Hey Beverly, what percentage of illegal immigrants commit crimes? Isn't it fair to say that is probably about the same percentage of people that were born here or came here otherwise?

Nod your head up and down a$$hole.

Australia, the Beacon of Sanity
By Thomas Lifson


Australia is once again making more sense than any other country on earth with regard to issues of culture and immigration. Like its Anglosphere cousins the United States and Canada, Australia's political economy, personal freedom, rule of law, and other characteristics inherited from the British, make it an extremely attractive place for immigrants. A continental land mass able to accommodate a greater population completes the package luring many, including many Muslims, to dream of a better life there than in their own home countries.

But unlike Canada, which has embraced a self"”effacing attitude toward its own cultures, and the United States, which also pays obeisance to the pernicious self"”abnegating doctrines of multiculturalism, Australia is unafraid to stand up and say that those wanting to come to Australia must adapt to the existing realities, not expect to change Australia into their home country, only with better weather and welfare benefits.

The BBC reports:

Australia is planning a radical strengthening of immigration laws that would require prospective citizens to take tough English language tests as well as a quiz on history and culture.

Critics have said the plans are patronising and insulting.

Actually, the critics have it backwards. It is quite insulting and patronizing to immigrate to a country and expect it to adapt to the very things one left behind. This is the behavior of a conqueror, not an immigrant.

By definition, an immigrant asks for the privilege of being allowed to live in a country not his or her own. Immigrants have no right to demand change. No more than I have a right to barge into your house and demand you rearrange the furniture, knock out the wall between the kitchen and family room, and paint the parlor walls a different color.

An immigrant stipulates that the country to which he or she goes has a superior system. Without such an attraction, why else leave behind family, friends, and the attachments of sentiment?

Lacking any thoughtful points, the opponents of testing in Australia resort to the cry of racism. Pardon me, but if race were the issue, certain races would not be allowed in. That, in fact, was characteristic of Australian immigration policies in an earlier era. But that is no longer the issue.

The BBC also reports that employers supposedly are worried that the new barriers will keep necessary workers from coming to Australia. That, too, is utter nonsense. Workers unwilling to adapt to local language and culture are not likely to be very good employees, willing to learn new skills, able to deal with fellow workers or customers.

The honest truth is that the Anglosphere has a superior political economy, and that is why the world wants to emigrate to our lands. Leftist multiculturalists, angry at their homelands and haunted by their own demons, have a need to believe that there is something wrong at home. Thus the insane mental construct that any change will be an improvement, even changes proposed by Sharia"”embracing migrants.

As Prime Minister Howard said recently, those who want to live under Sharia have quite a number of countries in which to live. There is no reason for Australia (or Canada or America or Britain or France, for that matter) to accommodate them. Other than their own confusion, self"”loathing, and moral weakness of their elites, riven with self"”soubt and cravenly seeking approval from the cosmopolitan smart set.

My admiration for Prime Minister Howard continues to grow. My love for Australia and Australians, always deep, has turned into utter infatuation. If I couldn't live in my beloved America, I would be off to Australia in a heartbeat.

Where, oh where, are the poltiical leaders of America? Don't they understand that anyone with the guts to follow the lead of PM Howard would become an instant hero?

Evidently, they are too cowed by fear of being called racist to embrace the common sense doctrine that those who seek to enter our culture deserve to have it remain intact for them and their children.

Hat tip: Joseph Crowley

http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/09/australia_the_beacon_of_sanity.html

I like it when you work for me!

Yeah, Beverly is disappointed and surprised that Australia didn't kill off all of their Aborigines.

Maybe the Aborigines in Australia and the native Americans in the United States should rise up and tell dumb ****s like Beverly how it's going to be.

quote:

Originally posted by Beverly:
Prince William Illegal Immigration Crackdown Revving Up


WASHINGTON -- Prince William County's crackdown on illegal immigration may be adding up -- both in suspects and in cost.

The county has already found more than 450 illegal immigrants in the county jail -- with 240 already turned over to federal authorities. The county's next step in the crackdown, training police officers to check the legal residency of anyone pulled over for a traffic offense, begins this week.

Corey Stewart, Chairman of the Prince William Board of County Supervisors, says police might actually start to use that training early next year.

"We have to fully fund a criminal alien unit, and begin to hire more police officers to fill that unit," said Stewart. "My top priority in 2008 is to fully implement and enforce our measures against illegal immigration."

