Thursday, June 27, 2013

S744 Immigration Reform Bill Voting Record

List includes Senators who voted in favor of S744 and against it on Thursday, June 27, 2013:

http://www.senate.gov/galleries/CIR%20Vote.pdf

Results:  68-32



List includes Senators who voted in favor of the Corker-Hoeven Amendment [Cloture] and against it on Monday, June 24, 2013:

http://www.senate.gov/galleries/Cloture%20on%20Leahy.pdf

Results:  67-27



Read S744 including Corker-Hoeven Amendment:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/immigration-reform-bill-full-text-93172.html






Monday, June 24, 2013

IndyCAN: The Latest Sham


The Indianapolis Congregation Action Network (IndyCAN) proclaims to bring “people together across racial, economic, and religious lines” in hopes of “achieving power for positive change.”  Yet, despite their superior claims, the organization’s mission is misleading.  Although they consider helping the “most vulnerable” their top priority, it would be perhaps more appropriate to say that their philosophy is to use the misfortunes of others to further their own political agenda.

Consider for example, their claim that they work across “religious lines.”  All of the listed 22 members on IndyCAN’s website are churches.  Curiously missing from this list are any temples, mosques, gurudwaras, and other places of worship.  If IndyCAN is indeed interested in working with people regardless of the person’s faith, should they not include more than churches as a resource to the most vulnerable?  What if a particular individual seeks help but does not profess the same faith as IndyCAN members?  Would IndyCAN require such an individual to convert or help them anyway?  Of course, they could always keep the list to include churches only but then they should be more accurate and forthcoming about their mission.  At a minimum, their position is confusingly ignorant, at worst, a dangerous encroachment on a person’s religious freedom. 

IndyCAN also boasts of working across “racial lines.”  If race is not a targeted issue for this organization, how do they explain the overemphasis on the plight of a Spanish-speaking populace only?  For instance, why do they only have “Espanol” marked as a choice for people visiting their website but no alternatives for Indians who speak Hindi, Pakistanis who speak Urdu, Chinese who speak Mandarin, and Somalis who speak Somali?  Are we to assume that people from other races are all well off and only, those who speak “Espanol” are most vulnerable?  Does IndyCAN want us to believe that only an “Espanol” speaking vulnerable population resides in Indianapolis and the surrounding area?  That would be preposterous indeed! 

Another paradox is IndyCAN’s claim to help people across the “economic lines.”  How they help the “low to moderate-income people” and suggest that they work with people across “economic lines” is mindboggling.  Indeed, if they do claim to work with people from all economic backgrounds, then all people in the area, looking for help, should have the same services available to them regardless of the individual’s financial background. 

Perhaps, the most telling part of IndyCAN’s true function can be found in its Mission Statement itself:  “IndyCAN’s mission is to build the leadership capacity of low and moderate-income people who live, work, and worship in Marion County, empowering them to work alongside service providers, policy makers, and other stakeholders to increase collaboration, leverage resources, and improve the systems impacting their lives.” [My emphasis].  In other words, IndyCAN’s mission is to use the “low and moderate-income people” to further their own ambitions and those of interest groups who stand to benefit the most from this sham.  If IndyCAN, as a Christian organization, wanted to help the “most vulnerable,” it would spend less time on promoting their political agenda and focus more on Christ.  Making corrections on their Mission Statement would be a great start.


Saturday, June 15, 2013

S744 Immigration Reform or Amnesty?


The latest Immigration Reform Bill S.744 is a deceptive proposal pushed by the Gang of 8 in hopes of fooling the American people yet again.  At the heart of it, S.744 is first an amnesty bill with empty promises to enforce the border later.  The bill proposes to fix the immigration problem but as it stands, it would make matters much worse for Americans now and in the future.

Some of the Reasons Given by the Gang of 8 for Pushing this Bill include:

1.  The bill increases skilled immigrant workers and helps the labor shortage in America.

With unemployment at an all time high of 7.6%, most Americans would beg to differ.  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the last 10 years, the lowest unemployment rates were in the year 2006-2007 at 4.6%.  Furthermore, how many of these immigrants are truly “skilled” to work and contribute to our society?  Despite Senator Rubio’s claims, it seems highly illogical that giving amnesty to illegal aliens would improve America’s economy.  If anything, it puts illegal aliens directly in competition with Americans who are trying to find work.

2.  The skilled immigrant workers in turn help America’s economy grow by creating more jobs for Americans.

 By that rationale, one should assume that Americans are a group of the most unskilled workers in the world and incapable of growing the nation’s economy.  Indeed, if this was truly the case, should not the Americans have an opportunity to gain the knowledge, training, and expertise to become skilled workers?  Instead of choking Americans with outrageous programs such as Obamacare that tax us to death, it would be better for the Government to step aside and let the American creative and entrepreneurial spirit have a chance.

3.  The bill ONLY gives provisional legal status but NOT necessarily citizenship.

The statement is untrue.  In fact, under the DREAM ACT, it puts illegal immigrants who have lived here for 5 years and arrived here before the age of 16 on a pathway to citizenship:

“IN GENERAL – The Secretary may adjust the status of a registered provisional immigrant to the status of a lawful permanent resident if the immigrant demonstrates that he or she (i) has been a registered provisional immigrant for at least 5 years; (ii) was younger than 16 years of age on the date on which the alien initially entered the United States; (iii) has earned a high school diploma, a commensurate alternative award from a public or private high school or secondary school, or has obtained a general education development certificate recognized under State law, or a high school equivalency diploma in the United States…”


Furthermore, seasonal workers can get blue card within 1 year of the bill then get a permanent resident status within 5 years.

