WELCOME TO AMERICA, ALL TRESPASSERS WILL BE REWARDED
June 16, 2005
The original Northern and Western European settlers had a particular cultural and political background which included a limited government. Their experience with a king and the powerful elite in society compelled them to shape a government where the sovereign power was held by the people and not the state – a Republic. The country was English speaking and our founding fathers did not encourage unlimited immigration.
A little more than ten million immigrants came to the United States between 1830 and 1880. About nine million were from Northern Europe and over six hundred thousand were from Canada and Newfoundland. Indeed, unscrupulous individuals advertised and imported Chinese workers to depress American wages (shades of current circumstances) but not to fill jobs.
Our current national trespassing woes are by no means new or unexpected. They are overwhelmingly more visible because of the obvious devastating consequences. The continuing plot for globalization via unchecked immigration and amnesty was further implemented during Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society Give-Away years. On 3 October 1965 the Hart-Celler Immigration Bill was signed into law after being railroaded through congress by Lyndon Johnson and Edward M. Kennedy. This law totally destroyed the 1921 pro-American national origins quota system and currently functions as the foundation for our unenforced immigration laws.
The pro-American 1921 law based their allotted immigration slots according to the immigrant's birth country. Seventy percent of these immigration slots were allotted to residents of the United Kingdom, Ireland and Germany. A small number of visas were available to individuals born in Italy, Greece, Poland, Portugal, and other areas of eastern and southern Europe. The 1965 bill abolished the nationality factor putting all nations, third world or industrialized, on an equal status for immigration to the United States.
Edward M. Kennedy, the Senate immigration subcommittee chairman, confidently assured the nation and his fellow compliant congressmen that:
"First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. … The bill will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area… In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think."
"The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs." (U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965. pp. 1-3.)
I find Kennedy’s use of the word “flood” rather ironic given his infamous unprosecuted escapade turned tragedy at Chappaquiddick in 1969. Is it just me or do you find it interesting that Kennedy is both a lawmaker and a lawbreaker but is not real big on negative consequences? This apparently applies to himself, family, friends and trespassers to America who speed our descent into one world government. Apparently selective prosecution is in play here? Perhaps if Martha Stewart had made a different career choice she would have been spared jail time. With her success strategy and penchant for perfection and style she surely would have been victorious had she run for office.
Referring to the 1965 Immigration Reform Bill, Lyndon b. Johnson said: “This bill we sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not restructure the shape of our daily lives.” The Great Society President was really the diminishing society snake oil pitchman.
There was some very wise but unheeded opposition to the 1965 bill. Myra C. Hacker, Vice President of the New Jersey Coalition, testified at a Senate Immigration subcommittee hearing:
“In light of our 5 percent unemployment rate, our worries over the so called population explosion, and our menacingly mounting welfare costs, are we prepared to embrace so great a horde of the world’s unfortunates? At the very least, the hidden mathematics of the bill should be made clear to the public so that they may tell their Congressmen how they feel about providing jobs, schools, homes, security against want, citizen education, and a brotherly welcome… for an indeterminately enormous number of aliens from underprivileged lands.”
“We should remember that people accustomed to such marginal existence in their own land will tend to live fully here, to hoard our bounteous minimum wages and our humanitarian welfare handouts…lower our wage and living standards, disrupt our cultural patterns.”
“Whatever may be our benevolent intent toward many people, the bill fails to give due consideration to the economic needs, the cultural traditions, and the public sentiment of the citizens of the United States.” (U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., 10 Feb 1965, pp. 681-687
Apparently, no one listened to Myra. Individuals often tend to compartmentalize specific occurrences under each administration. We refer to particular periods of time and presidents such as Roosevelt’s “New Deal” or Johnson’s “Great Society”. Reality strongly suggests that each administration, regardless of party, pursues the same serialized socialism towards a one world agenda. To obtain a concise picture of what is occurring, we must not consider presidents or political parties and their consecutive dramatic performances in Washington. The legislation that the socialistic minded politicians fail to accomplish during one party’s tenure will be completed when the so-called alternate party takes control. Accordingly, like every other anti-American bill, the politicians stated repeatedly that the law would not create a large increase in the number of newcomers nor would it become a conduit for globalizing immigration. Yet, this is exactly what it was designed to do over time. Who needs a bomb when we have the subtle, gradual onslaught of our role-playing politicians?
