It’s never been clear what mass immigration means to John McCain. Is he simply a shill for the “cheap labor lobby” (a remnant of the slavocracy)? Or is he determined to destroy his country once and for all? No one outside of Ted Kennedy has a record of devotion to the cause of the alien invasion like John McCain. Let’s look at that record.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). John McCain has repeatedly called himself a “footsoldier in the Reagan revolution.” The IRCA was the very first effort to link employment and illegal entry. It provided for employer sanctions (civil and criminal) and an amnesty for certain illegal aliens. In signing the bill into law (November 6, 1986), President Ronald Reagan noted that this had been one his early (1981) legislative proposals and that illegal immigration represented “a challenge to our sovereignty.” What did Reagan’s “footsoldier” do?

John McCain was just completing his fourth year in the U.S. House of Representatives and was running for the Senate seat vacated by Barry Goldwater. Twelve amendments were offered when the IRCA (H.R. 3810) came up for a House vote. Nine of these votes required the yeas and nays. McCain voted “wrong” on almost all of them. He voted against consideration of the bill, against the rule, and in favor of an amendment that would have provided “civil penalties, rather than criminal penalties, for employers who engage in a pattern of hiring illegal aliens” ie, reduced penalties for the worst offenders. He voted “YES” for the amendment that denied the INS’ right to enter farms without a search warrant. This provision has bedeviled authorities ever since and was specifically opposed by Reagan. McCain voted “NO” on a close vote to strike the “amnesty” provision and then voted “NO” on final passage. Some footsoldier!

McCain-Kennedy. John McCain got the ball rolling on May 12, 2005 for the tragi-comedy known as “McCain-Kennedy” – S. 1033, the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act. In this nation-smashing manifesto, he introduced the two Third World nukes that would disfigure Senate debate for the next three years.

First, the H-5A Essential Worker Visa would add 400,000 “temporary workers” per year to compete on uneven terms with our poorest workers. Their numbers were to be geometrically augmented by up to 20 percent each year depending on when that particular year’s quota was used up. After four years working here and theoretically keeping his nose clean, the “temporary worker” could apply for permanent residence. Second, another provision, the H-5B Temporary Worker Visa would only be available to persons who could prove they were here illegally on the day the bill was signed. It would last three years and be renewable for another three years after which the worker could apply for permanent residence for himself and his spouse and minor children.

This language was accompanied by another hash of regulations to further overburden a bureaucracy that is plainly overwhelmed by current demands. The findings that decorate the beginning of the bill were no more worthwhile or coherent than those printed on the restroom walls of Joe’s flophouse. This bill recognized that government had “an obligation to its citizens to secure its borders and ensure the rule of law in its communities.” You weren’t supposed to notice that the borders remained open and the H-5B visa specifically rewarded those who break the law. Another historic fact you weren’t supposed to notice: immigration begins the day the president signs the bill; but enforcement begins when all the court cases are completed – successfully completed, the money is authorized and appropriated – borrowed, and the president decides he is going to ignore business and ethnic voter pleas and enforce the law – if and when he feels like it and, maybe, never.

The circus continued when on June 15, 2006, the Senate Judiciary committee reported out a similar but more “comprehensive” bill – S. 2611, The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. H-5A Essential Worker Visa was now disguised as H-2C and H-5B became an administrative Sec. 245B. Sen. Jeff Sessions’ people pulled an all-nighter and found that were all its provisions fully realized, S. 2611 would admit 217 million newcomers in just 20 years. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation advanced a more conservative estimate – 103 million over 20 years with costs going through the roof. Rector modified his estimate to 66 million over 20 years following passage of the hastily-drafted Bingaman amendment.

With the 110^th Congress, it was the Democrats turn to do “The McCain.” This time they danced to Harry Reid’s Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, S. 1348, introduced June 7, 2007. This modified the McCain manifesto, baiting and switching the H-5A and H-5B visas into “Y” and “Z” visas. We thought we were out of immediate danger when this quickly went down to defeat. But the clever folks who brought you deficit spending returned on June 18^th with S. 1639. This bill had the identical name but was surnamed “Kennedy-Specter.” Angry voters recognized it as just another McCain Kennedy scam and crashed Congress’s phone system. The bill failed to get cloture.