4.  Illegal aliens are required to pay “back taxes” which grows the economy.

Only if the IRS has “assessed” taxes as of the day of the application.  Therefore, any taxes they should have paid prior to the application will NOT be paid because neither the employer nor the illegal alien have documents to prove how long they have lived and worked in the US and how much taxes they owe. 

What S.744 Immigration Reform Bill Really Does:

1.  Expands Government.

The bill gives the Department of Homeland Security super power to make decisions in relation to approval or disqualification of legal status for the illegal immigrants.  The DHS decides which laws to enforce, how many green cards to give out, and how to handle amnesty in the future:

Under Section 245 E:

“Any illegal Aliens seeking administrative review shall not be removed from the United States until a final decision is rendered…& During the period in which an alien may request administrative review under this subsection, and during the period that any such review is pending, the alien shall not be considered ‘unlawfully present in the United States.’”                                   


Furthermore, DHS Secretary can waive any requirements for “inadmissibility if the Secretary determines that such refulsal of admission is against the public interest or would result in hardship to the alien’s United States citizen or permanent resident parent, spouse, or child” and “No court shall have jurisdiction to review a decision or action of the Attorney General or the Secretary regarding a waiver.”

 

2.  It does not require any additional border fence but leaves it up to the DHS to provide a “strategy” that may or may not be enforced.

3.  The bill does NOT improve public safety:

“(Sec3605) (f) Refusal To Issue; Revocation – In accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary, the Secretary shall refuse to issue or renew, or shall revoke and debar from eligibility to obtain a certificate of registration for a period of not greater than 5 years, after notice and an opportunity for hearing, a certificate of registration under this section if- (3) the applicant for, or holder of, the certification has been convicted within the preceding 5 years of—(A) any felony under State or Federal law or crime involving robbery, bribery, extortion, embezzlement, grand larceny, burglary, arson, violation of narcotics laws, murder, rape, assault with intent to kill, assault which inflicts grievous bodily injury, prostitution, peonage, or smuggling or harboring individuals who have entered the United States illegally.”

It then further states:

“(g) Re-registration of Violators – The Secretary shall establish a procedure by which foreign labor contractor that has had its registration revoked under subsection (f) may seek to re-register under this subsection by demonstrating to the Secretary’s satisfaction that the foreign labor contractor has not violated this subtitle in the previous 5 years and that the foreign labor contractor has taken sufficient steps to prevent future violations of this subtitle.”
It promises to mandate E-Verify to fulfill the promises of 1986 and 1996 laws but it provides work permits to 11 million illegal aliens before any E-Verify requirements.

Moreover, “it voids State and Local E-Verify laws.”                                   

4.  Does not curb or cut excessive Government Spending:


Instead of cutting spending, the bill creates more spending and thereby higher taxes for Americans.  According to the Heritage Foundation, 11 million illegal immigrants would cost American taxpayers $6.3 trillion in taxes.  For the first 10 years, the illegal aliens will be able to receive benefits from public education, fire, police, highways, parks, etc.  Thereafter, upon receiving their green cards, they will be able to receive welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare.  If the bill becomes law, it will only grow the national debt further and increase taxes for Americans.


5.  Benefits Politicians and Interest Groups who have conjured up the bill.

 It gives politically connected interest groups an advantage over the rights of Americans.  There are currently 4 million people in the world waiting to get into the US LEGALLY.  There are more than 11 million illegal aliens already in the US who will receive voting power (despite what the politicians claim) through this bill.  Most of these illegal aliens will vote for Democrats in office.  Is it then a wonder why a supposed conservative senator such as Marco Rubio has aligned himself with this bill?  Clearly, he understands the importance of siding with the majority.


The focus of immigration reform should be on improving the existing immigration laws by fixing the visa system, securing the border of our country, and encouraging LEGAL immigration.  Rewarding lawbreakers by giving them amnesty now will only set the precedent for the rest to follow.  In a nation of laws, this quick fix approach is unacceptable.  Regardless of what the peddling politicians may say, Americans need to remember that this Government by the People, for the People, must listen to the People because they hold the ultimate authority in this Republic.

Tuesday, June 4, 2013

Ever Present Liberal Bias

I recently submitted a letter to the editor for my local newspaper:  Journal and Courier.  The letter was in response to an article published by Professor Harry Targ (Purdue University) in the Journal and Courier.  My letter was published on May 26, 2013 with a minor change.  The minor change was removing the name of the professor in question (I wonder why hmm).  I am posting my original letter here to emphasize the liberal bias within our universities and colleges (and news media).  The letter follows below:


In his May 21, 2013 article, Professor Harry Targ states that the IRS scandal is “not what conservative opportunists claim what it is.”  The title itself is a clear indicator of Targ’s liberal bias in response to the IRS scandal unfolding in Washington recently.  Targ wants us to believe that the Heritage Action for America is unfairly using the tax code to advance its conservative political agenda.

Targ states that the “Internal Revenue Code, organizations may apply and be eligible for tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(4) if they engage primarily in “social welfare activities.”  He accuses the Heritage Action for America of abusing the tax code by stating “their political advocacy for tax purposes as social welfare.”  Interestingly, Targ seems to forget that Purdue University enjoys the same “tax exempt” status.  Lest, he argue that Purdue University offers only “social welfare activities” to students and as such, maintains the right to remain “tax exempt,” would he care to explain how inviting convicted Pentagon Bomber, Bill Ayers, to a speaking engagement, funded by Purdue University’s “tax exempt funds” fits under the “social welfare” category of the Internal Revenue Code? 
It is evident that Targ’s primary complaint is not the use of the tax code itself but the application of it towards conservative principles by Tea Party groups.  Indeed, it is unlikely that Targ would have even whimpered had the group supported his cause.  Perhaps, next time, he may want to remember his own dismal record before accusing others of duplicity.