Advertisements

Tag Archives: illegal immigrants

A Day Without Immigrants

So apparently today was supposed to be some kind of statement – a “Day Without Immigrants.”

Washington, D.C., will experience a “Day Without Immigrants” along with a number of other major cities across the country on Thursday. The grassroots movement is calling for immigrants not to go to work or make purchases on Feb. 16 to show President Trump ho [sic.] much legal and illegal immigrants contribute to the economy.

2017-02-15-day-without-immigrants_0Let’s put aside the obvious economic ignorance exhibited here. One day without a fairly small percentage of the population working and making purchases will hurt no one except maybe their employers who seem more than happy to virtue signal their support for immigration, which no one has proposed to ban writ large, by giving their foreign-born workers a paid day off. Those same immigrants staging this protest and not buying anything, will purchase what they need tomorrow… or the next day. No harm, no foul. Any money “lost” from any sale today, will be made up tomorrow or the next day, because ultimately people need what they need.

Second, just how many illegal immigrants do we have working in the DC area? Do they really make such a huge impact on the local economy? And also, will it honestly impact the President, who I’m pretty sure isn’t going out to Bub & Pop’s to get a sandwich or picking up street food at a cart today.

I wouldn’t even have known this was going on if I hadn’t come across it in a news feed.

Local restaurants – if they support this “boycott” – closed. So what? This immigrant brings her own lunch to work.

The employees of those establishments that do not support this empty action and who decided not to show up for work today anyway, could find themselves shitcanned in favor of someone who will actually work. And if not, they’re simply not going to get paid for that day, unless they have earned leave. Who loses? They do.

Smoke & Barrel in Washington DC had the following up on their Facebook page two days ago.

As a Latino business owner I stand in solidarity with all of my immigrant staff. Therefore, we will close our kitchen this Thursday in support of our immigrant staff’s desire and right to protest the evolving state of immigration policies in our country. Our bars will remain open and our guests are welcome to BYOF (bring your own food.) -John Andrade, owner

OK, so they’ll still sell booze, and they’ll allow people to bring their own food, because they can’t possibly lose the profits! But yay, solidarity! No sacrifice. No business lost. So what is it, exactly, that they’re trying to impact?

Boycott school? Really? The one place that should educate and give them something of value, they’re encouraged to skip. What, exactly, will that do to the school? The teachers will continue teaching. The other students will continue learning. And the illegal immigrant kids who are skipping school are only shooting themselves in the foot.

Methinks these people have a much inflated view of their own value.

The flyer claims that without them the country is “paralyzed.”

Well, this immigrant is at work today, and for once, I didn’t experience metro fuckery. Correlation, of course, does not equal causation, but the 20 minute commute was pretty darn good today.

I bring my own lunch, and I don’t eat at the restaurants that are participating in this “boycott” anyway. (We ate at Pupatella in Arlington once, and the service was so shitty after an hour and a half wait, that I swore never to go there again. The food wasn’t horrible, but it wasn’t even remotely worth it.)

I don’t plan on going shopping, because most days I work 10-11 hours, and I’m too tired to do anything but go home and go to sleep.

When I need to go shopping, it will be on a weekend, so the “boycott” ultimately means nothing to me.

If the purpose of this action was to “paralyze” the country, the organizers might want to learn economics first.

Advertisements

Dumbest Plan EVAR

So the Hairy Hemorrhoid™ finally came out with a “plan” to force Mexico to pay for a wall between our two countries, and a stupider plan, if you can even call it that, has never been proposed.

Basically, he plans to impound all remittances from illegal wages going to Mexico from the United States steal people’s money.

I shit you not.

dumbshitI don’t even know where to begin with this dumbshittery.

Immigrants both legal and illegal send money back home to Mexico. How the hell does one separate the “good” money from the “bad?”

Seizure of private property without due process in order to threaten Mexico with reducing the country’s GDP by an estimated less than two percent? Good plan, there, Sparky!

Stop all financial transactions from banks here to Mexico? You’ve just pissed off the financial sector and empowered bulk cash smugglers, who make billions of dollars per year carting monetary instruments across the Mexican border.

