Posts Tagged ‘Immigration’
by Javier Manjarres
With Senator Rand Paul sided with the pro-Amnesty for illegal immigrants lobby, will this move hurt his chances, in what many believe is the Senator further positioning himself to run for President in 2016?
Libertarians have always been an “open borders” group that has even called for the abolition of the U.S. Border Patrol and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) The Libertarian Party (LP) also believes that as free markets go, so does the need for free and clear movement of needed capital and labor across the U.S.-Mexico border.
Here is what Senator Paul said-
“They would just get in the current line,” Paul said. “As long as those here want to work, I would get them work visas. And as long as they want to apply, then you would get in the normal line for citizenship that’s already available so it’s not a new pathway. It’s an existing pathway and then what we have to figure out is if the existing pathway isn’t working; how do we fix the existing pathway and I’m willing to look at all of those things.”-Sen. Rand Paul, ABCRubio has come out with a controversial bipartisan immigration reform concept with his “Gang of 8″ Senators, but has recently stated that he could not support any bill coming out of the Senate that would ‘gift’ citizenship for illegal immigrants.
In addition, Rubio will not support any piece of legislation that would ‘push’ those illegal immigrants coming out of the shadows to the front, or close to the front of the existing immigration line. Rubio believes that anyone afforded the opportunity to a “pathway to citizenship” should go to the back of the line.
Paul’s legislation seems to mimic what Rubio and his “Gang of 8″ have proposed.
With Paul and Rubio be slated as the two front runners for the 2016 Republican Presidential nomination, who has the best chance to win the nomination? Rubio or Paul?
Here is something that should convince you of the “Religion of Peace,” sufficiently to make you nauseous.
The Real war on Women, 12 Oct 12
Ron Synovitz - Ron Synovitz is a correspondent with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
The Pakistani Taliban has provided its justification for the shooting of a 14-year-old schoolgirl who made a name for herself by challenging the Islamist group’s crackdown on girls’ education. In a letter issued following international condemnation of the shooting of Malala Yousafzai in Pakistan’s northwestern Swat Valley, the Tehrik-i Taliban Pakistan (TTP) states its case for the attack and threatens anyone who challenges its strict interpretation of Shari’a law. Signed by TTP spokesman Ihsanullah Ihsan, the letter was sent to RFE/RL’s Radio Mashaal as well as other Pakistani and international media organizations early on October 10.
The letter, written in English, says a Taliban gunman “successfully targeted” Yousafzai “although she was young and a girl and the TTP does not believe in attacking women.” It says Yousafzai, who gained global recognition at the age of 11 through an online diary she wrote for the BBC about TTP influence in her hometown of Mingora, was shot because “whom so ever leads a campaign against Islam and Shariah is ordered to be killed by Shariah.”
The letter accuses Yousafzai of being “pro-West,” promoting Western culture, and speaking out against Taliban militants — charging that Yousafzai’s “personality became a symbol of an anti-Shariah campaign.” Using the term for Islamic holy warriors to refer to Taliban militants, the letter says that “Yousafzai was playing a vital role in bucking up the emotions” of Pakistan’s military and government “and was inviting Muslims to hate mujahideen.”
The letter goes on to argue that “[i]t is a clear command of Shariah that any female who, by any means, plays a role in the war against mujahideen should be killed.” It then seeks to justify the shooting of the schoolgirl by citing passages from the Koran in which a child or woman was killed.
“If anyone argues about [Yousafzai's] young age, then [consult] the story of Hazrat Khizar in the Koran relating that Hazrat Khizar — while traveling with the Prophet Musa — killed a child,” the letter reads. “Arguing about the reason for his killing, he said that the parents of this child are pious and in future [the child] will cause a bad name for them.”
For those who argue against Yousafzai’s shooting was not justifiable because she was female, the letter says, “then we can see the incident [in the Koran] of the killing of a wife by a blind companion of the Prophet Muhammad because she spoke insulting words about the Prophet. And the Prophet praised this act.”
The letter also addresses criticisms of the TTP’s stance against girls’ education. “The Tehrik Taliban’s crime wasn’t that they banned education for girls. Instead our crime is that we tried to bring the education system for both boys and girls under Shariah,” the letter reads. “We are deadly against coeducation and a secular education system, and Shariah orders us to be against it.”