However, that could be tough to do for a county that is already pressed financially by the housing slump. The crackdown will cost $2.5 million, or about .5 percent of the tax rate, in just the first year. The county is facing some tight budget constraints for 2008 because of the slump in the housing market, and a potential tax increase.

The counties policy is being challenged in the federal courts.

Perhaps the illegals in Prince William County will find a safer haven in Chicago? I think I'll offer that as a suggestion at the next town meeting.

B u m p

quote:

Originally posted by ProudUSC:

Perhaps the illegals in Prince William County will find a safer haven in Chicago? I think I'll offer that as a suggestion at the next town meeting.

TALK ABOUT UNINVITED INVADERS BEING LATE TO THE PARTY:

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA NEWSFLASH


DHS sues Illinois for blocking immigrant crackdown
by Frank James

The Homeland Security Department is suing Illinois to undo a new state law the federal agency says would make it more difficult to enforce the nation's immigration laws.

The law is an amendment to Illinois's "Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act" which would make it impossible, says Homeland Security, for employers to participate in a voluntary federal program many currently use to verify whether new employees are legally entitled to work in the U.S.

Called E-Verify, the Internet program allows employers to transmit to the federal government certain identity information which permits immigration officials to confirm (or not) whether the employees can be legally employed.

About 93 percent of such queries come back either immediately or, if a manual check is necessary, the next day, confirming that an employee is eligible to work in the U.S. The rest are categorized as "tentative non-confirmations."

The employee can decide not to contest the non-confirmation. If he does contest it, Homeland Security will further investigate the matter, but that can take weeks.

Here's where the new Illinois law comes in. It essentially says that until Homeland Security can conduct 99 percent of those investigations within three days, it's illegal for all businesses operating in Illinois to participate in the E-Verify program.

Thus the lawsuit which was filed by the Justice Department on behalf of Homeland Security today. It's the first such lawsuit the federal government has filed since no other state has taken on the federal program as frontally as Illinois has.

It would seem that Illinois will have a challenge in persuading a federal court to see things its way since the Constitution's "supremacy clause" generally gives federal law the upper hand over state laws.

In an interview with me, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said:

"The state of Illinois has now made it illegal to comply with federal law. That's not acceptable as a matter of the Constitution and it's not acceptable as a matter of our discharging our federal obligation to enforce the immigration laws."
"There's obviously a lot of concern in certain quarters about our efforts to bring employers into compliance with the law because a lot of employers recognize that they means they may lose illegal workers and they may be depending on illegal workers.
And while I'm in favor of comprehensive immigration reform and I've argued that in many ways we need to find a regularize those illegal workers, that's not what the law is. So we have to enforce the law as it is. The fact that it may hurt business is not an excuse not to enforce the law."


I asked Chertoff if he suspected that this the new law was a ploy by the business community and its allies in the statehouse to block his department's efforts to enforce the immigration law.

"I don't want to impute motives to people... I can tell you the effect of this would be to thwart our efforts and the efforts of those who want to comply with the law, to follow the law.
The irony of this is, this program doesn't make employers join it. It seimply offers employers the opportunity to make sure they're in compliance with law. And yet the state law, the Illinois law here, would actually prevent people from checking to make sure they're in compliance with the law, which is a very strange outcome.


The Illinois law is, for Chertoff, just another example of how many politicians want to have it both ways. They talk about the need to secure the nation's borders but don't want to do what it takes to accomplish that because of the pressure from business or immigrant groups.


"... It's not a matter of personal frustration. It's really frustration on behalf of the 208,000 hardworking men and women. Here's the deal. The public through Congress has said to this agency 'We want you to enforce these laws. We want you take every reasonable, constitutional step to make it more difficult for people to make it more difficult for people to work illegally and to prevent illegals from coming in.

And of course then there's been criticism over the fact that in the preceding 30 years we have not done a good job of enforcing the law.

So now that we are taking the reins and really driving forward on this and really making some progress, we're beginning to see the schizophrenic nature of the way some politicians are looking at it. Which is that they're now coming back and saying 'We want you to enforce the law but we don't want you to do anything that would actually lead to enforcement. So we're going to prevent you from either helping businesses identify who's illegal, or encouraging business to identify who's illegal or arresting people who are illegal. So that the idea is we're going to get on the record saying we want you enforce it then we're going to make sure you can't enforce it."

