Archive for the ‘Immigration’ Category

Congress Should Demand that the President Enforce the 2006 Secure Fence Act

Sunday, June 22nd, 2014

children crossing border

By Elois Zeanah

The invasion of 80,000+ children so far in 2014 from Central America, some unaccompanied, has created a new immigration crisis.  Why isn’t Congress and the media talking about the law that was passed and signed in October 2006 to build a secure border fence, but which was never built?  If this law had been enforced by President Bush, and now President Obama, there would be no humanitarian and health crisis at our southern border.  Today, the Alabama Republican state executive committee adopted a Resolution asking Congress to demand that the President enforce this law and secure our border.  Hopefully, other states will follow Alabama’s example.

RESOLUTION ON BORDER SECURITY: Enforce The October 2006 Secure Fence Act

WHEREAS, The U.S. Congress passed the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-367), which authorizes the construction of 700 miles of double-layer fencing along the Southwest border and for the creation of a virtual fence along the entire Southwest border;

WHEREAS, The goal of this law was to decrease illegal entry, drug trafficking, and security threats by building 700 miles of physical barriers along the Mexico-United States border, and to authorize more vehicle barriers, checkpoints, and lighting as well as authorize the Department of Homeland Security to increase the use of advanced technology-like cameras, satellites, and unmanned aerial vehicles to reinforce infrastructure at the border;

WHEREAS, Simultaneously the President signed a separate $35 billion Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Appropriations Act which included funding to secure our border. It provided a total of $7.4 billion for Customs and Border Protection (CBP), including $1.2 billion for fencing and other barriers along the border, and funding for 1,500 new Border Patrol agents; $3.9 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); and $181 million for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration services (USCIS).

WHEREAS, The border remains unsecured after eight years;

WHEREAS, Unsecured borders and President Barack Obama’s refusal to enforce immigration laws have led to an invasion of under-aged children crossing the border, some unaccompanied, and has created a humanitarian crisis for our country, overwhelming our Border Patrol and the charitable organizations that minister to illegal immigrants;

WHEREAS, The plight of these poor, unaccompanied children crossing the border illegally highlights the urgency to enforce the October 2006 Secure Fence Act;

WHEREAS, Eighty thousand or more children are expected to swarm through the border this year, and even more next year, exacerbating a logistical and health nightmare;

WHEREAS, These children are overwhelming the Border Patrol’s abilities to monitor the border, and the Border Patrol has been forced to refocus its mission to a humanitarian nightmare, making it even easier to slip through drugs, gangs, terrorists, and more illegal immigrants;

WHEREAS, The chaos at the border is a result of not enforcing existing immigration laws and particularly the October 2006 Secure Fence Act; and

WHEREAS, Action by Congress to demand that the President enforce the October 2006 Fence Act would help alleviate this invasion on our southern border and the humanitarian crisis, separate out the non-controversial border fence from controversial issues of immigration reform, and remove the issue of border security as a pawn to get amnesty through “comprehensive immigration reform;”

RESOLVED, The Alabama State Executive Committee urges Members of Congress to immediately demand that the President enforce the October 2006 Secure Fence Act.

Submitted by the Alabama Federation of Republican Women Frances Taylor, President

WAYS HB658 WEAKEN ALABAMA’S IMMIGRATION LAW

Monday, April 9th, 2012

 

ANALYSIS OF CHANGES THAT WEAKEN ALABAMA’S IMMIGRATION LAW
By Elois Zeanah, President
Alabama Federation of Republican Women
April 10, 2012

 

Changes weaken our current law and practically nullify its intent to reduce illegal immigration through attrition. 
This makes a mockery of the law!

Changes that Weaken our Current Immigration Law in HB658

 

1.  Contractors no longer have to require an affidavit from subcontractors that their workers are legal
(Section 31-13-9, page 22)

 

 Concern:  The primary problem with this change is that the indirect hiring of illegal aliens is through subcontractors.  The current law corrected the problem of contractors claiming deniability by holding contractors accountable for ensuring that subcontractors use E-Verify by signing an affidavit.  The requirement that subcontractors sign an affidavit attested by a notary, however, was burdensome.  This doesn’t have to be burdensome for the contractor.

 

 Solution:  The solution could be as simple as (1) the contractor including an affidavit on the contract that subcontractors sign; this removes the time/expense of a notary; and (2) the state posting on a state website the names of all businesses which enroll in E-Verify.  This would remove angst from the contractor and should be done in any event to aid enforcement of the law and to encourage compliance by contractors including subcontractors.