And just how much would the law enforcement resources cost? You know… the ones that would have to be expended checking on the immigration status of every individual who wants to wire money overseas? And how much more will it cost to deal with the increase in bulk cash smuggling? Is he going to hire officers to go through everyone’s mail, when inevitably immigrants start buying pre-paid cash cards to mail home to Mexico after financial institutions are prevented from wiring money across the border?

Oh, and by the way, since Mexico is our second largest goods export market, per the US Trade Representative, what does he think will happen to our exports? He whines about a $56 billion trade deficit now? Wait till he tries to implement restrictions on financial transfers and confiscate people’s wages!

Yeah, the guy is a douche stick with ears. Can we please stop with the joke that is his candidacy now? Please?

Setting The Record Straight On Immigration

Longtime readers of this blog know our views on illegal immigrants and immigration and border security. That said, there’s been some sentiment on the immigration issue lately in the Virginia righty blogosphere that I feel compelled to respond to. I wasn’t one of those offended by the (in)famous Super Bowl commercial featuring America the Beautiful sung in various languages, but Jim Bowden makes some very salient points otherwise about borders, culture, and the rise and fall of nations nonetheless.  On the other side of the ledger, many who should know better are rushing to the defense of the GOP establishment and their immigration ‘principles’ that came out of the GOP House retreat late last month.

Particularly galling at Bearing Drift today is the repeated use of the word ‘nativist’ to describe those of us who actually expect immigration laws to be enforced. In this same post, Shaun Kenney, whom I nearly always agree with otherwise, decries caricaturing of illegal immigrants using a graphic, and then does the exact same thing to those of us who demand border security and the rule of law, using a graphic of the memorable Bill “The Butcher” Cutting character, played by Daniel Day-Lewis, from the film Gangs of New York. We also apparently are demanding draconian violations of civil liberties and the rounding up of the 12 to 15 million illegals come hell or high water… News to me. He advocates for amnesty, well, because it’s mean to expect these poor, innocent illegal immigrants to show some respect for our laws and sovereignty. Oh, and the Catholic Church, represented on this issue by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, wants amnesty, so for some reason that should settle it. I think not. Come on, Shaun, you’re better than that. That is the height of hypocrisy. And please, people, quit conflating legal and illegal immigration.

Over at Virginia Virtucon, a post is up taking Dave Brat, a candidate for U.S. House in the 7th District, to task for questioning the incumbent, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, on immigration, because Brat demands immigration laws be enforced, while opposing Obamacare. The author has the nerve to suggest it’s hypocritical because Obamacare is the “law of the land”. Respectfully, this is political weaselry at best. The Affordable Care Act is only in force because John Roberts chose to place his concern for the ‘reputation of the SCOTUS’ (or something) above the plain language of the Constitution. Even left-wing SCOTUS watchers were amazed that he sided with the four liberal justices. No one has ever credibly suggested that immigration and border security laws are unconstitutional.  Such a comparison is ridiculous on its face. Add to this that Brat would seek repeal of the Affordable Care Act should he be elected, and the attacks come off as even more patently ridiculous. Factor in that Cantor himself said on the House floor less than two weeks ago that “immigration reform could be an economic boon to this country” and it’s easy to see why conservatives are suspicious of Cantor, Bob Goodlatte, and House leadership on immigration issues.

Want to win the trust of conservatives on these issues? Enforce the law and secure the border. Once that’s done, then, and ONLY then, will we be interested in discussing immigration reform. The visa and immigration system is certainly broken, by over a century of lobbying by every industry, racial interest group, religious denomination and labor group imaginable, and cries out for repair. But just like the amnesty Reagan signed in the 80s, the business lobby will team up with others to prevent any meaningful enforcement, and this time we have an administration ulterior political motives to look the other way already. No amnesty, and no reform until enforcement. Learn it, practice it, earn it.

Immigration Reform Bill – Reform… Unless Not (WITH CRITICAL UPDATE)

I decided to plow through this monster this morning after a cup of yummy French Roast coffee. I didn’t want to read about it; I wanted to read the legislation itself, because I like to make my own judgments about this infamous bill for which McCain, Rubio and other illegal alien fellaters betray this country.

