Marco Rubio

The other camp, led by Senator Marco Rubio and Grover Norquist, argues our legal immigration system has been broken for decades, and we effectively have de facto amnesty because it’s simply not practical, humane, nor economically wise to deport 11 million. They believe our present immigration system, with its arbitrary quotas and massive bureaucracy, is inconsistent with conservative free market principles. They reject the notion that immigrants invariably vote Democrat, and see opportunity to win more New American votes, as proven by Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and recently by Canada’s Conservative Party.

A May 2011 poll by Pew Research found staunch conservatives split 49%/49%. Three Republican groupings, staunch conservatives, main street Republicans, and libertarians split roughly 60/40% in favor of immigration reform including a path to citizenship.A recent poll found 60% of Republicans  support immigration reform, and after details of the gang of eight immigration reform plan were explained, support rose to 75% with just 10% strongly opposed. The perception fostered in the mainstream news media for years is that Republicans are monolithic and opposed to immigration reform, but clearly Republicans have been and still are divided. Before November, Republicans who were shrill about immigration were often quoted in the media, while most Republican leaders tended to avoid the topic or only talk about immigration enforcement, which is less divisive. Since the November election debacle, pro-reform Republicans are more vocal, pushing back against the shrill minority who for years have berated immigrants.

Grover Norquist has been staunchly pro-immigration reform for many years. He participated in a series of immigration reform conferences during 2012. Only the last conference, just weeks after the election, garnered any media attention at all, while Mitt Romney’s self-deportation rhetoric garnered constant media coverage. Most media coverage of conservatives who support immigration reform is recent.

Immigration Before the Progressive Era

Prior to the progressive era, American had no immigration quotas and a few common-sense restrictions, such as barring criminals, prostitutes, paupers, etc.

America’s first unauthorized immigrants were African slaves, imported after Congress banned the importation of slaves in 1808. In the Southern states slavery was still legal, and more slaves needed, and so the importation continued despite the ban.

Later, many Irish immigrants bypassed legal ports of entry because they were simply too impoverished to pay the head tax. The federal government did not have immigration inspectors until 1890, though some states had immigration inspectors. Very few immigrants who arrived in America were turned away. Those who chide unauthorized immigrants with the claim their grandparents came legally would do well to compare today’s immigration laws with the past; the laws are vastly different now.

Immigration as a Tool of Progressive Social Engineering

Prior to the first quotas, Ellis Island admitted 98% of immigrants who arrived. There were no immigrant visas; those who wanted to immigrate simply arrived, and unless they were in an excluded class (i.e. criminal, prostitute, sick, etc.) they were admitted.

Madison Grant, progressive and author of “The Passing of the Great Race”

In 1921 and 1924 strict per-nation quotas were imposed, designed to bar non-Europeans altogether, and severely restrict immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe. Early modern progressives like Margaret Sanger, Madison Grant, and Harry Laughlin argued Southern and Eastern Europeans were genetically inferior and lowered the intelligence of America’s people”, would never assimilate, came seeking charity, increased crime rates, etc, many of the same arguments we hear today.

Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood founder

Harry Laughlin infamously testified in Congress that 82% of Jewish immigrants were feeble minded.” Madison Grant wrote the book “The Passing of the Great Race, or the Racial Basis of European History” (read here), which argued “Nordics” were superior, and greatly inflamed American public opinion against immigration. Hitler called Grant’s book his “Bible” and ordered it translated and published in Nazi Germany, and Nuremberg war crimes defendant Karl Brandt referred to Grant’s book. Not surprisingly Hitler praised the 1924 National Origins Act.

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and an ardent supporter of eugenics, wrote of immigrants and blacks in Pivot of Civilization: 

“…’human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning… human beings who never should have been born.”

Harry H. Laughlin, architect of 1924 immigration quotas

Later, Laughlin founded the Pioneer Fund, which later financed today’s leading anti-any-immigrant organizations with millions, and still funds academic “research” about “differences” between the races. Numerous Pioneer funded studies were referenced in the book “The Bell Curve“, which insinuates blacks have lower intelligence levels than whites for genetic reasons. The book has been widely debunked by other researchers, but the ideology keeps cropping up, most recently among the anti-any-immigrant lobby headed by FAIR, NumbersUSA, and the Center for Immigration Studies. FAIR grew with the help of millions in funding from the Pioneer Fund.

John Tanton – who founded FAIR, NumbersUSA, and CIS.

John Tanton, founder of the modern day anti-any-immigrant movement is very much like Madison Grant, except Tanton’s bigotry is much more subdued, since most modern day Americans won’t listen to bigots. Like Madison Grant, John Tanton is a liberal, conservationist, eugenics activist, and has held leadership positions in Planned Parenthood, Zero Population Growth, etc. Most of the arguments Tanton and his disciples use to argue against immigration and for population reduction are identical to those of his ideological great-grandfathers Madison Grant, Harry Laughlin, Margaret Sanger, and Paul Ehrlich (author of The Population Bomb).

Is the Gang of Eight Immigration Reform Amnesty?

Those who constantly throw out the term “amnesty” in describing the gang of eight immigration reform would do well to consult Webster’s dictionary:

amnesty: the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals.

pardon: the excusing of an offense without exacting a penalty.

With $2,000 in fines and a ten year wait to even apply for permanent resident status, clearly a stiff penalty is exacted, in addition to a tough set of requirements such as proof of payment of taxes, background check, etc. The 1986 immigration reform clearly was amnesty, as no fine or wait time was required. Those who met the requirements were simply granted permanent resident status.

Is “Amnesty” a Magnet for More Illegal Behavior?

Opponents of the gang of eight immigration reform argue amnesty is a magnet for more illegal immigration, and point to the increase in illegal immigration after 1986 as evidence that amnesty is a magnet.

Historically, what has been America’s experience with mass amnesty? Did past amnesties lead to more illegal behavior?

America’s first mass amnesty was Abraham Lincoln’s proclamation granting amnesty to confederates who would swear a loyalty oath to the United States. Lincoln didn’t live to see the end of the civil war, but President Andrew Johnson honored Lincoln’s amnesty, though he added exclusions, for example refusing amnesty to top confederate leaders. How many civil wars have we experienced since 1865? Zero!

If the U.S. had made a serious effort to prosecute confederates for treason during time of war, we could probably have denuded a number of forests building gallows for hanging hundreds of thousands. However, the nation saw the need to move on after a bloody civil war, and virtually all confederates were granted amnesty in exchange for regaining their loyalty to the U.S.

Immigration Amnesty

America’s first immigration mass amnesty came in the late 1920s. Early modern progressives saw immigration laws as a tool for social engineering. Immigrants from various nations were barred, starting with the Chinese in 1882.

In the early 20th century, 200,000 Italians immigrated to the U.S. each year, but in 1924 Italy’s immigration quota was set at under 4,000, a 98% reduction! Similar reductions were imposed on Russia and other Eastern and Southern European nations. Not surprisingly, within a few years the U.S. had several million unauthorized immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, who were “inspected” and allowed to stay. Then, as today, it was considered impractical to deport so many. Recently the New York Times opined that Hispanics are the New Italians, drawing parallels with 20th century immigration.

Did the late 1920s immigration amnesty lead to more illegal immigration? Clearly not, because the great depression soon followed and the economic forces that led so many to immigrate illegally vanished.

Critics of immigration reform argue the 1986 amnesty served as a magnet to more illegal immigration, but was this really the case? In statistics, there’s a term “correlation is not necessarily causation.” A doctor once pointed out in an op-ed the correlation between pantyhose usage and lung disease, but pantyhose clearly doesn’t cause lung disease!