That seems to me in a nutshell to explain why we have a tremendous wave of cynicism in the American electorate. I think the public looks and they go 'Well, on one hand Congress looks at this and says enforce the law, on the other hand the law doesn't get enforced. The government is obviously playing a shell game with Congress.' "


Homeland Security's has sent me a copy of a "blog post" they attribute to Chertoff. (Didn't know he had a blog.) For anyone interested in more on his view of the matter, here it is:

Could it be that the Illinois state legislature wants to prevent businesses from using the best available tools to determine whether new employees are illegal aliens? I certainly hope not, but that's precisely what a new state law is poised to do. The recently authorized changes to Illinois's "Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act" will place restrictions on the ability of employers in the State of Illinois to enroll voluntarily in our Department's electronic employee verification system (E-Verify) to check the legal status of workers. This is wrongheaded. It's also unconstitutional because it is preempted by federal law. That's why today the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit on behalf of DHS to overturn the state law.
E-Verify (formerly known as Basic Pilot) is an online system that allows employers to check whether a new worker's name and Social Security number are valid and the person is authorized to work in our country. The system is easy to use and free of charge. It's also popular, with more than 23,000 companies enrolled nationwide, including more than 800 in Illinois. And you can see why: E-Verify enables employers, in real time, to determine if the name, Social Security number, and other identity information that a new hire provides for his or her I-9 form match information in federal databases, giving them certainty that the people they're hiring are authorized to work in the U.S. It also will allow employers to compare photos on ID documents provided by a new hire against the photos in state or federal records, thus preventing the use of fraudulent or stolen documents.

Why, then, would the State of Illinois want to prevent employers from using this valuable tool? Critics in the legislature claim that E-Verify takes too long, contains inaccurate data, and might cause workers to be wrongfully terminated. Some also complain that employers might use it to discriminate against citizens or legal immigrants on the basis of their ethnicity. Let's take these one by one.

First, in 90 percent of cases, E-Verify returns an initial response within seconds. That seems pretty fast to me. Second, while I'll be the first to admit that no system is perfect, the data in E-Verify isn't "inaccurate" – instead, it reflects the data in Social Security Administration and DHS databases. And this actually results in a benefit to employees: E-Verify gives people notice that they might have to correct their information in our databases if the government's records are wrong because of things like a transposed number or misspelled name. This is important because it helps ensure that their Social Security benefits are properly credited. Third, employers are not allowed to fire a worker on the basis of an initial E-Verify check. In fact, federal law explicitly states that no worker can be fired until a final determination is made concerning his or her work eligibility. Finally, the law requires that employers use the system in the same way for all their new hires, and employers that use the system sign an agreement that says they will treat everyone the same, regardless of race, ethnicity, or national origin.

These are all important aspects of the program. But there is a larger issue at stake with the Illinois law. The American people have been loud and clear about their desire to see our nation's immigration laws enforced. We are taking aggressive steps to do that – increasing worksite enforcement cases and bringing serious criminal penalties against employers who hire illegal aliens. We've also sharpened our existing tools, and, yes, we've given employers better tools like E-Verify. But we will not succeed if we are stopped at every turn by lawsuits and legislation that frustrate, slow down, or attempt to derail our efforts.

Why now? Many Illinois businesses have already signed up for E-Verify, and others may want to. We've asked the Department of Justice to file this suit because those businesses should have certainty that the federal program they're relying on won't land them in trouble with Illinois.

Of course, states are free to pass laws that they believe are in the best interests of their citizens. But when those laws interfere with my Department's ability to uphold and enforce our nation's immigration laws, or they deny employers tools they badly need and have asked us to provide, then we are fully prepared to fight for what we believe is right and necessary.


Rep. Pete Roskam (R-Ill.) has issued a statement as well, applauding the lawsuit and accusing Gov. Rod Blagojevich of trying to create "virtual sanctuary within the State of Illinois for illegal aliens."

Here's Roskam's statement:


DOJ SUES BLAGOJEVICH FOR CREATING WORKPLACE SANCTUARY FOR ILLEGALS

Roskam Applauds DOJ and DHS for Protecting Illinois Workers

WASHINGTON, DC - Congressman Peter J. Roskam (R-IL) today issued the following statement on the heels of a United States Department of Justice lawsuit filed against the State of Illinois and its plan to prohibit employers from voluntarily enrolling in any Employment Eligibility Verification System:

"Governor Blagojevich and the Illinois Legislature are acting against the best interest of Illinois workers, Illinois families, and against the safety of our nation.