For those of you who want to read this 1,922- page beast, have at it. You will need Adobe Reader and some Excedrin to get through it. And maybe some tequila.

I won’t go through the entire nearly 2000 page document, because I value your sanity (and mine), and because it would likely take me as long as a PhD dissertation. Instead, I’m merely going to point out some of the more problematic portions of this bill, and I’ll let you decide how you want to proceed.

Generally speaking, I have no problem with immigrants – immigrants who come here legally, meet the requirements, live off the products of their own labor, rather than the general benefits provided by this country at taxpayer expense, learn English and do not demand government services in their home language, costing the taxpayer yet more money.

I am an immigrant. My parents came here legally with nearly nothing in their pockets. We struggled to learn English for the first year, and my parents worked menial jobs – jobs that most Americans would find distasteful and beneath them. But they worked those jobs anyway – both of them with graduate degrees in engineering – because they knew that eventually they would do better.

So lest someone accuse me of being anti-immigrant, you can stick it up your asses. I’m no such thing.

I am, however, against implementing a convoluted piece of legislation to “reform” our broken immigration system, if it costs America a small fortune, and does nothing to actually reform our broken immigration system.

That’s exactly what this bill is – a waste of time and resources that won’t fix anything, and certainly will not turn the Hispanic tide to the GOP, like the clueless party leadership hopes it will. No matter what the Republicans do, they will never get an overwhelming percentage of the Hispanic vote. Sorry, GOP, but you’re idiots if you believe you can pander your way into the hearts of Hispanics. Ain’t going to happen. Hispanics prefer Democrats 2-1, and your amnesty proposals for illegals won’t change that. In 1986, Ronald Reagan gave amnesty to millions of illegals. In 1988, Hispanics gave the GOP 30 percent of their vote.

So what is it that makes the current crop of RINO dimwits think that giving amnesty to millions of illegal aliens will result in anything different?

Worse yet, what makes the current crop of RINO dimwits think that couching S.744 as somehow tough on requirements for legalization of illegal aliens will go unnoticed?

Let’s start with these supposedly “stringent” migration deterrent measures that are part of this alleged “improvement” to border security. They’re no such thing.

For instance:

In any migration deterrence program carried out at a border, the Secretary and cooperating entities shall for each apprehended individual—
(A) as soon as practicable after such individual is apprehended—
(i) inquire as to whether the apprehended individual is—
(I) a parent, legal guardian, or primary caregiver of a child; or
(II) traveling with a spouse or child; and
(ii) ascertain whether repatriation of the apprehended individual presents any humanitarian concern or concern related to such individual’s physical safety; and
(B) ensure that, with respect to a decision related to the repatriation or referral for prosecution of the apprehended individual, due consideration is given—
(i) to the best interests of such individual’s child, if any;
(ii) to family unity whenever possible; and
(iii) to other public interest factors, including humanitarian concerns and concerns related to the apprehended individual’s physical safety.

The way I’m translating this is that apprehended illegal aliens at the border will be deterred and turned back from entering, unless…

…they have kids with them, and unless…

…they have another sob story.

So, they will be prevented from entering, unless…

…they’re not.

Well, that clears it up!

This bill is chock full of such wishy-washy directives.

The physical presence requirement (p.943) – the alien must be physically present in the United States on the date on which the alien submits an application for registered provisional immigrant status, and will not meet the requirements for application for said status, unless…

… the absences are brief, casual, and innocent (well, there’s an objective criterion… NOT!). And it doesn’t even whether or not these absences were authorized.

In other words, you must be physically present in the US, unless you’re not.

Oh, and by the way, being a criminal doesn’t automatically preclude you from applying for the registered provisional immigrant status. You’re allowed to have committed three misdemeanors before you’re precluded…

…unless you get a waiver.

And  by the way, the victims of the crime committed by illegal aliens don’t really have a say in whether or not the criminal illegal alien is allowed to apply for registered provisional immigrant status. The government must notify them (p.957), and the victims can protest. But the illegal alien is given legal status ultimately at the discretion of the government.