The Taliban’s justification concludes with a threat, saying: “If anyone thinks that Malala is targeted because of education, that’s absolutely wrong and is propaganda by media. Malala is targeted because of her pioneer role in preaching secularism and so-called enlightened moderation. And whom so ever will commit so in the future too will be targeted again by the TTP.”
The Republican Party can do a better job in reaching out to immigrants, Gov. Mitt Romney told NewsmaxTV, and he vowed to prove his bona fides on this issue in his first year when he signs into law sweeping immigration reform legislation.
Romney also said he agreed with comments made by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla) in a recent Newsmax TV interview that the “shrill” voices of some politicians, including those in the Republican Party, have helped create the impression that the GOP is against Hispanics immigrating to this country.
“I agree with Sen. Rubio when he says some people are so adamant when they’re addressing illegal issues that they miscommunicate, that somehow we don’t welcome immigrants,” Romney said.
“We do welcome immigrants, and we want a system that makes it easier for people to know what their status is, to have a transparency that doesn’t exist now in our immigration system,” Romney said.
President Obama has put Republicans on the defensive in recent weeks by using executive power to grant de facto amnesty to close to one million children of undocumented aliens living in the U.S. The move has helped bolster Obama’s poll numbers among Hispanics, a key group that could help decide November’s election.
In his sit down with Newsmax, Romney struck back at the President’s track record on helping immigrants.
“Frankly we’d like to do what the president said he was going to do when he was campaigning as candidate Obama. He said he was going to reform immigration his first year. He just decided not to do that.”
Romney also offered a broad outline of an immigration plan that would be conciliatory toward immigrants without status living in the U.S.
“I will reform immigration with an idea of making immigration more transparent, helping reunite families, assuring that we have a large and ample supply of workers that are needed in agriculture and other temporary assignments,” he said.
As for children of those who came to this country illegally, “I want to make sure they have a permanent answer as to what their status will be.”
He then suggested he would go beyond Obama’s plan. “… I’ve indicated in my view that those who serve in the military or have advanced degrees would certainly qualify for that kind of permanent status.”
“There’s a huge first benefit to the country of our immigration system,” Romney said. “Bringing people in legally to America has been a source of vitality from the beginning, and continues to be.” Romney, who may be able to forge a reform plan with a Republican Congress more effectively than Obama, suggested the current system needs an overhaul, adding that the country needs to “use our visa program to favor those that want to be reunited with family members. Putting families together should be, if not our highest priority, then one of our highest priorities.”
Read more on Newsmax.com: Romney Vows Major Immigration Reforms
Oh, ye of smallish bureaucratic minds.
It would probably be less than undifficult for the state law enforcement officers to set up under-the-radar programs with neighboring states, which will stealthily utilize their 287 (g) portals into the Federal bureaucratic system, which will allow the Arizona officers to continue their work in identifying those who don’t belong.
Not only that, they might also be able to utilize these “friendly states” to draw off the illegals that Obama has refused to deal with in Arizona.
You see, the issue is simply the fact that Arizona’s border, for numerous reasons, is a magnet for illegals looking to “cross-over.” So, it would stand to reason that these neighboring states of Arizona’s, and numerous others, might truly be interested in helping Arizona staunch the flow, so to speak, that will eventually only end up within these other state borders anyway.
Not to mention even those Red States, which diametrically oppose everything that the White House has perpetrated to date; do you think they might actually toss Arizona to the wolves?
You see, there are numerous, empathetic law enforcement offices dotting the landscape, profusely in the southwest US, if not in many other places. Not to mention the fact that human ingenuity always finds a way around ridiculous bureaucracy, and Sheriff Joe is what we can easily tout as being existentially adored across Obama’s contiguous 58 states.
So, while El Magnifico and his borderless disciples might think they have found an original way around the checks and balances of an equal branch of government, being the Supreme Court, their disingenuous elation is premature, at best.
But what if the Feds find out and decide to take action against these neighboring states for aiding and abetting the Constitutional enforcement of US law?
Those states might literally say, “Go ahead, make our day.”
Regardless of all, Obama’s move after the SCOTUS decision will probably ring the final departing bell of a completely out of control administration that simply can’t even buy a win in November, especially after all of this.
Justice Antonin Scalia took President Barack Obama to task in a scathing 22-page dissent to Monday’s Supreme Court decision striking down the majority of Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law, calling Obama’s failure to enforce parts of the Immigration Act “mind boggling.”
“The president said at a news conference that the new program is ‘the right thing to do’ in light of Congress’s failure to pass the administration’s proposed revision of the Immigration Act,” Scalia wrote in his dissent. “Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.”