"It is unbelievable that a legislative body would prohibit honest employers the right to voluntarily verify the citizenship status of their workers. It is against the law to hire an illegal alien and the federal E-Verify system is currently the best means available for employers to ensure compliance.

"Allowing undocumented workers into the workforce takes jobs away from hard-working Illinois families.

"Immigration reform begins at the border. We must remove the magnets that attract hundreds of thousands of illegals to cross our borders every year.

"Governor Blagojevich is attempting to preempt federal law by creating a virtual sanctuary within the State of Illinois for illegal aliens. Subsequently, the Department of Justice has filed suit in federal court today, and I applaud their actions."

.

Statement by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff on the E-Verify Lawsuit With Illinois
Release Date: December 13, 2007

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
Contact: 202-282-8010

In September, we filed a lawsuit in federal court to declare invalid an Illinois statute that effectively forbids Illinois employers from enrolling in the department's E-Verify system. The statute was to become effective on January 1, 2008, but in papers filed with the court yesterday, the state agreed not to enforce it until the department's lawsuit against the state is resolved. It also disclosed that the Illinois legislature is considering a bill to address the legal issues raised in the suit.

The department will communicate with each of the Illinois employers enrolled in E-Verify to let them know that they may continue using E-Verify without fear of a state enforcement action on January 1. The state's decision also allows employers planning to enroll in E-Verify to do so without the threat of state enforcement against them. Illinois employers will now have the ability to verify the legality of their workforce without interruption or fear of reprisal by the state.

In a motion filed with DHS, the state requested a sixty day stay of the lawsuit so that the Illinois legislature would have an opportunity to consider proposed changes in the Illinois statute. I remain hopeful that Illinois will amend its law so that Illinois employers can continue to utilize this valuable tool without the need for further litigation.

E-Verify is an online system that allows employers to check whether a worker's name and Social Security number are valid and the individual is authorized to work in our country. It gets consistently good reviews from the employers who use it, and we continue to work to improve the system's protections against fraud. We've upgraded E-Verify with a photo tool that allows employers to compare the photo on a person's immigration document against DHS databases, thus making sure the documents are not fraudulent or stolen.* This program is free of charge and has been used by more than 30,000 employers enrolled nationwide, and over 900 employers in Illinois alone. Last year, over 3 million new employees were checked nationwide using this system. Congress has repeatedly acknowledged that rampant document and identity fraud has significantly undermined the existing system for stopping illegal workers from getting jobs, and E-Verify is the best available way for employers to ensure their workforce is legally authorized to work.

###

Sentence originally read: We've upgraded E-Verify with a photo tool that allows employers to compare the photo on a person's driver's license or ID card against federal databases, thus making sure the documents are not fraudulent or stolen.



VICTORY IS SO SWEET . . . .



.BTTT

Thanks for working for me!

Thanks for working for me!! I hope you don't fall asleep since you've pushed your stomach up to your lungs from piggin' out on that buffet you ate just now.

VICTORY WILL BE AT THE DARK LONELY ALLEY WHERE YOU WILL GET COUGHT BY ONE OF YOUR LOVELY MALE IMMIGRANT

Keep goin'!! Work for me Lizzi!

'You Don't Speak for Me,' Legal Hispanic Immigrants Shout
By Alison Espach
CNSNews.com Correspondent

(CNSNews.com) - A group of American Hispanics -- legal residents of the U.S. -- are blasting efforts to convert illegal immigrants into "guest workers," arguing that their own pursuit of the American dream is being impeded by the influx of illegal aliens.

"We are American citizens, we're voters. We elect our officials in office right now. Our voices need to be heard, not those of illegal aliens and their well-funded advocates," said Mariann Davies, vice-chairman of the group You Don't Speak For Me (YDSFM). Davies is the daughter of legal immigrants from Ecuador.

Davies told Cybercast News Service that YDSFM has attracted about a thousand members since it was launched earlier this year and represents the majority of Americans and American Hispanics against illegal alien rights

YDSFM was formed by Col. Al Rodriguez in response to this year's media coverage of Latino and Hispanic "pro-immigration" rallies -- a phrase that Rodriguez said his group resents. YDSFM was angry that the rallies were portrayed as representing the position of all Latinos and Hispanics in the U.S.