 

2.  “The law would not apply to companies doing less than 50% of their business with the state.”  (Rep. Kerry Rich)http://www.sandmountainreporter.com/news/state_news/article_5922ca4e-827e-11e1-86c5-001a4bcf887a.html)

 

3.   Citizens can no longer sue state officials who have the responsibility for, but refuse to enforce the immigration law.  Citizens must now petition a local District Attorney or the Attorney General, who are given free rein to dismiss petitions. 
(Section 31-13-5, page 10)

 

Concern:  The purpose of this provision in the current immigration law is to prevent Alabama from becoming a sanctuary state.  The revision removes this safety valve.  The revision to give DA/AG discretion to file a lawsuit based on a complaint can ensure that there will be in most cases no enforcement.  To wit:

 

 The overload of DA’s and Courts is so horrendous that even most murders don’t go to trial.  It’s unrealistic to think that DA’s would take scarce resources and use hundreds of man-hours to investigate complaints against officials who ignore non-compliance.

 

 A humorous case in point is the Attorney General, who is the top law enforcement officer in the state, asked that the responsibility for his office to enforce Alabama’s immigration law be removed since he’s too busy already.

 

 To put the purpose of the current immigration law in context:  The reason for authorizing citizens to sue is to avoid experiences of municipalities, churches, and officials in other states which refuse to comply with or enforce immigration laws.  It’s imperative for citizens to have the ability to take civil action, if needed, to prevent Alabama from becoming a sanctuary state because officials won’t perform their legal duties.

 

Solution:  Restore wording in current law.

 

4.   Employers who fire workers to hire illegals now get virtual immunity since the bar of proof has been raised prohibitively high.  (Section 31-13-17, pages 58-59)

 

 Concerns:  Revisions make it impossible for wronged citizen-workers to sue employers who fire and replace them with illegal-workers or discriminate against them in other ways in favor of illegal aliens. 

While the current law is a clear, concise, single paragraph, stating that a citizen-employee can sue an employer for hiring/retaining an illegal alien and discriminating against him/her, revisions ADD more than a page, detailing what the citizen-employee must do to prevail; and REMOVES language that the losing party must pay court costs and reasonable attorney fees for the prevailing party.

 

 Even if the citizen-employee wins in court, employers are not penalized for hiring illegal aliens and there’s no language that employers must terminate illegal workers.  Nor do convicted employers have to pay a fine, face jail time, be put on probation, or lose licenses.  Courts are prohibited from charging convicted employers of any civil or criminal crimes or be asked to pay sanctions.  Recovery by employees is limited to compensatory relief (not spelled out).  They do not get their jobs back and do not get attorney/court costs paid, though they won.

 

 While provisions prohibit courts from placing civil or criminal penalties against convicted employers, a NEW provision makes it mandatory that a person who files a complaint against an employer shall be guilty of a Class C misdemeanor if it is considered false or frivolous.

 

Solution:  Restore language in the current law.

 

 5.  Employers can avoid any penalty upon conviction of knowingly hiring illegal aliens if a court decides the project is in the “public interest”  (Section 31-13-15, page 46)

 

 Concern:  Current law subjects employers who willfully break the law to revocation of their business license throughout the state for a 2nd  violation for a specific location and revoked statewide after a third violation.  This is lax.  But under HB658, (1) employers’ licenses can be revoked only after a third violation if they occur within a five-year-period – but the business license can be re-instated.  (2) All penalties can be avoided if a court decides hiring illegal aliens is okay because the project itself is in the “public interest”.  

 

6.  Public schools can no longer collect data on children of illegal aliens to help the state budget for their fiscal impact.  (Section 31-13-27, page 66)

 

Concern:  The current law directs schools to compile information to help identify fiscal impacts to the state of providing a free education to children of illegal aliens.  We know that ESL classes costs the state over $200,000 every year.  Shouldn’t the state/schools be aware of the full costs – especially when the state budget is in a crunch and the state has to cut some functions by at least 20%?  How can the state otherwise budget for these escalating costs at a time when teachers are being let go, there’s no money to buy textbooks or classroom supplies, and the state board of education has forced schools to implement national Common Core standards, which will cost taxpayers an additional hundreds of millions of dollars.  The information requested for children of illegal parents is nothing different than is currently required of all citizen parents.  Laws should be equally applied to all.  Repeal of this section is apparently an effort to be “politically correct”.  

 

 Solution:  Restore the language in the current law.