This deceptive law was designed and resulted in a wave of millions of immigrants, including trespassers, who arrived from the third world countries of Asia and Latin America. Unlike individuals coming from Europe, these individuals typically lacked the equivalent education level of the average American. In addition they required more social services - paid for by the American taxpayer through plundering politicians and their efforts to redistribute the wealth. Europeans were not motivated to emigrate because their countries were more modern and industrialized.
From 1901 to 1920 the percent of Latin American immigrants comprised about three percent. The percent of Europeans during that same time period was eighty-eight percent. Yet, from 1980 to 1993 Latin American immigrants had risen to forty-three percent and Europeans were down to thirteen percent. These Latin American immigrants were more than twice as likely not to have finished high school compared to native born Americans. This obviously had economic consequences as well as political ramifications. The conspiring elite could change the complete economic and political culture by modification of one seemingly insignificant law while making themselves appear sympathetic to the plight of the poverty stricken and downtrodden. Their sympathy is a sham as evidenced by their attempts to restructure America into a third world nation. The poor are easier to control and typically lend their complete support to the political party that promises entitlements.
Immigration undermines our customs, culture, language and institutions. The enslaved should attempt to emulate the United States within their countries rather than invade and reshape the United States. But our politicians, like the unscrupulous who imported the Chinese, have thrown down the welcome mat – no questions asked – come one, come all.
Another law - the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was supposedly passed in an attempt to control and deter illegal immigration by providing amnesty and temporary status to all illegal aliens who had lived in the United States continuously since before January 1, 1982. Those who received amnesty, about three million, were then able to become naturalized and bring other family members into the country. Rewarding crime rarely serves as a deterrent. Rather, it creates more crime – our astute Washington lawbreakers should surely recognize this commonsense cause and affect were it not for that ever present globalization agenda that so many of them embrace.
The 1990 Immigration Act (IMMACT) again modified and expanded the 1965 act by significantly increasing the total level of immigration to 700,000, and increasing available visas by 40 percent. Little by little, year by year, the economic consequences touch every family. Over the last 30 years, Congress has tripled legal immigration levels.
Trespassers should not have been granted amnesty in 1986 and they should not be granted amnesty now. Whether they call it amnesty or the “guest worker program” it is a farce and an open invitation to line up at the border. Rewarding crime increases crime. Call it what they will - it is globalization and an insidious method of bringing our country down to its economic knees. There was an attempt in 2000 to give amnesty to two million trespassers but it was surprisingly not supported by congress. However, by alternative strategy, they legalized additional categories of immigration (asylum) which resulted in approximately 700,000 immigrants.
With anchor babies, a result of the distortion of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, a trespasser may enter the U.S. just in time for delivery and then reap the rewards for her maternal efforts – thanks to the plundering of taxpayer dollars. Between 1997 and 2006, the projected total net cost to taxpayers for immigration will be $865.98 Billion. And thanks to the Supreme Court for their constant creative interpretations of the Constitution. Let’s evaluate this scenario - we have the president promoting a guest worker program, congress promising and passing destructive legislation and the Supreme Court distorting the law of the land. This begs the question of who is actually representing the citizens of this country.
And presently the morally consistent Teddy Kennedy is at it again – making way for the trespassers to suck up our resources and further the goal of globalization. Democrat Edward M. Kennedy, along with fellow conspirator, Republican John McCain, is pushing for amnesty for twelve million trespassers with Senate Bill 1033. Apparently the rewards of complicity for McCain are far greater than the possibility of forced retirement due to voter retribution. But hey, doesn’t it make you feel all warm and fuzzy to see the republikans and the demokrats working together?
The enemy is not the poverty stricken hordes at the border. Yes, they are trespassers and lawbreakers but they have been manipulated by the wicked in high places. Our government and their governments use them as political pawns in the game of globalization. Although we have been exposed to a brainwashing blitz of politically correct thinking/training it is not bigotry that motivates our wise rejection of unchecked immigration. It is self preservation and the preservation of our lifestyle that drives this fight against the adversary. The politicians who pretend to embrace diversity or multiculturalism are largely untouched by the mass migration that changes America’s neighborhoods and jeopardizes our ability to take care of our families. The real enemies, those who swore to uphold the Constitution, are entrenched in the ivory towers in Washington and the absurdity is that apathetic and uninformed Americans have installed them there. It is amazing to me that these socialistic senators keep getting re-elected.
It is relatively simple to check congressional voting records regarding immigration. Those we have elected need to have their feet held to the fire, in a manner of speaking. If they are not abiding by their constitutional oath and demanding the enforcement of federal immigration laws then they should not continue to serve as lawmakers.
© 2005 Deanna Spingola - All Rights Reserved