In a statement on the YDSFM website, Davies indicated that she first noticed the problems in immigration control when she worked as a college volunteer during the implementation of the Immigration and Control Act of 1986. That law provided legal status to 3.1 million people who had come to the United States illegally.

"I witnessed chaotic and inconsistent paperwork for people with no documentation. It was a mess, and we now know that much of the information provided by illegal immigrants was fraudulent," Davies said.

"We also know that terrorists were also granted amnesty under the 1986 program, something that should shock and anger all Americans. We also know that all 19 hijackers from September 11 took advantage of our legal system, staying here on expired or fraudulent visas to wage their war of terror," she added.

Davies said she is outraged by more recent problems linked to the illegal immigration problem, such as the "84 hospitals that have closed emergency rooms in California" because of excessive illegal alien use and "the massive amount of public dollars that have been spent educating illegal alien students and children of illegal aliens."

According to a Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR) report, the "utilization rate of hospitals and clinics by illegal aliens (29 percent) is more than twice the rate of the overall U.S. population (11 percent).

"How about social services programs that are meant for our own most vulnerable citizens?" Davies asked. "How about school districts that are overrun and having to have bilingual education and thousands and thousands of non-English speaking students who are taking resources away from the rest of the students?"

Davies said many school districts are forced to eliminate programs in arts and music "because they have so many non-English speaking illegal alien children that they have to spend the money on special services and teachers and social workers for them."

The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) -- an advocacy group for Latino rights -- said YDSFM's point is not the one shared by most Hispanics and Latinos.

"The majority of Latinos do support comprehensive immigration reform," said Michele Waslin from NCLR.

Waslin favors President Bush's "guest worker" provision, which would provide many current undocumented immigrants new legal channels for working in the U.S. and an eventual path to citizenship. The U.S. Senate's version of immigration reform includes the "guest worker" provision, but the bill passed by the U.S. House does not. The House bill also calls for a fence along the U.S. border, a crackdown on alien smuggling rings and those who illegally enter the U.S. It would establish a system for employers to verify the legal status of the people they hire as well.

According to a Pew Hispanic immigration study this month, 56 percent of American Hispanics said that they would participate in a pro-immigration rally; 52 percent favored a policy that provided a path to citizenship for undocumented migrant workers; 41 percent said they thought some undocumented workers should be eligible for citizenship and only 5 percent said all undocumented immigrants should be blocked from citizenship

But Davies argued that the Senate legislation would reward illegal aliens with "amnesty" and is "not a solution to what is happening in this country."

"It is completely unfair to every single immigrant who has played by the rules, including those who have pending applications and have been waiting outside of this country for years," said Davies.

YDSFM also criticized President Bush for his approval of the bill that would allow millions of illegal aliens to remain in the country.

"The president tries to justify this, saying they are going to have to wait 11 years to go through the process," said Ira Mehlman, spokesperson for YDSFM and FAIR. "That, he says, is going to the back of the line.

"But for the people who broke the law, the back of the line forms here in this country; whereas people who have been playing by the rules, the back of the line is in some other country," he added.

State governments have stepped up their immigration enforcement, passing 57 bills this year that cut benefits for illegal immigrants and place sanctions on employers who hire them. For example:

- Georgia lawmakers passed a bill that sanctions employers who hire illegals and forces people seeking benefits to provide proof of their U.S. citizenship. The bill also mandates that police check the legal status of those they arrest;
- Colorado employers must now show that recent hires are of legal status. Colorado also banned non-emergency services to illegals;
- Louisiana's new legislation allows any state agency to investigate an employer's hiring practices if it is suspected that illegals are being hired. All employers who do not cooperate can be fined.

If more similar legislation is passed and enforced, Mehlman claims "the supply of jobs will dry up [for illegals], fewer people will come, and in fact, many people will get discouraged and decide to leave."

"That's the way you enforce laws. You make an example out of enough employers and everyone starts to get the message," added Mehlman.

But Waslin's group stated that legislation focusing on border enforcement is useless. "We have seen enforcement-only approaches for the past 20 years and they obviously have not worked," said Waslin.

THEY WILL BECOME GUEST WORKERS AND MONKEY A S S L O V ER S

quote:

Originally posted by Babybeh:
THEY WILL BECOME GUEST WORKERS AND MONKEY A S S L O V ER S

monkey *** thinks NAACP will save and protect her

but mr. pancho gonzal e z will still get her from the rear end