 

 7.  Landlords can now knowingly rent to illegal aliens.  (Section 31-13-13, page 41)

 

 Concern:  Changes repeal the section in the current law that makes it a crime for a landlord to knowingly rent to illegal aliens.  Current law prohibits concealing, harboring, shielding, encouraging illegal aliens to come to/remain in Alabama.  It classifies the willful renting to illegal aliens, while knowing they were in the state unlawfully, as harboring.  Current law tracks federal law.  Section 31-13-13, page 40 is of similar concern.  This repeals the section that makes it a crime to encourage or induce an illegal alien to move to Alabama if that person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that coming to or residing in Alabama is against federal law.

 

 Solution:  Restore the language in the current law.

 

 8.  An additional concern is that added authority for the Department of Homeland Security is internally inconsistent.  The added authority for Homeland Security to request proof of enrollment in E-Verify when a complaint is filed against an employer and to be able to inspect records of employers and check employees against E-Verify is laudable.  However, this requires unnecessary time/resources and is internally inconsistent. 

 

 Section 13-13-15(b), page 46, mandates that ALL employers enroll in E-Verify.  However, this revision does not penalize the employer for failure/refusal to enroll in E-Verify.  This rewards unlawful employers, who have an economic advantage over employers who obey the law.

 

 For this revision to be meaningful, the bill must penalize employers found to be in non-compliance with this immigration law.  If there is no pain for violation immigration law, there is no deterrent factor for dishonest employers.  This makes a mockery of the law.

 

 Solution:  Make the failure to enroll in E-Verify a misdemeanor, as Arizona does.  This would make enforcement easier, faster, less expense, and more sure in many instances.

 

11. Police can no longer ask for documentation during a lawful stop, detention, or arrest if officers reasonably suspects the individual is illegally in the country UNLESS there is an arrest or traffic citation.
(Section 31-13-12, page 37)

 

 Concern:  Revisions significantly limit the scope of the current law’s immigration status check provision.  Current law requires a law enforcement officer during a lawful stop, detention, or arrest to conduct an immigration status check of individuals if the officer reasonably suspects the individual to be in the U.S. illegally.  Changes, however, limit the requirement to conduct immigration status checks to only situations where an individual is arrested or issued a traffic ticket.

 

 Solution:  Restore current language in HB56.


SUMMARY and RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STRENGTHENING HB658

 

By Elois Zeanah, President, Alabama Federation of Republican Women
April 10, 2012

 

 

 

SUMMARY

 

 Changes to our current immigration law are premature.   The Legislature should wait until after the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the Arizona law, after which Alabama’s was modeled.  The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Arizona’s SB 1070 on April 25.  The Court is then expected to rule on SB 1070 in June.

 

Lawmakers are pushed forward with changes despite the fact that 75% of Alabama voters support the law.  (See FAIR poll, March 19, 2012)

 

 

 

Changes that weaken Alabama’s current law include:

 

  1.  Contractors no longer have to require an affidavit from subcontractors that their workers are legal.
  2. The law would not apply to companies doing less than 50% of their business with the state.
  3. Citizens can no longer sue state officials who are responsible for but refuse to enforce the law.
  4. Employers who fire workers to hire illegals now get virtual immunity since the bar of proof has been raised prohibitively high.
  5. Employers can avoid any penalty upon conviction of knowingly hiring illegal aliens if a court decides the project is in the public interest.
  6. Courts cannot fine, jail, put on probation or suspend licenses of employers convicted of hiring illegals, yet citizens shall be found guilty of a Class C misdemeanor if the complaint is considered false or frivolous.
  7. Courts can no longer require convicted employers to pay costs of former employees who filed and won.
  8. Public schools can no longer collect data on children of illegal aliens to help budget for their fiscal impact.
  9. Landlords can now knowingly rent to illegal aliens.
  10. It is no longer a crime to encourage or induce illegal aliens to move to/remain in Alabama.
  11. Police can no longer ask for documentation during a lawful stop, detention, or arrest unless an individual is arrested or issued a traffic ticket.

 

WAYS TO FIX THE BILL:

 

  1. Increase penalties on unlawful employers who commit tax fraud by hiring illegal aliens as a deterrent

 

  • HB 658 gives employers an economic incentive to break the law.  This should be corrected:
  • Incorporate Section 30-29-110 of Alabama tax codes, which make it a felony for employers to commit tax fraud.
    • Tax evasion under the law occurs when employers fail to (a) pay payroll taxes for employees hired “under the table”; (b) collect state taxes from employees, and (c) keep records and supply information regarding employees for tax purposes.
    • Penalties under the above tax code for tax fraud conviction are not more than $100,000 or $500,000 for a corporation, or imprisonment of not more than three years, or both.

 

  1. Make the refusal of employers to enroll in E-Verify a misdemeanor, as Arizona does.

 

  • The bill currently mandates that ALL employers SHALL enroll in E-Verify.  However, there is no penalty for not doing so.
  • No penalty and lax enforcement with the possibility of a “get out of jail free card”, even if convicted, makes a mockery of the law.

 

  1. Restore the requirement that contractors be held liable for hiring ONLY legal workers on their jobs.  This can be accomplished by adding an affidavit to contracts with subcontractors.
  2. Require appropriate state website to list names of businesses which enroll in E-Verify.  This will enable state enforcement officers and contractors to be a click away from enforcing Alabama’s immigration law, add certainty to enforcement by saving time and money in investigative and other enforcement costs, and save taxpayers and state budgets hundreds of millions of dollars every year in costs to subsidize unlawful employers who commit tax fraud.

 

 

 

 

 

It is Immoral that OBAMA is “Passing the Buck” to Young People to Pay for Illegal Immigration

Sunday, July 17th, 2011

By Elois Zeanah

President Obama’s plans to legalize illegal immigration reminds me of the TV game show “Pass the Buck” which premiered in 1978:  It relied on luck, instant decisions under pressure, and players risked losing everything.  “Pass the Buck” lasted only 13 weeks and dissolved into the long-running game show, “The Price is Right”. 

Let’s hope Obama’s shortsighted vision to pass the buck to young people with illegal immigration will also fizzle and get the boot by voters, so that we can return to “The Price is Right”.  Otherwise, the same young voters who put Obama in office will ironically pay for his folly, forfeiting family income that should go to improve their quality of life to burdensome taxes to pay for the past generation’s free ride.   

Economic Impact of Passing the Buck to Our Kids and Grandkids is a Moral Issue

It is immoral to pass the buck to our children and grandchildren to pay our debt and steal their quality of life even while they are in diapers and before they grow up to earn their first pay check.  It is our duty to protect our children and grandchildren in every way – including their economic future and freedoms.

How narcissistic and reckless to force our children and grandchildren to forfeit their future family income, that should go to improve their quality of life, to burdensome taxes to pay for our generation’s free ride! 

Even as the federal government is debating NOW how to avoid an immediate debt default, we’re talking not about reducing the principal of our debt that will pass to the next generation, but about defaulting on the interest payments.  Interest payments on the U.S. debt is $29 billion a month.  There is no plan and no way in sight to start paying down the $14 trillion debt (which does not include trillions more in unfunded liabilities).

Consider the Tragedy This Generation is Forcing on Young People

Let’s face the tragedy that this generation is forcing upon our children and grandchildren by considering this scenario.  A 30-year-old daughter’s parents are retiring.  The parents have worked hard and scrimped all their lives to live their last 20 years in retirement in comfort.  After all they deserve it!  They’ve been fiscally frugal their whole lives and have sacrificed to give their children more than they had growing up.  Their children are now grown and on their own.

Now that the parents have retired, they decided their money has been reduced in value by inflation and while they can live a comfortable lifestyle in retirement, they decided they’d like to live a more luxurious lifestyle instead.  The parents have a great credit rating, so what’s stopping them?  After all, America has become an entitlement society, so why should they not have everything they want even if they can’t pay for it when so many other people do?  So they buy their dream by borrowing far beyond their means!

This Generation is Passing the Buck

In this scenario, when the 30-year-old daughter’s parents die, she expects to live a similar comfortable lifestyle as her parents, but she discovers to her dismay, her parents passed the bills for past pleasures to her.

Alarmed, she wrestles with the reality that not only will she not inherit money from her parents, or be able to have the freedom to pursue her dreams with her own money, or be able to provide for her basic needs without considerable sacrifice, or to help her children achieve more than she did or give her children the benefits equal to what she had had growing up.  Instead, she is worse off than her parents were and will have to spend almost every penny she earns to pay off her parent’s debts.  Horrified, the daughter wonders how her parents failed to see through the high-falutin’ illusion of their retirement while there was still time to change the outcome.

This is analogous to the entitlement mentality of illegal aliens and those who support them.  Illegal immigrants are not entitled to other people’s money and to put our own poor people as well as future generations at risk financially.

Today’s Young Generation will face this dilemma unless enough young people and their parents slow down the gathering storms that could overshadow the future adult lives of today’s young people.  We, the Older Generation, are the guardians of the American Dream and of our children’s well being, and it’s our responsibility to safeguard our children’s future.