‘‘(D) CRIME VICTIMS’ RIGHTS TO NOTICE
14 AND CONSULTATION.—Prior to applying, or exercising, any authority under this paragraph, or ruling upon an application allowed under subparagraph (C) the Secretary shall—
(i) determine whether or not an alien described under subparagraph (B) or (C) has a conviction for any criminal offense;
(ii) in consultation with the agency that prosecuted the criminal offense under clause (i), if the agency, in the sole discretion of the agency, is willing to cooperate with the Secretary, make all reasonable efforts to identify each victim of a crime for which an alien determined to be a criminal under clause (i) has a conviction;
(iii) in consultation with the agency that prosecuted the criminal offense under clause (i), if the agency, in the sole discretion of the agency, is willing to cooperate with  the Secretary, make all reasonable efforts to provide each victim identified under clause (ii) with written notice that the alien is being considered for a waiver under this paragraph, specifying in such notice that the victim may—
     (I) take no further action;
     (II) request written notification by the Secretary of any subsequent application for waiver filed by the criminal alien under this paragraph and of the final determination of the Secretary regarding such application; or
     (III) not later than 60 days after the date on which the victim receives written notice under this clause, request a consultation with the Secretary relating to whether the application of the offender should be granted and if the victim cannot be located or if no response is received from the victim within the designated time period, the Secretary shall proceed with adjudication of the application; and
(iv) at the request of a victim under clause (iii), consult with the victim to determine whether or not the Secretary should, in the case of an alien who is determined under clause (i) to have a conviction for any criminal offense, exercise waiver authority for an alien described under subparagraph (B), or grant the application of an alien described under subparagraph (C).

(E) CRIME VICTIMS’ RIGHT TO INTERVENTION.—In addition to the victim notification and consultation provided for in subparagraph (D), the Secretary shall allow the victim of a criminal alien described under subparagraph (B) or (C) to request consultation regarding, or notice of, any application for waiver filed by the criminal alien under this paragraph, including the final determination of the Secretary regarding such application.

So a felon illegal alien is not eligible to receive legal status, unless the government grants a waiver, and notifies the victim of the alien’s felony that the felon is about to be granted amnesty. And if the victim objects… well… the government has the final determination anyway.

An illegal alien’s application status can be denied (I’m sure that makes you feel lots better), unless…

…the alien files an amended application (p.974)

The illegal alien will pay fees, unless…

…the government determines a fee reduction or waiver (p.996).

Illegal aliens will pay taxes and file all proper paperwork with the IRS, unless…

…they don’t have the proper paperwork, in which case they can file any of the following (all very impossible to forge, I’m sure):

(I) bank records;
(II) business records;
(III) employer records;
(IV) records of a labor union, day labor center, or organization that assists workers in employment;
(V) sworn affidavits from nonrelatives who have direct knowledge of the alien’s work or education, that contain—
      (aa) the name, address, and telephone number of the affiant;
      (bb) the nature and duration of the relationship between the affiant and the alien; and
      (cc) other verification or information;
Hey, buddy! I’ll give you $20 to sign this paper saying that I’m working real hard at a legally obtained job and tell the feds that you’ve been my friend for years!
(VI) remittance records; and
(VII) school records from institutions described in subparagraph (D).

Yes, you must be working and/or going to school to be eligible for registered provisional immigrant status, unless…

…you’re not.

If you’re under the age of 21 or over the age of 60, if you’re… um… slow or mentally challenged, if you are “disabled,” if you’re a dependent, if you’re on maternity leave, or have a kid and are the primary caretaker, or “unable to work due to circumstances outside the control of the alien” (how many people do you know who will admit that their unemployment is their own fault?), you’re apparently excepted (p.991).

And you must learn English (p.992)…

…unless you can’t (p.993).

Did you oppose the DREAM Act? Too bad. This bill will make it a reality starting on page 999.

Don’t want your taxpayer dollars going to private organizations that will help illegals stay here? Too bad (p.1021). These private organizations will now receive government grants (translation: your money).

And don’t forget the tons of concessions to “agricultural workers,” to include granting of permanent residence after 5 years if they prove they’ve been working not less than 100 work days of agricultural employment during each of 5 years…

…unless they weren’t.