There has indeed been more illegal immigration after 1986, but a review of the inflows of unauthorized immigrants reveals that inflows followed to the state of the economy, not policy. During the late 1990s illegal immigration inflows surged, while in recent years net illegal immigration from Mexico has dropped to zero, as the U.S. experienced a jobless recovery while Mexico’s economy has been strong, and Mexican birth rates have declined. AFTER a 1996 law that toughened immigration enforcement, there was a surge in illegal immigration. Clearly illegal immigration inflows have much more to do with economics than policy!

Is Today’s Immigration Policy “Conservative” or “Progressive”?

The quota concept originated with early modern progressives, who were huge believers in racial eugenics and social Darwinism. The infamous Dillingham Commission (1907-1910) authorized by Congress devoted entire volumes of their report to immigrants as charity seekers, criminals, and predicted immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe would never assimilate and become a vast underclass. Children of immigrants were often “retarded” according to the Dillingham Commission.

Dillingham Immigration Commission – Retarded Children of foreign-born non-English speaking fathers.

I have read through several volumes of the Dillingham Commission Report, and one thing stands out: Southern and Eastern Europeans were smeared in the same manner as Hispanic immigrants are today. A vast permanent underclass was predicted by early modern progressives, but for some reason I’m not able to find a vast underclass of Southern and Eastern European descendants in America today, nor am I able to locate a large population of feeble minded Jews as predicted by 1924 National Origins Act architect Harry Laughlin. In fact, Jews are among the most successful demographics.

The blatantly racist per nation immigration quotas and bars to non-European immigration were eliminated in 1965, but the quota concept remains with us to this day, for both immigrants and guest workers.

Do quotas make sense? I think not! Immigration is driven by economics, and inflows should be driven by labor markets, not arbitrary quotas influenced by special interest groups (i.e. big labor). Critics of immigration reform point to America’s immigrant quota as largest in the world. However, as a percentage of population U.S. immigration inflows are #22 of 34 OECD nations. Canada admits 2-1/2 times as many immigrants; Switzerland and Germany five times as many, and tiny Luxembourg ten times as many immigrants, as a percentage of population. For some strange reason our demise as a nation is predicted if we accept more immigrants, but 21 other nations already accept more immigrants and don’t experience the dire consequences predicted for America.

Similar arguments were made by slavery proponents, that freeing the slaves would bankrupt the U.S. We freed the slaves and paid for a long civil war, but didn’t go bankrupt in the process.

Conservative Principles in Immigration Reform

Conservatives believe in limited government in free markets and limited government, but are current immigration policies consistent with conservative principles? I say emphatically not! The main features of today’s immigration policy are arbitrary quotas with no basis in free market capitalism, with massive government bureaucracies telling employers how many immigrants they can hire, how to recruit them, and even how much to pay. Some employers, particularly farmers, must deal with several big bureaucracies, with no assurance their harvesters arrive in time for harvest, and big fines for honest paperwork mistakes. Not surprisingly, farmers bitterly complain how difficult the system is to use, and less than 10% of farm ‘guest workers’ have visas.

Conservatives also believe in the ‘rule of law’ and conservatives are against amnesty, as amnesty by itself is a temporary solution. As a conservative, I am opposed to amnesty in and of itself, as that doesn’t address the underlying problem. In 1986 Congress passed immigration amnesty with some enforcement provisions which proved largely ineffective. Congress failed to follow up for many years on border security, and never followed up on guest workers. In effect, in 1986 Congress ‘kicked the can down the road’, making three million immigrants legal, without addressing the root causes of the problem.

Current immigration and guest worker quotas have no rationale in economic need. Historically whenever economic demand for immigrants and guest worker labor exceeds quotas, the result has always been widespread illegal immigration. This happened in the 1929s, again in the 1950s when a resurgent post war economy required more guest workers than the quota. We’ve often experienced illegal immigration since the braceros program was eliminated during the 1960s at the behest of big labor unions. Big labor continues to be a major obstacle to guest worker programs. We presently have 9-9.5 ‘guest workers’ of which 1.8 million have a work authorized visa. The balance would no doubt be happy to obtain a visa if those were available to them, but they’re not.

Immigration Reform and the Rule of Law

As a conservative, I support the ‘rule of law’, but I also recognize that enforcement alone cannot turn bad policy into good policy. If we lowered superhighway speed limits to 20 MPH to conserve gasoline we’d surely have enforcement problems! Then would we pour massive enforcement resources to stop speeding, or step back and recognize that policy and enforcement are intertwined, and sensible policies result in manageable enforcement? Or would we take an ‘enforcement first’ stance and massively enforce a 20 MPH speed limit until everyone stops speeding, before setting rational speed limits?

When guest worker visas are limited by arbitrary quotas to less than 20% of demand, we should not be surprised that many come here illegally seeking work. Obviously we’d like for everyone to enter the U.S. through the front door, but when that door has been broken for decades we should not be surprised that our ‘hired help’ enters through the back door or windows. It’s obvious that the best way to divert migrant workers from illegal channels to legal channels is with sensible guest worker programs.

It’s Time to Pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform

I’m not happy with all aspects of the gang of eight immigration reform. I’d rather see us get rid of quotas, perhaps implementing a tariff on guest worker wages payable by employers, to tile the table in favor of hiring Americans workers first. It’s easy to predict future waves of illegal immigration, when demand exceeds quota and Congress again fails to act, under pressure from big labor. Big labor has already been hard at work undermining guest worker reforms, for example limiting the number of guest worker visas in the construction industry. However, once housing rebounds, and the need for guest workers exceed quotas, we can expect unauthorized immigrants to fill that gap.

I’m also not keen about e-verify. The federal government has been trying to make e-verify work since 1996. E-Verify is a deeply flawed system. Unauthorized immigrants can readily circumvent e-verify by using a real person’s name and social security, with fake ID. As long as the name and social security number match, most will pass e-verify. U.S. citizens who are unlucky enough to be the subject of errors in government databases, and their employers, can expect to spend weeks dealing with mammoth bureaucracies to get errors fixed!

The gang of eight immigration reform plan calls for increased use of e-verify, and buried within the bill are provisions to incorporate biometrics into e-verify. Biometrics will make it much more difficult to circumvent e-verify, but many Americans will balk at providing biometric information such as fingerprints, DNA, etc., viewing it as the invasion of privacy it is. Another major annoyance will be exit controls for everyone leaving the country. Without capturing information about those leaving the U.S., the entry/exit tracking for visa overstayers cannot work. However, this will impose delays on all travelers exiting the U.S.

However, all-in-all, the gang of eight immigration reform plan would be a big improvement over the present situation. Eliminating quotas is not likely as long as progressives and their big labor backers are wedded to the notion of quotas, especially for guest workers. Guest worker programs would be streamlined, and guest worker visas would become portable. It may also be easier for Congress to act in the future with the most contentious issue – legalization – behind us. We should all back the gang of eight immigration reform plan, while also writing our elected representatives with suggestions for improvement.

####

Bob Quasius is the founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans. Reposted from Cafe Con Leche Republicans – original link.

Every legitimate survey taken shows that a huge majority of Americans support those two efforts; that majority includes a majority of Republicans polled. Here, for example, is a recent survey for Fox News that is representative of all recent legitimate surveys on legalization and a path to citizenship:

Fox News Poll by Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R). Feb. 25-27, 2013. N=1,010 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

Do you favor or oppose allowing illegal immigrants to remain in the country and eventually qualify for U.S. citizenship, as long as they meet certain requirements like paying back taxes, learning English, and passing a background check?

Clearly, the American people are for fixing immigration.

Pat Buchanan – Nativist and anti-Semite

Opponents are trying to poison the public with lies and hysteria. Who, the usual suspects — Pat Buchanan, former Congressman Tom Tancredo, Mexican-hater Senator Jeff Sessions Republican of Alabama, the AFL/CIO’s Democrat leader Richard Trumka and Ross Perot, all veterans of the Mexican-Hating Society that opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) 20 years ago.