How can people sleep at night and suggest that government borrow more money we don’t have?  We must pay back money hundreds of billions of dollars every year in money we don’t have to give to people who break our law; who throw the balance of our immigration law out of whack and make immigration work against us, not for us; who take money intended for the poorest among us; and who run up our indebtedness that our children and grandchildren will have to pay, while enjoying none of the benefits?

How can President Obama’s conscience allow him to continue to talk about more borrowing and more spending while passing the buck to today’s young people who will have to deal with his reckless spending?  He has in three years raised our national debt by four trillion dollars.  If he succeeds in giving amnesty (a path to citizenship) to 11 million illegal aliens, he will borrow and spend another additional trillion dollars every year forevermore — of someone else’s money:  our kids and grandkids.  This is immoral!

Illegal Immigration is an Economic and Moral Issue, Not a Racist Issue

Tuesday, May 10th, 2011

By Elois Zeanah

Why would President Obama push amnesty when debt is on a disastrous path?  Amnesty would cost taxpayers an additional $1 trillion dollars every year forevermore, according to the Center for Immigration Studies.  Currently, illegal immigration costs taxpayers $113 billion yearly.  We’re broke! Taxpayers cannot afford more taxes.  Yet protests to this preposterous timing will in all likelihood be called “racist”.

Opposition to illegal immigration is an economic and moral issue, not a racist issue.  Illegal immigration contributes mightily to the financial crises in education, entitlement programs, healthcare, and deficits.  It is immoral to further harm our financial future, and to continue to steal from our children money they haven’t yet earned.  Amnesty would do this.

Fixing the illegal immigration problem can be done through attrition in three steps: (1)  Secure the border.  (2) Remove the jobs magnet by requiring employers to use a free, fast and accurate Internet program (E-Verify) that was designed to crack down on unscrupulous employers.   (3) Remove the welfare magnet by passing U.S. House Bill 140 to end automatic birthright citizenship for children born to non-citizens.

It is immoral that U.S. birthright citizenship can be “sold”, “stolen”, or “traded”.  Foreigners can buy U.S. citizenship for their children for the price of a ticket to the U.S. or get it free by stealing over the border. Politicians could easily fix this problem.   But unfortunately politicians often trade our most cherished birthright, citizenship, for votes, campaign contributions and power.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: Why is U.S. Birthright Citizenship for Sale?

Wednesday, September 15th, 2010

By  Elois Zeanah
September 15, 2010

The expose that Asian businesses are “selling” U.S. birthright citizenship packages for tourists hit national news recently.  The practice is not new, however.   Foreigners worldwide have known about the cheap sale of U.S. citizenship for many years .

 Foreigners can buy U.S. citizenship for their children (and eventually get it for themselves) for the price of a ticket to the U.S. or get it free by stealing over the border.  Some foreigners come to the U.S. to get dual citizenship for their children; others birth their babies in the U.S. to get on the U.S. taxpayer dole and stay for life.   What is new is that U.S. citizens are just learning that:

 America bestows automatic birthright citizenship on babies born on U.S. soil regardless of whether their parents are tourists, terrorists, in the U.S. for one hour or one year, or in the U.S. illegally, and taxpayers pay billions of dollars a year for these anchor babies.  The exposure of this practice  has spurred outrage and national debate over birthright citizenship.  For sure, the President and Members of Congress have known about this travesty for a long, long time, but plan to do nothing about it unless Americans catch on to what’s happening and demand that Congress and the President fix this huge problem that cost taxpayers over $100 billion every year. 

Why do politicians not want to fix the problem?  Just as Esau sold his birthright to Jacob for a momentary fleshly gratification, politicians are trading Americans’ most precious birthright, citizenship, for votes for momentary power.   RINOs (Republicans in name only) cater to outlaw business contributors who break the law to get cheap labor.   Democrats dangle free services to illegal aliens to buy votes. 

This is why U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder won’t enforce federal immigration laws.  This is why U.S. Homeland Security Director Janet Napolitano won’t seal the border.  And this is why the Obama Administration sues states like Arizona who will enforce federal immigration laws that government won’t.  And as unreal as it sounds, this is why the Obama Administration complained to the United Nations Human Rights Council and asked this international organization to trump U.S. Constitutional law and accuse Arizona of trampling human rights and being a rogue state.

Is a constitutional amendment needed?  There is a movement underfoot to mislead voters that a constitutional amendment is necessary to define what “citizen” means.  This is wrong!  Beware of politicians who try to fool voters as Esau deceived his father by dressing in the hairy skins of baby goats to steal his brother’s blessing from his father Issac.   American citizenship is a blessing from our Founding Fathers and should be treasured and safeguarded .