Pregnancy, injury, severe weather, or termination of employment through no fault of their own and the inability to find another agricultural job are all exceptions to the rule.

They also have to have paid taxes and a $400 fee to the government…

…unless the government limits said fees, and it has the authority to do so.

And if employers who were hiring migrant workers think they can now have lots of cheap labor with the legalization of these illegal aliens…

…they’d better think again.

They’re required to provide benefits, such as insurance and housing. And the minimum wages mandated to be paid to agricultural workers under this law (p.1116) will dwarf nearly any state minimum wage law, as well as the federal minimum wage law of $7.25 per hour.

‘‘(3) DETERMINATION OF WAGE RATE.— ‘‘(A) CALENDAR YEARS 2014 THROUGH 2016.
—The wage rate under this subparagraph for calendar years 2014 through 2016 shall be the higher of—
(i) the applicable Federal, State, or local minimum wage; or
(ii)(I) for the category described in paragraph (2)(A)(iii)—
     (aa) $9.37 for calendar year 2014;
     (bb) $9.60 for calendar year 2015; and
     (cc) $9.84 for calendar year 2016;
(II) for the category described in paragraph (2)(A)(iv)—
     (aa) $11.30 for calendar year 2014;
     (bb) $11.58 for calendar year 2015; and
     (cc) $11.87 for calendar year 2016;
(III) for the category described in paragraph (2)(A)(v)—
     (aa) $9.17 for calendar year 2014;
     (bb) $9.40 for calendar year 2015; and
     (cc) $9.64 for calendar year 2016; and
(IV) for the category described in paragraph (2)(A)(vi)—
     (aa) $10.82 for calendar year 2014;
     (bb) $11.09 for calendar year 2015; and
     (cc) $11.37 for calendar year 2016.
(B) SUBSEQUENT YEARS.—The Secretary shall increase the hourly wage rates set forth in clauses (i) through (iv) of subparagraph (A), for each calendar year after the calendar years described in subparagraph (A) by an amount equal to—
     (i) 1.5 percent, if the percentage increase in the Employment Cost Index for wages and salaries during the previous calendar year, as calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is less than 1.5 percent;
     (ii) the percentage increase in such Employment Cost Index, if such percentage increase is between 1.5 percent and 2.5 percent, inclusive; or
     (iii) 2.5 percent, if such percentage increase is greater than 2.5 percent.

Now, let’s look at this from a free market perspective.

People come here illegally and earn what any of us would consider a paltry salary. This is good for both employers and employees. The employers get cheap labor that allows them to sell products at prices we all find appealing. The immigrant – even though his salary is petty compared to those of us in skilled jobs – will still get a higher salary than he would have ever gotten in his home country! Why would he even  come here if the pay was worse than in his country of origin, right?

With the passage of this legislation, the employers will no longer be allowed to pay paltry wages. They will be required to provide housing and benefits and wages that are higher than the minimum wage requirements in any state in this country.

Do you think they will keep more of these illegal alien workers if it’s going to cost them more to employ them, or less?

Do you think the result will be cheaper apples, or more expensive ones?

Do you think some of these employers will let these illegal alien workers go, if it becomes to expensive to employ them?

And do you think that the illegal aliens who have lost their jobs “through no fault of their own” will be able to apply for registered provisional immigrant status despite not having a job and paying taxes? You bet your ass they will!

In other words, the radio ads you hear about this bill imposing strict rules on illegal aliens about working, about paying taxes, about learning English, about going to the back of the line, about increased border security are a crock.

This bill provides comprehensive immigration reform…

…unless it doesn’t.

UPDATE: Thank you to commenter Rikkisan for pointing me to this critical video. You need to watch it, and you need to understand how bad this bill is actually is. In it, DC Caller’s Ginny Thomas interviews Former New York lieutenant governor Betsy McCaughey, who has also read this bill and who has many of the same concerns as I do, but focuses on more security-related problems in this bill.

Please, PLEASE follow the link and watch this video!

It’s as if Ms. McCaughey and I share a brain!!!

%d bloggers like this: