with at the time, and whether that child was granted citizenship because it was born here.
Fisher’s sympathy for the illegal is evident in statements such as “Marina Alvarez did everything Americans want immigrants to do?except arrive legally. She never got into trouble, she worked, paid taxes, got involved in her children’s schooling.” Of course, we as Americans want our immigrants to arrive legally. And how was an illegal immigrant able to “pay her taxes” and work here legally as an illegal immigrant? And how was she able to drive a car while being here illegally? Although the state of Maryland does not require proof of citizenship to obtain a driver’s license, it does require a Social Security Card. So either Alvarez was driving without a license, or she used a forged Social Security card to obtain a driver’s license. Either way, she was breaking the law.
Another significant fact, with moral implications, is that she has had three children and that the father is nowhere to be found.
The article interviewed Ira Mehlman of The Federation for American Immigration Reform, who was permitted to make some brief comments about the need to end the practice of automatically giving the children of illegals U.S. citizenship if they are born here. But Fisher chimes in that birth-right citizenship “is a big part of what makes this country a land of hope and opportunity.”
In perhaps the most remarkable example of bias, Fisher romanticizes about Alvarez illegally entering back into the country someday, should she be deported from the U.S., as if doing so would somehow make her more American. She “will surely do what she has to do,” Fisher says. “If deported, she will find a way back to her children?In a way, that’s the glory of America: The real strivers will find their way here.”
Breaking the law and entering this country illegally should not be praised, and sympathy should be reserved for those who have been unjustly made to suffer, not those who knowingly and repeatedly broke the law.
FRENCH COPY AL-JAZEERA
While Accuracy In Media has been combating Al-Jazeera English, France has quietly decided to get into the 24-hour international cable news business. On December 6, 2006, a channel known as France 24 began its first day of broadcasting on the Internet, and its first televised broadcasting began the following day. France 24, or “France vingt-quatre,” which has been a pet project of French President Jacques Chirac, was created to spread French values around the world 24 hours a day.
French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin says that “After 9-11, after the War in Iraq, we all feel that there is a need for more information, a different kind of information.”
Translated into plain English, it appears that the new channel is designed, like Al-Jazeera, to counter American influence in the world. It also seems designed to give us a more sympathetic view of those behind international terrorism. France, of course, was the scene of violent Muslim riots in 2005 and is considered by many to be the base for “Eurabia,” the coming takeover of Europe by Muslim Arabs.
France 24, which currently is only being transmitted via satellite to Europe, the Middle East and Africa, will eventually be expanded into North America and Asia. However, France 24 is available in Washington D.C. to Comcast cable subscribers. Although the web version of the channel is offered with streaming newscasts in French, English, and Arabic, an Arabic-language version of the channel will not begin broadcasting until next year, and a Spanish-language channel will begin in about three years.
In his interview with France 24, Chirac explained the rationale for the news channel: “It is essential that a great country like France can have a view of the world and broadcast this view, in conformity with our traditions and our conception of civilization, peace, humanism and globalization.” Although Chirac told the France 24 audience that the channel will operate completely independently, the channel receives most of its funding from the French government.
When the French prime minister Dominique de Villepin was asked in an interview on the channel what he was expecting from France 24, he responded, “I do expect a new look at information; a certain spirit of freedom, of justice, and of understanding. We are living in a world of crisis. We need to understand this crisis, and I think that France has the capacity to show new things, to show new problems, in a different way, and I think it would complete the information of people around the world.”
On one level, France 24 seems designed to drum up business for France. The “Welcome to France” link on the France 24 website says, “Welcome to France. France is the world’s most popular tourist destination. The Eiffel Tower and the Louvre are on every visitor’s list, but there’s much for them to discover. France 24?and its multinational team of journalists?are here to help foreigners learn more.”
But de Villepin told a France 24 reporter that the new channel should also shed light on “What is going on in the head of the other people of the world. This is really something difficult, and it’s not just to get the information, but it is to try to go beyond the information and to understand it. I think this is really something different, and I believe that France 24 will give us something else.”
Like Al-Jazeera, France 24 looks like another government-funded propaganda operation of dubious value. But in the current global media environment, in which the U.S. seems to be practically disarmed, it can do much harm.
Meanwhile, a publication called Israel Insider notes that “One of Israel’s two leading television cable providers, Yes, decided earlier this month to drop BBC World in favor of Al-Jazeera English,” despite well-documented charges that Al-Jazeera has a bias in favor of Hamas, the radical Palestinian terrorist group, over the Fatah organization.
The publication said, “The move represents a small coup for Al-Jazeera since the majority of its founding staff were trained by the BBC for a special Arab-focused section of the British media giant. BBC World will lose half of its Israeli reach on account of the change.”
It added, however, that “The allegations of a pro-Hamas bent in the network might also spell political troubles for both Al-Jazeera and Israel. Hamas is staunchly opposed to negotiating with Israel and refuses to recognize the existence of the Jewish state.”
The real answer is to drop Al-Jazeera AND the BBC.
What You Can Do
Please call your new member of Congress at 202-224-3121 and ask for hearings and investigations into the activities and operations of Al-Jazeera in the United States. Tell them to go to aim.org or stopaljazeera.org for more information. Or they can call the AIM office at 202-364-4401, ext. 110 for more information.
*Andrew Selepak is a writer with Accuracy in Media.