The same politicians who advocate a constitutional amendment are the same politicians who supported amnesty in the past and will in the future.  Politicians who make an impassioned case against birthright citizenship, then turn around and try to tie up the issue in a long drawn out and unnecessary constitutional amendment are either misinformed or purposefully trying to deceive citizens to avoid accountability. 

How can we stop automatic birthright citizenship for children of non-citizens?   First, we must inform all Members of Congress how birthright citizenship is tied directly to government spending, taxes, deficits and the national debt.  Most don’t know the taxpayers pay $113 billion in taxes for illegal immigrants every year and that illegal immigration is a major contributor to spending, deficits and debt that plague both federal and state governments. 

Second, we must educate our individual Members of Congress that Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives Congress the power to reinstate the original intent of the Citizenship Clause.  The 1868 intent of the Citizenship Clause was to ensure that newly freed slaves could not be denied U.S. citizenship, and the jurisdictional clause was added so that the 14th Amendment could not be interpreted as a blanket grant of birthright citizenship to any person who by accident of birth was born on U.S. soil to parents of “foreigners or aliens”, but bureaucrats have expanded this definition.

And third, we must request that our states’ House of Representatives join other cosponsors of H.R. 140 which clarifies and reinstates the intent of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, and ask our Senators to introduce a companion bill in the Senate.   

The only way to end the explosive problem of illegal immigration and unfair taxation is to ban automatic birthright citizenship.  Every developed nation except Canada and the United Stated did so years ago to protect their national security, economy and taxpayers.   The definition of “citizen” can be done through legislation; a constitutional amendment is not needed.

Banning birthright citizenship will immediately reduce spending, taxes, deficits and debt.  How often is it that Legislators can solve so many problems with just one vote?   Spread the word to your family and friends and contact your Members of Congress.

WHAT COUNTRIES BAN BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP?

Tuesday, August 10th, 2010

By Elois Zeanah

How many developed  nations give birthright citizenship to illegal aliens and tourists?  Only the United States and Canada!  Most countries ban birthright citizenship because of security threats and because of unbearable costs which take invaluable resources and burden federal, state and local budgets and taxpayers.  

U.S. Representative Nathan Deal (and now governor) of Georgia, stated that 123 countries do not allow automatic birthright citizenship for children of non-citizens born in their countries.  A sampling of these countries follows: 

Countries that Grant Automatic Birthright Citizenship 

Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Cameroon, Jamaica, Mexico, Pakistan, Spain, United States, and Venezuela. 

Countries that do NOT Grant Automatic Birthright Citizenship 

Algeria, Australia, Belgium, Columbia, Czech Republic, Egypt, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, India, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Korea, Kuwait, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Taiwan, United Kingdom, and Zaire.

H.R. 140, The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011 was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in January 2011 to clarify the language/intent of “citizen” in the 14th Amendment to join other countries and stop the abuse of immigrants (illegal aliens and visitors on visas) who come to the United States to have children to give their children dual citizenship; to prevent them from entering military service in their countries; and to get free education, welfare, healthcare and other benefits paid for by U.S. taxpayers.  

Click http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-140 to read the bill, who the sponsor and co-sponsors are, and what the status is.  If your U.S. Congressman has not co-sponsored this legislation, please call his/her office and request that he/she do so. 

Notes and Sources: 

Ireland banned birthright citizenship in June 2004.  Ireland was the only country left in the European Union to grant automatic birthright citizenship to non-citizens.  (“Voters Reject Automatic Citizenship for Babies Born in Ireland,” New York Times International”, September 13, 2004.) 

 New Zealand changed its law to ban automatic birthright citizenship in 2006.  (“Birthright Citizenship Abolished in New Zealand,” January 1, 2006, Newstalk ZB).  http://www.cis.org/articles/1993/back.793.html:  “The Basic Right of Citizenship, A Comparative Study”, September 1993, by Sarah A. Adams. http://www.numbersusa.com/Interests/birthrightcitizenship.html.

 http://www.numbersusa.com/content/ on August 9,2010, reports the dates the following countries banned birthright citizenship to children of non-citizens:  Australia (2007); New Zealand (2006); Ireland (2005); France (1993); India (1987); United Kingdom (1983); and Portugal (198).