The Reagan appointee went on to write:
“Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are unwilling to do so. Thousands of Arizona’s estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants—including not just children but men and women under 30—are now assured immunity from enforcement, and will be able to compete openly with Arizona citizens for employment.”
Scalia called Obama’s immigration enforcement policy “lax,” alleging that the federal government does not want to enforce immigration laws, which could leave the States “helpless before those evil effects of illegal immigration.”
Scalia argued that the entire Arizona immigration law should have been upheld because the state is “entitled” to craft its own immigration policy.
The majority of the justices ruled Monday that Arizona’s law is unconstitutional with the exception of the provision that allows police officers to ask about an individual’s immigration status if they are pulled over during a traffic stop
Read more on Newsmax.com: Justice Scalia: Obama’s Immigration Stance ‘Boggles the Mind’
Just two months after the government started accepting applications, next year’s highly skilled worker visas hit the numerical cap. No firm will be now ableto apply to sponsor highly skilled foreign workers. Foreign high skilled workers neither “take” American jobs nor do they lower American wages. The low numerical cap, along with other regulations and visa fees, need to go, if the American economy is to grow.
The H-1B visa is a three year, employer-sponsored work visa, renewable one time, for highly skilled foreign workers. Only 85, 000 such visas are issued annually to private firms.
Most H-1B workers specialize in fields demanded by the technology sector, a major source of innovation in the American economy. In May 2012, the unemployment rate for engineers was 5 percent, well below the national average of about 8 percent. There is an unemployment rate of 3.5 percent in computer or mathematical occupations and a 1.9 percent unemployment rate for science workers. H-1B and highly skilled workers fill those niche professions.
Foreign highly skilled workers do not “take” American jobs because the economy doesn’t have a set number of jobs. Highly skilled foreign workers create many of the firms that make America a center of technological innovation. Highly skilled foreign born workers and immigrants were instrumental in the founding of Intel, Sanmina-SCI, Sun Microsystems, eBay, Yahoo and Google, firms which have produced billions of dollars in value and employ thousands of Americans in skilled positions.
Foreign skilled workers do not lower American wages. Immigrants in general do not directly compete with Americans, but instead complement them by bringing in different skills and ability. Highly skilled foreign workers have skills that few Americans possess and are greatly demanded by American firms.
Wages aren’t affected much by H-1Bs because firms hire them as they expand, so the H-1B cap is a limit on expansion rather than a protection of American wages. If the goal of the H-1B was to lower wages, American firms would apply for more of them as a cost saving measure when profits are low and the economy is sour. But H-1B applications pour in when business and the economy are improving. H-1B application patterns show that their goal is not to lower wages.
More than half of all startups in Silicon Valley were started by immigrants, many of them Indians and Chinese who have been living here for over a decade. The government cannot tell who will be a successful entrepreneur, but the evidence is clear that immigrants — especially the highly skilled — are prone to creating businesses. Many H-1B workers apply for green cards while working here, eventually becoming Americans.
The benefits of highly skilled immigration don’t end with the immigrant though. Their children have a remarkable propensity to succeed.
The 2012 winner of the National Spelling Bee was Snigdha Nandipati from San Diego, California. She became the fifth consecutive American of Indian descent to win the contest and the 10th in the last 14 years. Her parents emigrated from India, a major source of skilled foreign immigrants and workers.
Her father, Kirshnarao Nandipati, used his skill as a software engineer to help train his daughter because, as he said after her win, “My English is so weak that I cannot train her. I had to look into finding information of how to prepare her. I am a software engineer. I wrote a program for her that pulls information from the dictionary.”
Spelling bees aren’t the only academic competitions where the children of highly skilled immigrants excel. According to Stuart Anderson of the National Foundation for American Policy, 28 of the 40 finalists of the 2011 Intel Science Talent Search Competition, known as the “Junior Nobel Prize,” have at least one immigrant parent. Twenty-four of those parents originally came to the U.S. with H1-B visas.
H-1Bs are not perfect and there are several ways to improve them, including removing or expanding the cap as well as the time limit, slashing fees, and eliminating the need for employer sponsorship.
Cutting ourselves off from foreign highly skilled workers makes all of us poorer. America’s strengths of relative free markets, contract, and property rights attract immigrants and skilled foreign workers because they can produce more here and make higher wages than in their home countries. For all of our sakes, we should let them come unhindered.