John Tanton, Nativist, Eugenics Activist

Joining the usual suspects are Mexican-hating Teamster President James P. Hoffa and John Tanton paid employees Mark Krikorian, Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), Roy Beck of NumbersUSA, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and ambulance chasing Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach who moonlights as a lawyer for the Tanton groups that are rooted in abortion and population control (Planned Parenthood and Zero Population Growth).

Ann Coulter, Nativist

Author/columnist Ann Coulter regurgitates her decade-old opposition to immigration reform by joining the pro-abortion population control people with a message of hate at a national conservative conference (CPAC); from Politico.com:

Republicans are grasping at these suicidal policies because they’re panicked, they’re demoralized after the last election…Stop panicking, Republicans!” Coulter also said she could no long support New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie in 2016, adding, “I’m now a single-issue voter against amnesty. So, Christie’s off the list.” Christie has supported a “common sense” path to citizenship.

This kind of short-sightedness destroyed GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney (Mr. Self-Deportation). He lost by a much larger margin than had been anticipated due to an avalanche 71% Hispanic vote for Obama.

Everyone knows the arguments on both sides of the issue as shown by the polls. Nonetheless Ann Coulter’s vicious words single her out as a true fanatic, a true Know-Nothing xenophobe.

Peter Brimelow

Here from an officially labeled a “Hate Site” by the Southern Poverty law Center (SPLC), VDARE.com is Peter Brimelow’s opinion that Ann Coulter should run for President; this view is fueled by her vituperative anti-immigration/anti-immigrant CPAC rant:

Note especially her repeated assertion that she is now “a single-issue voter” against Amnesty—and also her informed critique of the Immigration Act of 1965, the root of all evil…Here’s the “presidential talk”: I say (in a purely personal capacity) Coulter for President! (She argues pundits shouldn’t run but could she be worse than Romney? McCain? Bush? Dole?

So writes a British immigrant to Canada and then to the US. As if he knows anything about American politics and government, LOL! He doesn’t know what “amnesty” is.

So why is there such hate in the opposition to immigration reform? They throw lies upon lies at us; make arguments based on myths and urban legends about jobs stolen by Mexicans and “high” crime rates. No mention that crime rates in California are at 40 year lows despite 2-3 million illegally present people in the state.

George Wallace Stands in School Doorway Blocking Blacks from Admission

When one listens to the Coulter-led campaign of lies/misinformation, one hears a constant stream of thought that many young people have little knowledge about.

I’m going to make race the basis of politics in this state, and I’m going to make it the basis of politics in this country…It is very appropriate then that from this cradle of the Confederacy, this very heart of the great Anglo-Saxon Southland, that today we sound the drum of freedom…Let us rise to the call of freedom-loving blood that is in us…In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny. And I say, Segregation today! Segregation tomorrow! Segregation Forever!

Senator Jeff Sessions

So declared Alabama Governor George Wallace 50 years ago!

Substitute “Immigration” for “race” and “xenophobia” for “Segregation” and we have what Ann Coulter and Alabama’s Senator Jeff Sessions (et al) are expressing – peddling – today. Is anyone listening?

####

Raoul Contreras Lowery

Raoul Lowery Contreras (1941) was born in Mexico, raised in the USA. Former U.S. Marine, athlete, Dean’s List at San Diego State. Professional political consultant and California Republican Party official (1963-65)…Television news commentator, radio talk show host…published Op-Ed writer (1988 to present)…author of 12 books (as of 1-05-12). His books are available on Amazon.com.

Reposted from Cafe Con Leche Republicans with permission of author – original link

Kris Kobach, Author of SB1070

John Tanton

This law was written by Yale-educated Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach while moonlighting for the man the Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled an American bigot, John Tanton.

Dr. Tanton founded the Federation for Americans for Immigration Reform (FAIR), the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), NumbersUSA and Official English groups, all funded by an outlier foundation that studies Black penis size relative to crime rates. He also comes from population control groups like Zero Population Growth and Planned Parenthood.

A federal district judge eviscerated SB1070 and she was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States with one exception, that of a “papers please” section of SB1070 that allows local and state police to demand proof of legal residency when people are detained. It declared that issue not legally “ripe” but suggested that when that provision was enforced the courts would rule on it when someone with standing sued.

In the meanwhile, two other controversial SB1070 provisions jumped from the district court to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals where a panel unanimously upheld the lower court’s junking of these provisions of SB1070.

Politico:

The provisions in question make it illegal for a person in a car to pick up and hire a person for work, and for someone to enter a stopped car for that purpose, if the vehicle blocks traffic.

The judges agreed that the State of Arizona simply failed to prove the lower court injunctions wrong when SB1070 criminalized stopping on a road to offer someone a job or for an individual to ask for a job or enter a stopped car after accepting a job offer. The court said it was a broad assault on commercial and free speech. They also ruled that Arizona failed to show how traffic safety was actually involved.

Judge Raymond Fisher

Judge Raymond Fisher writing for a unanimous three-judge panel:

Arizona … has failed to justify a need to serve that interest through targeting and penalizing day labor solicitation that blocks traffic, rather than directly targeting those who create traffic hazards without reference to their speech, as currently proscribed under the state’s pre-existing traffic law. Laws like this one that restrict more protected speech than necessary violate the First Amendment.

That pesky 1st Amendment to the Constitution — if only we had a President like Venezuela’s now-deceased Hugo Chavez who simply closed down newspapers, television and radio stations when they criticized him.

Another interesting part of the court’s decision was how the judges smacked Arizona around for trying to cover unconstitutionality by claiming it was trying to improve traffic safety. Judge Fisher wrote that SB1070 was a “classic example” of limiting free speech to a narrow band consisting of making it a crime to offer someone a job or to accepting one from a roadside or sidewalk.

On Arizona’s claim that the intent of the law was only “traffic safety” the court ruled:

The district court reasonably determined that the purpose of the day labor provisions was to suppress labor-solicitation speech rather than to promote traffic safety. Significantly, the purposes clause introducing S.B. 1070 describes it as an immigration bill, not a traffic safety bill…Finally, the day labor provisions’ punishment is far out of line with punishments for other similar traffic violations. For example, conduct that recklessly impedes traffic is punishable by 30 days’ imprisonment, but day labor solicitation that is not dangerous or reckless, but merely impedes traffic, is a class 1 misdemeanor punishable by up to six months’ imprisonment.

The decision does not rule these provisions unconstitutional but it prohibits them from being implemented. The judges also stated that if these provisions were enforced, they would most likely be ruled unconstitutional at the first opportunity in front of a judge.

Once again, the John Tanton/Kris Kobach legal conspiracy to attack legal and illegal immigrants with laws at the state (Arizona, Alabama, Georgia) and local levels (Texas, Nebraska, Pennsylvania) that violate the federal constitution’s power in Article 1, Section 8 for Congress to “make a uniform rule of naturalization (immigration)” suffers extreme mortal wounds in judicial courts.

Reposted with permission from Cafe Con Leche Republicans – original link

####

Raoul Contreras Lowery

Raoul Lowery Contreras (1941) was born in Mexico, raised in the USA. Former U.S. Marine, athlete, Dean’s List at San Diego State. Professional political consultant and California Republican Party official (1963-65)…Television news commentator, radio talk show host…published Op-Ed writer (1988 to present)…author of 12 books (as of 1-05-12). His books are available on Amazon.com.

Net illegal immigration from Mexico recently dropped to zero, reflecting Mexico’s healthy economy and jobless U.S. economic recovery. Cartoonist Michael Ramirez offers his own perspective:

Copyright Michael Ramirez – re-posted with permission

America’s Mass Amnesty Experience

In 1863, President Abraham Lincoln issued his The Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction giving amnesty to all confederates who swore a loyalty oath. Andrew Johnson continued Lincoln’s policy but added 14 exceptions.