Weasel; Snivel; Cavil. McCain refused to abandon his handiwork. Speaking to reporters last November, reports MSNBC, McCain said; “It’s not a switch in position. I support the same solution. But we’ve got to secure the borders first.” Then we “round up” and deport the “criminal” aliens and find a “humane” way to deal with the rest. Following the January 11^th debate in South Carolina, McCain appeared on Hannity and Colmes. Sean Hannity reminded him that he had said: “I have heard the people.” “Would it be fair to say,” he asked, “that now you are willing to change your position. . . .” “No, it’s not a change in position,” said McCain.” “We said: ‘secure the borders.’”

On Meet the Press, Sunday, January 27, 2008. Tim Russert asked McCain: “If the Senate passed your bill . . . the McCain-Kennedy Immigration Bill . . . would you as president sign it?” Perhaps caught off guard, McCain answered: “Yeah, but we–look, the lesson is it isn’t won. It isn’t going to come. It isn’t going to come. The lesson is they want the border secured first. That’s the lesson.”

“Yeah!!” Can’t pass!! “Not a change in position.” “Secure the borders FIRST!!” McCain as president is Bush Reborn, but smarter and even more determined.

There are three elements to the current amnesty debate: amnesty; conditions; and reward.

Amnesty. The word amnesty is derived from a Greek root meaning “not remembering.” It is the same root from which we derive our word “amnesia.” It describes a government dispensation that completely forgives a crime – it wipes the board clean.

“Not an amnesty.” The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) forgave (amnestied) illegal aliens who entered our country and/or worked here without our permission. We called it an amnesty but it was much more than forgiveness. We rewarded these aliens with green cards, a path to citizenship, access to our welfare programs, and the right to bring in relatives. Nevertheless, there was some justification. The illegals were relatively few in number – 2.7 million as it turned out. And prior to the IRCA, it was perfectly legal for employers to hire unauthorized workers. We winked at this and, in effect, condoned illegals’ presence.

No such semi-legality attaches to the 12 or 20 million or more illegals now residing here. Moreover, they pose a threat to the rule of law and to our very existence as a nation. Congress and particularly the U.S. Senate once again flogged the “amnesty” route on their behalf. But this time the American people, deeply impacted, didn’t, couldn’t, and wouldn’t fall for it. So now it doesn’t have a name. It’s “not an amnesty.” And why is it not an amnesty? Because, we are told, it has conditions. But don’t be fooled!

Conditions. Amnesty is still just the forgiveness part of the state’s process. Conditions are ancillary but also typical. A government may declare a tax amnesty and neither charge nor convict but forgive the tax dodger for the crime of not paying his taxes. However, that same government will demand payment of back taxes and interest plus, perhaps, penalties as conditions. A government may release political prisoners but demand an oath of allegiance and a written promise not to make further trouble.

What’s special about these illegal immigration conditions, however, is that they have nothing to do with amnesty. We routinely forgive illegal entrants/workers – we haven’t enough courts to try them or jails to hold them. The so-called conditions (indenture, learning some English, paying a fee) are actually preconditions for the reward of permanent residence, etc.

Rewards. Illegal aliens have broken our laws by coming here. But what do we call it when we forgive a crime and then reward the perpetrator? You don’t unlock a door with an ice cream cone. We punish crime or forgive it. But we don’t reward it. No society has a word for such an illogical act. Try to imagine, for example, a tax amnesty in which the government not only forgives the tax-dodger’s crime but gives him a thousand dollars for each delinquent year.

Conclusion. So what’s proposed is unconditional forgiveness for those who violate our laws and borders. Then we have bountiful rewards including permanent residence, access to our welfare programs, a path to citizenship, and the chain migration of relatives for those violators who satisfy certain conditions. And we call it: “not an amnesty.” Our language has been abused to justify the unjustifiable. Attrition is the only real solution – Attrition, Attrition, Attrition.

Regulating legal immigration is clearly the exclusive domain of the federal government. But what about illegal immigration? Do states and localities have a role? Enemies of a sane immigration policy still argue that since a Supreme Court decision of 1875 (Henderson v. Mayor of the City of New York, 92 U.S. 259) immigration matters, legal and illegal, are strictly a federal matter. States must grin and bear the baleful effects of illegal immigration should the federal government fail – or lack the capacity – to act.