ILLEGAL — THAT’S THE MAGIC WORD

Monday, July 12th, 2010

By Lucy Kubiszyn

            “THERE can be  no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an America at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag…We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language. And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”         — Theodore Roosevelt 1907

            I wonder what old Teddy would think about the current illegal immigration issue and the attack by our own government on the people of the State of Arizona. Drugs dealers run rampant on our southern border, and heinous types of crimes are prevalent. This is not a new problem; rather it is one that has festered for years on our border with Mexico. Some of my Texas friends who live in border town like Corpus Christi, McAllen and El Paso have reported such  criminal activity for years.

            It isn’t that we discriminate against immigrants. My husband’s grandparents came over through Ellis Island from Poland and Italy. We are a nation of immigrants, but these earlier groups became American citizens. They came legally, followed the rules, learned the English language and became contributing members of society. This is not the case with these new arrivals who sneak across our border.

            During the early 1990s, I attended a marketing conference in San Diego where the keynote speaker made a statement I didn’t fully understand at the time, but one that I never forgot. She said: “By the year 2000 the United States will no longer be a melting pot. Rather, our country will have become a salad bowl.” This is what we are now dealing with.

            So what can ordinary citizens do? Pay attention to what is happening around you and vote. In November we have an opportunity to begin to take back our country. Support candidates who support conservative causes. It is true. WE ARE ALL ARIZONANS!

Obama and Democrats are Like Thelma and Louise

Tuesday, May 4th, 2010

By Elois Zeanah

Remember that 1991 move “Thelma and Louise”?  Remember how it ends?  Two women are on a road trip and decide to floor the gas pedal to accelerate their car over the cliff and commit suicide.  The film ends with a freeze frame of the car in mid-air.  The women are laughing and screaming with the thrill of the ride – with no concern for the crash to follow. 

This is the image that Obama and his Democrat congress bring to mind.  They are determined to floor the gas pedal to drive our economy off the fiscal cliff — but they are enjoying the ride and giddy with the thrill of their victory over the American people.

Under President Obama, the meaning of “transfer of wealth” is broadening like a tide of red ink.  Not only is Obama  working tirelessly to transfer wealth from Americans who earned it to those who did not, he works increasingly hard to transfer wealth from Americans to creditor nations who keep U.S. afloat. Red ink, like an oil slick, is rolling toward shore, sucking energy and life from every organism in its path.

 Astonishingly, while Obama ratchets up spending, which translates into more taxes and more debt, his Federal Reserve Chairman and House Budget Chief warn that federal deficits could cripple the economy permanently; and Obama ‘s deficit reduction commission confirm that disaster is inevitable unless the tide of red ink is rolled back.  All agree that entitlement cuts (and, of course, more tax increases!) are necessary to stem the red ink tide and avert disaster. 

Since everyone agrees that America’s economy is in crisis and that entitlements, the momentum that swells the rising tide of red ink, must be rolled back drastically, why isn’t Obama and the Democrat congress proposing a safety net of spending cuts to save the economy from drowning?  Why is Obama and his Democrat congress calling for cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid – while stoking public anger to push through another entitlement called amnesty? 

Amnesty will force taxpayers to pay about $90 billion more every year for immigrants who will receive $3 to $4 in public benefits for every $1 they pay in taxes, according to the Heritage Foundation.   This only deepens debt and explodes deficits.

When Obama and the Democrat congress drive us over the looming fiscal cliff, will they still be laughing?

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: Why The Uproar Over Arizona’s Law?

Thursday, April 29th, 2010

By Elois Zeanah

Editorials, President Obama, the usual voices of leftist ideology, and 2012 presidential hopefuls who want to court Hispanic votes have piled on to criticize Arizona’s law.  Reasons their arguments are not credible follow.

Arizona law does not allow racial profiling.  Arizona’s new immigration law permits police to ask for citizenship documents only when there is “reasonable suspicion” and when police have already detained someone for violating another law such as a traffic violation.

U.S.C. 1304(e) has required immigrants to carry documents to prove they are in the country legally for over 50 years.  It’s no more unreasonable to ask an immigrant for documentation, as law requires, than it is to ask a driver of a vehicle to show a driver’s license, as law requires, when an individual is suspected of breaking the law.  It’s curious that the same people who oppose asking immigrants for “proof of citizenship” support the imposition of a new law to show “proof of purchase” of health care. 

States have the right to enforce federal laws as long as states codify federal laws as state laws.  Arizona’s law to make it a state crime for immigrants not to have immigration documents on their person simply follows the constitutional process to give the state the right to enforce federal law.  I believe the reason for the pro-amnesty uproar is that protestors are afraid the law will work through attrition — as is being proven – and other states will follow suit.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that police have the right to question whether a person is in the U.S. illegally.   In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that police can detail illegal aliens and that the Court has “held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure” under the Fourth Amendment.  The Arizona law incorporates existing authorities.