Progressive era liberals were avid supporters of racial eugenics and passed very restrictive immigration laws to ban Chinese in 1882, all Asians in 1917 (Asiatic Barred Zone Act). Strict strict quotas followed in 1921 and 1924, with 85% of immigrant visas reserved for Nordic Northern/Western Europe, banning non-European immigration.

Early 20th century immigration shifted to Southern/Eastern Europe. Italy furnished 200,000 per year, but Italy’s quota was set at just 3,845! By the late 20s several million immigrants from Southern/Eastern Europe were here illegally, and granted immigration amnesty. In the 30s, “Mexicans” were blamed for depression era joblessness. One half million were deported; 60% of the “Mexicans” were citizens, and the rest mostly legal guest workers.

1965 immigration reforms removed nation quotas, and remains the policy foundation today. The “braceros” guest worker program implemented during wartime labor shortages was eliminated in 1960s due to pressure from big labor, laying the groundwork for future illegal immigration. Historically, whenever demand for immigrant labor far exceeds quotas, mass illegal immigration results.

During the Vietnam War, 100,000 Americans fled to avoid military service. In 1977, Jimmy Carter granted pardons to draft evaders, who by then had already lived at least several years in exile.

In 1986, Congress granted amnesty to most unauthorized immigrants, and 3 million received green cards. None of the dire consequences predicted by Nativists occurred. It’s no surprise we hear the same arguments today.

Is Immigration Amnesty a Magnet?

Opponents of immigration reform insist amnesty is a “magnet” for more law breaking, but what does history say?

In the civil war, millions of Americans committed treason, punishable by death, and yet despite Lincoln’s mass amnesty we have not experienced another civil war.

Did mass immigration amnesty to 1920s immigrants spark more illegal immigration? No. The great depression and massive unemployment deterred immigration in general. The next wave of mass illegal immigration came in the 1950s, when labor needs of a resurgent post-war economy far outstripped braceros quotas.

There’s no evidence amnesty for draft evasion led to more draft evasion. The Vietnam war was hugely unpopular among young Americans at the time. Many believed they would be denied conscientious objector status.

Did the 1986 Immigration Amnesty Increase Illegal Immigration? What is Amnesty?

Immigration restrictionists quickly label any immigration reform leading to legal status as immigration amnesty. However, amnesty is akin to a pardon, forgiveness without punishment for a wrong. All proposals in recent years required stiff fines, and long waits for permanent resident status behind those already ‘in line.’ Some plans barred citizenship forever. Nativists intentionally conflate “amnesty”  with “path to legalization” despite a range of solutions between mass deportations and mass immigration amnesty.

Congress promised to follow up with guest worker reforms and border security. Guest worker reforms still haven’t happened to this day, due to Big Labor opposition. Congress did follow-up with more border security, but slowly.

Is Immigration Amnesty the Answer?

Immigration amnesty by itself will not fix our broken immigration system, and is unfair to legal immigrants who waited a long time, some since 1989. Problems are solved by addressing root causes, not ‘band aids.’ We admit 1.8 million guest workers each year, while another 7.5 million ‘guest workers’ lack legal status, filling jobs not enough Americans want. Robust guest worker programs that flex with our economy are urgently needed, and would enhance border security by diverting migrant workers to legal channels.

Nativists claim we are overrun with immigrants and our economy will collapse due to immigration reform, but as a percentage of population the U.S. ranks #22 among 34 OECD nations. Our legal immigration level is just 0.334% of population. Tiny Luxembourg ranks #1, accepting 3.116%, while affluent Switzerland accepts 1.751%. Canada accepts 0.825%, 2-1/2 times that of the U.S. The Nativist lobby wants draconian cuts to ‘traditional’ 1956 levels, or 0.084%, #32 of 34 OECD nations. No, we are not overrun with immigrants!

The lesson of 1986 is piecemeal solutions and ‘ band aids’  don’t work. If Congress followed up with robust guest worker programs, we wouldn’t have 10 million immigrants here illegally! True, we have more than in 1986, but illegal immigration waxes and wanes with our economy. The magnet is jobs, not future amnesty that is far from certain.

####

Bob Quasius is the founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans – original link

Lest we forget, at the nation’s founding there were also a large number of Africans and their families, almost all slaves. They, of course, were not citizens, nor were they able to be citizens even if free.

Jordi Farragut

In the mix, a Spaniard named Jordi Farragut (George Farragut) came to America, fought as an American Navy lieutenant in the Revolutionary War and fathered a boy named James, later to become David Farragut, the greatest naval hero of the American Civil War.

Admiral David Farragut

Between Lieutenant George Farragut’s naval service and Admiral David Farragut’s service almost a century later, the United States made war on Mexico. When it won, it absorbed territory larger than most countries, the territory we now call the states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Nevada, and parts of Kansas and Oklahoma.

With that annexation, Mexicans north of the Rio Grande River automatically became Americans. A dozen years later, these former Mexicans organized themselves into battalions of the Union Army to fight for America in the Civil War. Combined with Union militia from New Mexico Territory and what is now Colorado they trounced the Confederate invasion of New Mexico and sent the Confederates back to Texas on foot, without food, weapons or even shoes.

From 1848 on, then, Mexicans have been an integral part of the American community before, in fact, the Italians, many of the Irish, Germans, the Poles and Russians. Some didn’t come here as they were already here because the border literally crossed them. In fact, until the 1920s there was no border and Mexicans could come and go as they pleased and they did.

Then, in 1923-24, the raging predominate political climate in the country was anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish and, of course, Jim Crow “separate but equal” Black. Two distinct and powerful groups, the Ku Klux Klan with millions of members and an influential cabal of racial purity types known for their theories of eugenics (racial breeding), led the political climate.

Eugenicists hate Mexicans because Mexicans are a combination of white European and Amerindian blood. They hate anyone not of pure European white blood.

The Congress of the United States, including one woman and one Black, was heavily influenced by these two groups and the immigration door was slammed shut on Italian Catholics, Jewish Poles and Russians and myriad other Mediterranean types. Swarthy Europeans, Jews and Catholics, were the primary target of the Ku Klux Klan and its numerous allies.

Mexicans, however, were the number one targets of the eugenicists. Never in American history had Mexicans been denied free access to the United States until Congress made them instant illegal aliens in 1924. It even chartered the Border Patrol that year to “guard” the Mexican border.

Ex-Texas Rangers were hired, who, in the grand corrupt tradition of the Rangers rounded up Mexicans as they emerged from the Rio Grande and sold them to ranchers for .50 cents apiece. They also received federal paychecks to supplement their rancher finder’s fees.

For the next thirty years, Mexicans were treated like lice in Texas, Colorado, Arizona and California. In sunny California Mexicans were forced to attend segregated schools until 1947.

Segregated Mexican La Jolla School

In Texas, an all-white jury convicted a Mexican man named Hernandez of murder. He appealed his conviction because no Mexicans served on his jury despite their numerous numbers in his county s population.

Texas argued that it didn’t discriminate against Mexican defendants, that Mexicans could serve on juries. Mr. Hernandez showed the United States Supreme Court that, in fact, though there were plenty of Mexicans in the county, none had ever served as jurors in a criminal trial, ever.

Pedro Hernandez – Hernandez v. Texas

Mr. Hernandez made history when the Supreme Court threw out his conviction and ruled that Mexicans in Texas were to be defined forevermore as a “discrete class.” (Hernandez v. Texas, 1954) That means that Mexicans in the United States were a “group,” an ethnic group that had been officially discriminated against.