Henderson v. New York. States had always been pleased to welcome those of “stout heart and strong arm” to till the soil, build the railroads, develop our manufactures and dig out minerals. They didn’t like supporting the disabled or diseased or the helpless women and children who followed in their wake, however. For fifty years, states and port cities developed elaborate schemes to charge shipping lines a fee for each non-citizen landed and to get around the Court decisions that denied them these compensations.

New York claimed the right to act based on inherent “police powers.” The Supreme Court in Henderson ruled against them unanimously. The fees and bonding schemes of New York City amounted to a regulation of commerce with foreign nations. The Constitution reserved this power for Congress (Art. I, sect. 8). The fee was, in effect, a duty which states or cities could not impose “without the consent of the Congress” (Art. I, sect 10). The Court also pointed out the wisdom of uniform tariffs at each port. Finally, they found these duties impacted on our relations with other countries, an area of law logically limited to the federal sphere. “We are of opinion,” they concluded, “that this whole subject has been confided to Congress by the Constitution.” This decision doesn’t address today’s problems.

Legal v. Illegal. The decision referred to regulation of legal commerce. In 1875, there were virtually no federal restrictions on who might come to America. The Court ruled far in time and sentiment from illegal entries without inspection across the US-Mexican border, for example. When it comes to what states can do about illegal immigration, Henderson is an empty vessel.

Police Powers Intact. The decision was limited to the regulation of commerce from the foreign port and through the American port. The Court denied states the right to collect duties on newcomers but did not make them immune to state’s police powers.

Federal-State Cooperation Unimpaired, The decision said nothing about whether or not the federal government could seek the assistance of state governments in enforcing federal policies on illegal immigration or whether states had the power to act unilaterally on internal matters. When the feds find they lack the resources to enforce their will, they often call on the states to assist them. Naturalization, for example, is clearly a federal-only prerogative (also found in Art. I, Sect. 8). When the First Congress passed the first naturalization bill in 1790, it assigned the tasks involved to “any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein [the applicant for citizenship] shall have resided for the term of one year at least.”

Congress picked up the ball following Henderson and began restricting the kinds of entrants states abhorred – conditional limits denying entry to prostitutes, persons with contagious diseases, and persons likely to become a public charge.

Much later in time, Congress established numerical limits. Still later it passed comprehensive legislation prescribing standards for admission and describing those who entered our country without inspection as deportable illegal alien misdemeanants. Undiluted welcome changed to determined restriction. That these changes opened up vast new enforcement issues was slow to capture the attention of the American people.

De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (1976). In 1971, fifteen years before Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), California outlawed the knowing employment of workers who are not lawful residents if this hurt the employment prospects of legal residents. California Rural Legal Assistance sought enforcement on behalf of Miguel and Leonor De Canas, farm workers adversely affected by farm labor contractor Anthony Bica’s employment of unauthorized residents.

An appeals court ruled in Bica’s favor citing Henderson, etc. but in De Canas, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed that opinion. “Power to regulate immigration,” said the Court, “is unquestionably exclusively a federal power . . . [but] regulation of immigration . . . is essentially a determination of who should or should not be admitted into the country. . . .” Id at 354-355. “States possess broad authority under their police powers to regulate the employment relationship to protect workers within the State.” Prohibiting the knowing employment of persons not lawfully present, said the Court, “is certainly within the mainstream of such police power regulation.” Id at 356.

The vast and comprehensive nature of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) means that Congress sought pre-emption – to “occupy the field” – argued Bica’s lawyers. However, nothing in the wording or legislative history of the INA, said the Court, indicates “that Congress intended to preclude even harmonious state regulation touching on aliens in general, or employment of illegal aliens in particular.” Id at 358. Continuing in the same vein, the Court found that to be considered an “unconstitutional” encroachment on federal immigration prerogatives one would have to find in state law language that “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Id at 364.

Pre-emption? Obstacles? The federal government clearly wishes state involvement in curbing illegal immigration. It has moved legislatively to either offer assistance to states or to make them offers they find hard or impossible to refuse. The IRCA passed in 1986 did pre-empt prosecution of employers for the knowing employment of unauthorized workers. However, it specifically allowed states to punish such violations using its licensing laws (8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)). States might deny business licenses to unauthorized aliens. An Arizona law which would permanently revoke the business licence of a firm found to have knowingly hired unauthorized workers for a second time has now passed two judicial tests.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) introduced several federal-state initiatives to deal with illegal immigration.