Those who use Arizona’s crackdown on illegal immigration to manufacture a crisis through editorials, unruly demonstrations, lawsuits, boycotts, and accusations of racial profiling are the same people who support amnesty, abdication of border security, more debt, and bloated government.  Amnesty will force taxpayers to pay about $90 billion more every year for immigrants who will receive $3 to $4 in public benefits for every $1 they pay in taxes, according to the Heritage Foundation.  Should we increase an already exploding deficit?

Partisans hope to use hyped rhetoric over Arizona’s law to pass amnesty.  If  politicians wanted to curb illegal immigration, they would rescind this Administration’s decision to stop building the border wall, hold employers accountable through E-Verify, end sanctuary cities, and end birthright citizenship to get rid of the welfare magnet.

Instead, politicians purposefully violate their oath to uphold the constitution and pander to lawbreakers to get votes.  States should protect their citizens and their sovereignty from federal shenanigans.

2010 CENSUS IS BACK-DOOR AMNESTY

Tuesday, October 27th, 2009

By Elois Zeanah

Action Alert:  Contact Your U.S. Representatives Immediately

 The Obama Administration is using the 2010 census to give back-door amnesty to illegal immigrants to grab more power for Democrats in future elections.  This will further dismantle the U.S. Constitution and erode Voting Rights.  The only way to stop the President and Congress from this unconstitutional act is to contact our U.S. Representatives and ask them to vote for the David Vitter/Robert Bennett Census Amendment. This amendment was made to the FY2010 CJS (Commerce, Justice, Science) appropriations bill.  It would require the Census to include questions about citizenship and immigration status.   A vote is imminent.

The 2010 U.S. Census will count illegal immigrants as U.S. Citizens for the first time ever.  Unless Conservatives stop this, Liberals will use the 2010 U.S. Census to erase checks and balances that were put in place to keep elections honest.  Voter fraud committed to steal elections has already become a problem in many states.  If the U.S. Census is politicized in 2010, counting illegal immigrants will set precedent and forevermore skew the results of the Census, which in turn will impact elections.  

How does the Census Impact Elections?  The Census is used to:

  • Apportion seats in Congress.  Population determines the number of Congressional seats a state gets.  States with higher illegal immigration such as California and New York (which incidentally are “sanctuary cities” in violation of federal immigration law and teetering on bankruptcy) will get more Congressional seats and states with fewer illegal immigrants will lose Congressional seats. Counting illegal aliens in the 2010 U.S. Census will reward states that encourage illegal immigration and punish states that have not followed the law.
  • Distribute federal funds to states.  Federal funds (tax-dollars received from states) are allocated based on population. These funds amount to approximately $400 billion every year.  States that have more illegal aliens will get the lion’s share of federal dollars while states with fewer illegal immigrants will be denied their fair share.
  • Determine the number of votes states get for the Electoral College that elects the President of the United States.  States with higher illegal immigration will determine who becomes President.  

Conservatives must act now to keep Liberal Democrats from seizing illegitimate power by politicizing the non-partisan Census Liberals want amnesty because most illegal immigrants, due to their education and job skills, are poor.  If they have children born in the United States, and seventy-five percent do, illegal aliens automatically become eligible for tax-subsidized programs – the same as poor U.S. citizens.  Thus the cost of entitlement programs and fiscal deficits continue to skyrocket.  Studies show that illegal and legal Mexican households receive more welfare than U.S. citizens and consume more government benefits than they pay in taxes.  So why would Democrats encourage illegal immigration and amnesty?   Because, if given citizenship, illegal aliens would add to Democrat voting blocs. 

The Democrat Congress has already included loopholes in the Stimulus bill, S-CHIP, and the health care reform bill so that illegal immigrants can qualify for jobs and benefits.  This encourages more illegal immigration and further strains federal, state and local budgets. 

Democrats plan to use the Census to strengthen their stranglehold on power.   If illegal aliens are counted as U.S. citizens in the Census, this will further integrate illegal immigrants into the fabric of American culture and influence political outcomes.  Democrats know the majority of Americans oppose amnesty and that U.S. citizens want fiscal responsibility and deficits rolled back.  Democrats know that amnesty will push deficits higher.   Yet the President and Congress care more about perpetuating power than protecting our country from financial collapse.  This is not a time to import more poverty and expand entitlement programs.  This is a time to roll back spending and cut deficits.

It is urgent to stop backdoor amnesty!   Call your U.S. Representatives today, and ask them to vote for the Vitter Amendment and protect the integrity of the Census.