This was not the first time Texas had picked on Mexicans. After the American civil war, Texas refused to enforce civil rights laws backed up by the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. It refused to treat Mexicans as U.S. citizens, even if born in the United States (14the Amendment).

In Texas v. White (1870), the Court threw out the Texas contention that Mexicans couldn’t be citizens. Texas believed that when they were so declared in 1848 by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the war with Mexico the immigration laws in 1848 prohibited anyone not “free and White” from becoming a citizen.

Thus, Texas reasoned Mexican could not be or become United States citizens.

The Court ruled that the Treaty had the force of the Constitution and that any treaty and the Constitution took precedence and supremacy over any congressional act. Thus, it ruled, Texas was wrong.

We find ourselves today in a situation that draws from the Texas experiences with the Supreme Court and with the flaming rage of the 1920s fired by the then powerful Ku Klux Klan and the cabal of people with a purely racial basis for ethnic hatred of Mexicans.

And, they are everywhere. Former President Jimmy Carter, a proud Georgia Democrat White Anglo Saxon Protestant (WASP), is quoted in an August, 1996 New York Daily News article saying:

I see nothing wrong with ethnic purity being maintained. – Jimmy Carter

He was elected President three months later and managed not to find a single Mexican American to serve in his government above the rank of Navy secretary.

The man who defeated him four years later, President Ronald Reagan then his successor President George H.W. Bush, Republicans both, managed to find two Mexican Americans to serve in their cabinets.

Look carefully at those screaming in opposition to the Senate s comprehensive immigration reform bill, to those opposing the President who supports it and to anyone who supports it outside the government. Look and listen to what they say, their words, and, the mass hysteria they manifest.

Ann Coulter – Nativist

Example, look at cute commentator Ann Coulter who offers the possibility that illegals from Mexico will get affirmative action entry into American colleges ahead of deserving American citizens. This while she and her kind complain that illegals from Mexico aren’t high school graduates. She and they want it both ways. So, she screams!

Opponents scream treason, they scream open-borders, they scream sovereignty they scream about Mexico They scream!

They scream when reasonable people look at them and see them for and call them what they are, racist.

David Duke KKK

A cosmic race, or as some are prone to say, LA RAZA, but certainly not Irish, English, German, French, other Northern European or like the descendents of African slaves. Mexicans are not like the screamers.

These people call themselves Minutemen, Immigration reformers/activists and patriots but they are properly called racist like their 1920s antecedents.

Unfortunately, members of the Congress of the United States are among their ranks.

Editor’s Note: Originally published June 6, 2006 and still relevant today! All opinion’s expressed are the author’s, and not necessarily those of Cafe Con Leche Republicans. Reposted with author’s permission – original link.

####

Raoul Contreras Lowery

Raoul Lowery Contreras (1941) was born in Mexico, raised in the USA. Former U.S. Marine, athlete, Dean’s List at San Diego State. Professional political consultant and California Republican Party official(1963-65)…Television news commentator, radio talk show host…published Op-Ed writer (1988 to present)…author of 12 books (as of 1-05-12). His books are available on Amazon.com.

While many Americans seethe privately about Mexicans and where they come from, Mexico, as well as Mexican history, Mexican religion and Mexican economic, social and personal contact with America and Americans, few have publicly manifested their hatred and profound anti-Mexican racism in public. It wasn’t polite.

Polite American society no longer tolerates public racism like it used to before the civil rights revolution. That revolution was fueled by the United States Supreme Court decision in a critical Texas ruling (Hernandez v. Texas 347 U.S. 475) in which it ruled official governmental discrimination against people of Mexican origin was illegal.

That decision took anti-Mexican racism out of the state capitols and buried in the minds of some individuals

Pat Buchanan – Nativist

In the early 90s, however, it surfaced in public discourse with the emotional and hysterical campaign by people like Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, Jesse Jackson, a group labeled the Halloween Coalition, that arose to fight the North American free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Ross Perot

“The Mexicans are coming, the Mexicans are coming” became Ross Perot s 1992 and 1996 Presidential campaign themes. Pat Buchanan tried it in 2000 and again in 2004. Last year, dozens of Republican congressional candidates, some incumbents, campaigned against Mexicans in thinly veiled “anti-illegal alien” campaigns.

They failed miserably. Perot and Buchanan were slaughtered (giving us Bill Clinton in 1992). Buchanan received less than one half of one percent of the presidential vote.

J.D. Hayworth

Republican hysteric congressman J.D. Hayworth was slaughtered in a Republican district as was his fellow hysteric, Randy Graf, who lost in an open Republican seat partly because he was endorsed by the Minutemen and former Klansman David Duke. Other hard line Mexican haters in Congress defeated and replaced by Democrats.

These losers were all open about their hatred but they managed to couch their hatred and racist feelings by claiming they had little against Mexicans; they only were against illegal aliens. By claiming they didn’t hate Mexicans, even though they did, they managed to cover up their racism behind terms like “sovereignty,” “open borders,” “American jobs,” “What part of illegal don’t you understand?” ad infinitum.

Now, in 2007 in the wake of their 2006 electoral disaster, the haters are coming out more publicly than ever in a last ditch effort to destroy Mexico, its people and its relations with the United States.

Mark Krikorian

The Center for Immigration studies (CIS) had a public presentation this week In San Diego, the largest American city on the Mexican border. It included panelists Professor George Grayson (College of William and Marry, Virginia), S. Lynne Walker, longtime correspondent from Mexico for the San Diego-based Copley Press and CIS Executive Director, Mark Krikorian. The panel was moderated by former United States Attorney and Undersecretary of the Treasury, Peter Nunez, who serves as CIS Chairman.

John Tanton

Note: The CIS was founded by John Tanton, defined by many as the most effective bigot in America and a prime Mexican hater. He also founded a publication, Social Quarterly, in an effort to legitimize racism; he founded NumbersUSA, another anti-immigrant group. He also founded the Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform (FAIR). He used racist Pioneer Fund money to start up FAIR.

When he founded CIS, he installed as its head Mark Krikorian who worked for Tanton at FAIR. The CIS is theoretically a non-partisan “think tank.” It is not.

It is vehemently anti-immigrant, legal and illegal. If there was any doubt, here are ideas proposed by Mark Krikorian at the presentation.

Thousands of Mexicans cross the border every day in San Diego to spend $3-billion a year on goods and services in San Diego annually; consider further that an estimated 50-75,000 Mexicans legally cross the border every day to legally work in San Diego, Orange and Los Angeles counties.

First, Krikorian demands that the United States “insulate ourselves” from our largest neighbor, Mexico. In rejecting the idea that the side-by-side economies of America s 7th largest city, San Diego, and Mexico s fourth largest city, Tijuana, were economically interdependent, Krikorian said, “It, frankly, is a parasitic phenomenon” and that, it is “fundamentally in conflict with the interests of the United States.”

San Diego Union: “He (Krikorian) also suggested getting rid of border-crossing cards that (legally) allow Mexicans who go through a screening process to enter the United States to go shopping or visit family as well as taking away green cards from people who live in Mexico and cross the border to work every day.”

There it is, on the table for all to see. Prohibit legal Mexican border-crossers from crossing to do business, visit doctors, work or go to the world famous San Diego Zoo. Why? Will stopping legal Mexican border-crossers and workers from coming to San Diego, El Paso and Brownsville enhance American security? Will a fairy godmother pour billions of dollars into San Diego to make up what it will lose if such a program of border crossing denials is implemented?

What we have here is pure deep-seated racism, the likes of which was exposed in Hernandez v. Texas. Mr. Krikorian reveals what he and the CIS are all about.

Stopping legal Mexican visitors and workers from crossing the border boggles the mind. What part of legal don’t these people understand? Legality, you see, means nothing to the CIS, Krikorian and their fellow travelers.

Reason: Mexicans are Mexicans and they have a different skin color, speak Spanish and, as Catholics, worship differently than the White Anglo Saxon Protestants who are behind Armenian-origin Krikorian and his English-origin boss, John Tanton.

####

Reposted from Cafe Con Leche Republicans with the author’s permission – original link

Raoul Contreras Lowery

Raoul Lowery Contreras (1941) was born in Mexico, raised in the USA. Former U.S. Marine, athlete, Dean’s List at San Diego State. Professional political consultant and California Republican Party official(1963-65)…Television news commentator, radio talk show host…published Op-Ed writer (1988 to present)…author of 12 books (as of 1-05-12). His books are available on Amazon.com.

Ann Coulter – Nativist

Ann Coulter has just insulted naturalized citizens with her absurd claim that President George H.W. Bush eliminated the naturalization test English requirement!

Naturalized citizens have every reason to feel proud to become naturalized citizens, after a lengthy process involving years of English, American history, and civics studies to prepare them for an interview and civics exam in English. Fully one third of native born adult citizens cannot pass the naturalization exam, but 97% of immigrants pass!

Naturalized citizens, especially those who arrived without much formal education, have every right to feel proud. I personally know a naturalized citizen of very humble origins who struggled with English and civic studies for many years. She felt such enormous pride when she became an American citizen that she had her naturalization certificate blown up and framed for display in a prominent place of honor in her living room!

Naturalization Test in English Has Been Law Since 1906

In 1906, Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1906, stating:

That no alien shall hereafter be naturalized or admitted as a citizen of the United States who can not speak the English language: Provided, That this requirement shall not apply to aliens who are physically unable to comply therewith, if they are otherwise qualified to become citizens of the United States.

In 1950, the McCarran Internal Security Act strengthened the English requirement to require the ability to read, write, and speak English, and demonstrate a knowledge of history and form of government. The revised statute states:

Sec. 304. No person except as otherwise provided in this Act shall hereafter be naturalized as a citizen of the United States upon his own petition who cannot demonstrate -

1. an understanding of the English language, including an ability to read, write, and speak words in ordinary usage in the English language: Provided, That this requirement shall not apply to any person physically unable to comply therewith, if otherwise qualified to be naturalized, or to any person who, on the date of approval of this amendment, is over fifty years of age and has been legally residing in the United States for twenty years: Provided further, That the requirements of this section relating to ability to read and write shall be met if the applicant can read or write simple words and phrases to the end that a reasonable test of his literacy shall be made and that no extraordinary or unreasonable conditions shall be imposed upon the applicant; and
2. a knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of the history, and the principles and form of government, of the United States.

Millions of immigrants have toiled through years of English studies, American history, and government to prepare them for an interview and civics test in English with an Immigration officer. During the administration of President George W. Bush, the naturalization test was made even more difficult, but 97% of immigrants still pass the exam. The same exam has been given to native born citizens, and fully 1/3 failed the same exam! Perhaps Ann Coulter would fail the naturalization test too!

Ann Coulter Insults Naturalized Citizens and Slams George H.W. Bush

Ann Coulter just diminished the accomplishments of naturalized citizens with another of her bald faced lies. In her most recent rant, Hispanicked GOP elite: They’ll respect us in the morning, Coulter showed contempt for President George H.W. Bush:

President George H.W. Bush created “diversity visas,” massively increased legal immigration and eliminated the English requirement on the naturalization test.

George H.W. Bush

Ann Coulter lies! The Immigration Act of 1990, signed by President George H.W. Bush, did not eliminate the English requirement.  The middle-aged  and especially the elderly have a difficult time mastering English. The 1950 law made an exception for those aged 50+ with 20 years of residency. The 1990 law merely added an exception for those who are 55+ with 15 years of residency. They still have to take the civics exam, but can take the exam with an interpreter. There is no exception to the civics exam unless one is 65+ and a 15+ year resident.

The vast majority of immigrants are still interviewed and take the civics exam in English. Exempting the elderly is consistent with the spirit of the 1906 law, which states “requirement shall not apply to aliens who are physically unable to comply”, but doesn’t exempt the middle aged or elderly. The mentally impaired and physically disabled are exempted, consistent with the spirit of the 1906 law.

Do Today’s Immigrants Refuse to Learn English?

Not surprisingly, Nativists like Coulter often claim today’s Hispanic immigrants refuse to learn English, but credible statistics by Pew Research shows just the opposite! I blogged about this in Do Today’s Immigrants Refuse to Learn English. From Pew Research

As telling, perhaps, is a look at how many people said teaching English to immigrant children is not important. Among Latinos, only 2% held this view compared to 27% of non-Latinos.

The truth of the matter is that virtually all immigrants, both today’s and those of many decades ago, believe learning English is important, but also struggle with mastery of English, particularly if they are older when they arrive or have less formal education. The fact that a mere 2% of Latinos don’t think teaching English to immigrant children speaks volumes.

Ann Coulter Misrepresented Immigration Levels Too!

Ann Coulter also misrepresents immigration levels, and like many of her Nativist pals often claims the U.S. is being overrun by immigrants. The 1990 immigration law increased immigrant visas from 500,000 to 700,000, but Coulter fails to mention the quota had not been changed for decades and had not kept up with population growth.

In 2010, 1,042,625 immigrants obtained permanent resident status, compared with U.S. population of 310,383,948, 0.336% as a percentage of population. That numbers sounds large, until we realize the U.S. ranks #22 of 34 OECD nations in immigration as a percentage of population, near the bottom! A few nations that accept more immigrants than the U.S. as a percentage of population:

• Tiny Luxembourg: 3.116% of population, nearly ten times the U.S. immigration level
• Switzerland, 1.751% (Switzerland is one of the world’s most affluent nations)
• Canada, 0.825% of population, 2-1/2 times the immigration levels of the U.S.
• The U.S. – a mere 0.336%, or if Ann Coulter’s Nativist pals get their way and slash legal immigration to 1956 levels, 0.104%!

If the U.S. slashed its immigrant quota to 1956 levels to satisfy the Nativist lobby, we would then rank #31 of 34 OECD nations, near the very bottom!

Conclusion – Ann Coulter Will You Please Stop Insulting Naturalized Citizens!

Ann Coulter is right about many issues, but when it comes to immigration she is clueless. Since Ann Coulter is often held out as a spokesperson for the conservative movement, her rhetoric is very alienating to New Americans, such as Hispanics and Asians. She further insults these demographics with insinuations they are natural Democrat voters.

Canada’s Conservative Party was able to increase their immigrant vote support from a 3:1 loss (like Mitt Romney) to parity, 1:1. George W. Bush also won 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004, as compared to 21% in the 1996 presidential race, reinforcing that conservatives can win votes from immigrant dominant demographics.

Ann Coulter is woefully ignorant about all things Hispanic, and would do well to find new sources of information, as clearly she has been drinking the Nativist Kool-Aid from the Nativist (and liberal) lobby comprised of FAIR, CIS, and NumbersUSA.

####

Reposted from Cafe Con Leche Republicans – original link

Bob Quasius is the founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans

Borjas (John F. Kennedy School at Harvard University), a former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego, is the academic messiah of the anti-immigrant movement in the United States.  The movement is today’s Know-Nothing Party that based its entire existence in the 1840s and 1850s on opposing immigrants and Catholics.  Like the Know-Nothings, Borjas ignores facts in making policy suggestions, suggestions that become the ultimate “truth.”

In his book, “Heaven’s Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy” Borjas states that current immigrants are less educated/skilled than native-born Americans.  That statement is wrong. He uses Census data that includes illegal aliens, people the entire world knows are less educated and eager for farm work. RAND Corporation economist Jim Smith destroys Borjas with a study that found, “The median years of schooling for the LEGAL immigrants, 13 years, is a full one year higher than that of the U.S . native born.”

Borjas, using Census data, claims that earnings of immigrants NEVER reach the level of the native-born. That is not true. According to economist Harriet Duleep of the Urban Institute and National Science Foundation senior analyst Mark Regets, immigrants have faster and larger wage growth (6.7 percent) than the native-born (4.4%) and any early negative difference in wages mostly disappears after ten years.

Borjas’ argument is entirely bogus, by the way. According to Stuart Anderson, director of immigration policy for the United States Senate Immigration Subcommittee, Borjas deceivingly subtracts self-employed immigrants from his wage studies.  Anderson, writing in Reason Magazine says, “If, out of 100,000 immigrants, 60,000 started restaurants and software firms, and 40,000 worked as waiters, Borjas would count only the wages of the 40,000 waiters. Moreover, if 10,000 of the waiters later started their own successful restaurants, Borjas would remove them from the calculations of immigrant earnings growth, thus further biasing the results downward.”  He doesn’t do the same in stating native-born income. In other words, Borjas’ immigrant wage calculations are intentionally misrepresented and miscalculated.

Borjas claims that immigrants are fiscal liabilities, based on his faulty interpretation of the massive study of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in 1997 that made such a claim insofar as California was concerned. Wrong, again, Borjas!

Ronald Lee, a UC Berkeley economist who prepared the NAS study told a U. S. Senate committee that the study did not reflect the true situation because of computer model problems.  He says, “As for the fiscal impact of legal immigration, with the appropriate assumptions, a dynamic analysis would likely show that 49 of the states come out ahead, with the 50th, California, a close call.”

Borjas and his adherents declare that immigrants cost us money.  They don’t.

Borjas states that immigrants don’t add much to the American economy and do only when they lower native-born wages by accepting lower wages for traditional American jobs, like ditch digging and janitorial work.  He further posits that immigrants would just as likely succeed in their own countries if they stayed there.  Stuart Anderson writes in Reason Magazine, “In fact, immigrants come here precisely because oppressive political or economic policies block them from succeeding in their own countries.

Further, Borjas ignores immigrant induced productivity, immigrant business formation and immigrant performance of jobs native-born refuse to do at any wage because, Borjas says, “They are difficult to quantify.” Really?

The heaviest and most deceitful charge that Borjas makes is that the little educated native-born class suffers lower wages because of immigrants.  That is blatantly untrue.  Borjas claims that the true measure of this is the emigration of native-born from states that experience heavy immigration. But, Columbia University economist Francisco L Rivera-Batiz has proved that theory wrong.  His studies show that where out migration can be measured, it is generally college educated who leave, not the-less-than-high-school class. In California, for example, there was a quantifiable out migration of college educated when the defense/aerospace industry collapsed as the Cold War collapsed. What did that have to do with immigration?

Borjas thinks immigration should only be on a point basis of education and skills, but admits that if his imaginary point system was implemented, “most likely, the predominance of Mexican immigrants. will decline substantially.”

Aha! So that’s what is at the bottom of Borjas’ proposed policies. In fact, he admits, if his point system was implemented, his own mother couldn’t have immigrated to the USA from Cuba and she couldn’t have brought four-year-old George Borjas with her (His education would have been an immigrant “cost”).

Borjas takes us back to the same motive of the Ku Klux Klan in the Twenties and the German Nazis in the Thirties, race and ethnicity as policy. Borjas cannot escape his own words, nor can his supporters and sycophants.

Original link – originally written in 2000 and still true today! Re-posted with the author’s permission.

####

Raoul Lowery Contreras (1941) was born in Mexico, raised in the USA. Former U.S. Marine, athlete, Dean’s List at San Diego State. Professional political consultant and California Republican Party official(1963-65)…Television news commentator, radio talk show host…published Op-Ed writer (1988 to present)…author of 12 books (as of 1-05-12). His books are available on Amazon.com.

Romana Acosta Banuelos

Romana Acosta Bañuelos has a fascinating ‘rags to riches’ life story that exemplifies the American dream, someone who persevered and succeeded despite severe adversity and one of the ugliest chapters of bigotry in American history. Although she was a U.S. Citizen by birth, she essentially faced the same challenges as many Mexican immigrants of the era, and over came those challenges.

She was deported at age eight, returned at age 18 with no English ability, two young children, with just $7 in her pocket, and worked as a factory worker until she could save up $400 to start her own business, later started a very successful bank helping aspiring Latino business owners, and was appointed the first Hispanic Treasurer of the United States!

Early Life of Romana Acosta Bañuelos

U.S. Soldiers Rounding Up “Mexicans”

Romana Acosta Bañuelos was born a U.S. citizen in 1925 in Miami, Arizona, of Mexican immigrant parents. Her father was a copper miner. In 1933, during the great depression and administration of Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt, approximately one million “Mexicans” were deported to Mexico, including Romana Acosta Bañuelos, although she was a natural born Citizen! Eight year old Romana would never forgot the humiliating and shocking experience of becoming unwanted Mexicans, and joining the migrant stream. She later said “As a citizen of this country, I was told to leave. But they certainly didn’t ask those of European descent to leave.”

Historians estimate that during the “Mexican Repatriation” approximately 60% of those deported were U.S. citizens, and most of the rest were here legally. “Mexicans” were blamed for high jobless rates, though deporting huge numbers did little to nothing to improve unemployment. Legislation to ban “Mexicans” failed in Congress, but mass deportations proceeded anyway.

Romana and her family moved in with relatives on a ranch in the state of Sonora, Mexico. Her family rose early each morning to tend the crops, and then Romana helped her mother in the kitchen, preparing empanadas that her mother sold to bakeries and restaurants to make extra money. Romana later said her mother taught her great work ethics and discipline that served her well later in life.

Romana married at age 16 (not unusual in that era), had two children by age 18, and then divorced after her husband deserted her. She moved back to the U.S. in 1943, arriving in Los Angeles, California with her two young children, unable to speak English, and with just $7 to her name. With the ongoing war and one million less “Mexicans”, by 1943 the U.S. was experiencing severe labor shortages, had started the braceros guest worker program, and welcomed back “Mexican” U.S. citizens.

Romana Acosta Bañuelos the Businesswoman

Pan American Tortilla Shop, which became Ramona’s Mexican Food Products, Inc.

Romana soon found work in Los Angeles, working in a defense plant. Little by little she saved, and married again at age 21. When she had saved up $400, she opened her own tortilla factory with a tortilla machine, a fan, and a corn grinder, and with her aunt helping her she made $36 on the factory’s first day of business in 1949. As sales increased she incorporated the company and named it Ramona’s Mexican Food Products, Inc., which still exists today, run by her children and grandchildren.

In 1963, Romana Acosta Bañuelos and some businessmen opened the Pan-American Bank, to finance Latinos who wanted to start their own businesses. Romana also believed that if Hispanics could increase their financial base they would have more political influence and improve their standard of living. In 1969, Romana was appointed chairwoman of the bank’s board of directors. Within a ten‐year period, the Pan‐American National Bank held deposits of $38,864,000 and assets of $41,472,000.

Romana Acosta Bañuelos instituted scholarships for poor Mexican-American high school graduates to pursue higher education, from both the Pan American Bank and Ramona’s Mexican Food Products. Her stature grew in the community, and she received the city’s Outstanding Business Woman of the Year Award. Later that year, Mayor Sam Yorty presented her with a commendation from the County Board of Supervisors. The Pan American Bank was extremely successful, as was Ramona’s Mexican Food Products, which pioneered Mexican food across the U.S. Romana became a widely respected businesswoman and community leader, respect that drew the attention of President-elect Richard Nixon.

Romana Acosta Bañuelos – First Hispanic U.S. Treasurer!

Nixon looked for a way to reward the Republican National Hispanic Assembly and bring diversity to his administration, and asked RNHA for candidates for positions in his administration. Romana volunteered for U.S. Treasurer, not expecting the appointment, but to her great surprise President Nixon appointed her Treasurer of the United States. She was swiftly confirmed despite an INS raid of her tortilla factory, an obvious effort to embarrass her and derail her appointment, but that didn’t work! Soon dollar bills were being printed with her signature!

Dollar Bill Signed by Romana Acosta Banuelos

Romana Acosta Bañuelos signature

Return to Successful Businesswoman and Retirement

In 1974, Ramona Acosta Bañuelos, left the Nixon administration to return home and run her businesses. Ramona’s Mexican Food Products continued to thrive. By 1979, Ramona’s was manufacturing and distributing 22 different food products, had more than 400 employees, and annual sales of $12 million. Ramona’s was instrumental in the making Mexican cuisine popular throughout the United States. By the late 1990s, Romana gradually let her children and grandchildren run her businesses, as she became semi-retired. In 2011, the Los Angeles Business Journal and the Latino Business Chamber of Greater Los Angeles presented her with a Latino Business Awards’ Lifetime Achievement Award.

She’s now around 88 and still living, with many fine memories of her ‘rags to riches’ life story.

####

Bob Quasius is the president and founder of Cafe Con Leche Republicans

The “facts” Ann Coulter cites are either blatantly untrue, or she cherry picks facts in isolation of other relevant factors, favorite tactics of her accomplices Charles Murray and Heather Mac Donald. Murray is also the author of the book “The Bell Curve”, which claims whites have higher IQs than minorities and will remain that way, which has attracted criticism from other researchers and others who claim Murray massaged his data, just as he massaged the statistics Ann Coulter now uses!

Lie #1 – Ann Coulter Claims Immigrants Don’t Assimilate

Through out her op-eds, Coulter emphasizes Nativist claims that immigrants, especially from third world nations, don’t assimilate, drop out of high school, become dependent upon welfare, commit crime, vote Democrat, etc. Nativists always bitterly complain about the 1965 immigration reforms, which eliminated blatantly racist per-country quotas dating from the 1920s that were intended to bar non-European immigration altogether, and severely restrict immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe.

Not surprisingly, eliminating the 1920s immigration quotas has allowed many more non-Europeans to immigrate legally to the U.S. This chart, from a scholarly paper, compares immigrants in 1980 and children of immigrants in 2005 to native born whites in: high school completion (HS+), college completion (BA+), high earning occupation, above poverty level, and lastly home ownership.

In every single category, Latinos show dramatic improvement from the first generation in 1980 to the second generation in 2005! Over 85% of the children of immigrants live above the poverty line, almost equal to white native-born Americans, hardly evidence of a permanent underclass that Ann Coulter and her fellow Nativists constantly whine about.

Lie #2 -Hispanics Don’t Work Harder

Ann Coulter wrote: “Hispanics actually work about the same as others, or, in the case of Hispanic women, less.” Charles Murray selected the 30-44 age group to make this claim, but the median age for Hispanics is 27. Raoul Lowery Contreras debunked that in his recent op-ed “According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the 2012 Labor Participation Rates for men 20 and over are—Hispanics 81.7% and non-Hispanic Whites only 73.9%. Murray purposefully excludes a huge working cohort of the 18-29 age group to make Hispanics look bad.”

Lie #3 – “Hispanics are less likely to be married.”

47.8% of Hispanics are married versus 51.4% in general, a 3.6% difference. 56.2% of Hispanic immigrants are married , and 38.8% for native born Hispanics. What Murray and Ann Coulter don’t tell you is that Hispanics, especially native-born Hispanics, are much younger than our general population. The median age for Hispanics is 27, versus 42 for whites, 32 for blacks, and 35 for Asians. Hispanic couples are also more likely to marry after having an illegitimate child, and fewer Hispanics are divorced (8.9%) than for whites (12.2%), or blacks (12.9%).

Lie #4 – Hispanics are “less likely to go to church.”

According to Pew Research, 68% of Hispanics say religion is important in their lives (60% for whites), and 44% attend church weekly (40% for whites). Among evangelical Hispanics, the fastest growing religious grouping among Hispanics, the same statistics are 85% and 70%.

Lie #5 – Hispanics are “less likely to call themselves “conservative” than other Americans. “

According to Pew Research, 34% of the general population describe themselves as “conservative” versus 32% of Hispanics, but 35% of Hispanic immigrants describe themselves as “conservative.” Young adults usually are more liberal in their views, and since Hispanics are a young demographic with a median age of 27, we can expect Hispanics to trend conservative in their views. Technically she’s right about Hispanic self-identification as conservatives, but 2% is not significant. These small gaps in self-identification don’t explain the 50% or so margin of victory for Obama this election, as Ann Coulter would have us believe!

Lie #6 – “In 1980, Hispanics were only 2 percent of the population,…”

As Raoul Lowery Contreras pointed out, “According to the Census, 6.4% of the 1980 American population was Hispanic“, not 2%. Anybody who can Google can find that statistic in seconds. Another lie!

Lie #7 – “More than half of all babies born to Hispanic women today are illegitimate.”

Ann Coulter then adds insult to injury with her most egregious lies “More than half of all babies born to Hispanic women today are illegitimate. As Heather MacDonald has shown, the birthrate of Hispanic women is twice that of the rest of the population, and their unwed birthrate is one and a half times that of blacks. That’s a lot of government dependents coming down the pike.”

Unwed birthrates for all native born are 41.4%. According to Pew Research, Hispanic unwed birthrates are 45.1%, and the rate for blacks is 71.4%. Ann Coulter claimed the Hispanic unwed birthrate is over half, and the unwed birth rate for Hispanics is 1-1/2 times that of blacks. CDC says 53% preliminary data for 2011, somewhat higher than Pew’s stats based on 2009 data, but even 53% is barely half, and far less than CDC’s 72.5% unwed birthrate for blacks.

Nativists like to pick on Mexican immigrants, but their unwed birthrate of 36.3% is 5% less than native born Americans (41.4%).

Pew Research reports that 8.1% of Hispanic women gave birth in the past year, as compared to 6.5% overall, 5.9% for women, 7.0% for blacks, and 6.4% for Asians. Birth rates for Hispanics nowhere near twice as Ann Coulter claims. Another lie!

Ann Coulter would like you to think birthrates among Hispanics are due to their third world origin, but in truth the reason birthrates among Hispanics are higher is simply that Hispanics are much younger, and younger women are more fertile. This chart shows the population distribution by age, and clearly Hispanics, especially native born Hispanics, are a very young demographic.

Summary

Ann Coulter, with help from her accomplices Charles Murray and Heather Mac Donald, has libeled Latinos, the large majority of whom are immigrants or 1-2 generations removed. Republicans should receive many more votes from Latinos, but rhetoric from conservatives like Ann Coulter are alienating many Latinos from the Republican Party. Ann Coulter’s ignorance on Latinos and her insulting, inflammatory rhetoric, are a prime example why many conservative Latinos hold their nose and vote Democrat. President George W. Bush proved that Latinos will vote for GOP candidates with engagement and a positive message. This chart from Resurgent Republic proves the value of outreach, and also proves what happens after several years of shrill rhetoric about immigration and Hispanics.

Conclusion

The Republican Party needs to change course or we shall go the way of the Whig Party. Ann Coulter and other Navists who hold themselves out as Republicans even as they ignore the values of the Party of Lincoln, are a huge liability. We will continue to call out Ann Coulter and anyone else who trashes Hispanics or other New Americans in such a shameful manner.

####

Bob Quasius is the founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans.   Original link