Title IV created a worker verification program (the Basic Pilot). Extended to all 50 states in 2002, available on-line, and renamed “E-Verify” in 2007, it is now considered 99% accurate. States and localities can use E-Verify to determine the status of those they hire, specify its use in contracts they let, and, it appears, require all businesses licensed in the state, city or town to use it.

Sec. 133 of the IIRIRA added Section 287(g) to the INA. Through it states and localities can obtain federal training for their law enforcement agencies to identify unauthorized aliens they come across during their normal duties and detain them until they can be picked up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Sec. 505 of the IIRIRA (8 U.S.C. 1623) all but requires states to deny in-state tuition for post-secondary education benefits to aliens not lawfully present in the U.S.” States that slither around this law are surely, in the words of the Supreme Court, an “obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.”

Sec. 642 requires that federal, state, and local agencies place no restrictions on the mutual exchange of citizenship and immigration information. “Sanctuary Cities” also pose an “obstacle” to congressional intent.

Sec. 656 called for improvement in the quality and security of state’s birth and death certificates.

Sec. 553 (8 U.S.C. 1624) authorizes states and localities to limit cash payments to illegal aliens. In the same year, 1996, Congress followed this up with a stringent national policy statement in its welfare reform legislation: “It is a compelling government interest to remove the incentive for illegal immigration provided by the availability of public benefits” (8 U.S.C. 1601(6)).

And, of course, the Real ID Act virtually forces the states to tighten up their state IDs.

Conclusion. Since 9/11 the federal government has been dragging reluctant states and localities into compliance with these laws and making additions to them. Meantime, some states (Arizona and Oklahoma) and localities (Herndon, VA and Hazleton, PA) have been pushing the envelope of federal-state authority.

States are not required to stand idly by while hospitals go bankrupt, schools crumble into dusty Babel, and traffic comes to a halt. They don’t have to watch while American communities are uprooted, homes and electrical circuits overwhelmed, front lawns paved over, and somebody’s goats graze in your back yard.

For the federal government to undertake to control illegal immigration alone would be wasteful and duplicative and would surely impinge upon state sovereignty. Cooperative efforts are legal, constitutional, and essential.

by William Buchanan

The Inevitable. From time to time, the Census Bureau projects what the population will be at the beginning of some future decade. They then swear on a stack of bibles that these projections are based simply on an expectation that we will continue to do what we have been doing.

Based on the current birth and death rates and the current rates of in-migration and out-migration, what we are doing is bad enough, indeed. Census projects the population of the United States will increase by 49 percent – from 282 million in 2000 to 420 million in 2050. In that time, moreover, Census projects the Hispanic population will triple in number and account for 24 percent of the population, while non-Hispanic whites will decline to 50 percent.

Sympathetic commentators, people who support “comprehensive immigration reform,” for example, stress this is inevitable while promoting legislation that hastens it.

Moreover, the “inevitables” have discovered a safe vehicle for delivering their opinions in a real or purported concern for the political future of the Republican Party. What really matters, they claim, is that the Republican Party is slitting its throat by rejecting still more immigration – the amnesty, the DREAM Act, and guest-worker-to-citizenship – programs the immigrant groups demand. Some examples:

●Michael Gerson, a former speech-writer for George W. Bush, is clearly a member in good standing of the inevitability school. He is currently a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (make what you will of that) and an op-ed writer for the Washington Post. In the latter capacity, he recently wrote a column headlined: “Division Problem; The GOP’s Ruinous Immigration Stance.” He called it a strange spectacle that “remarkable gains” in Hispanic votes for Republicans (40% for Bush in 2004?) were being deliberately eroded in the 2008 campaign. He cited Republican opposition to “immigration reform,” Mitt Romney’s blast at Rudy Giuliani for actively promoting illegal immigration while mayor of New York, and the earlier failure of the Republican candidates to submit to questioning by Univision, as contributing to a “harsh, Tancredo-like image” for the party.

●I believe Linda Chavez is truly concerned about the impact Republican’s enforcement-only policy is having on the party. She, too, has joined the inevitability crowd. In a recent Washington Times op-ed, Ms. Chavez repeated the idea that promoting amnesty, etc. would increase Hispanic support for Republicans. She cited a study by the American Majority Foundation of votes in heavily Hispanic precincts where the contest was between “comprehensive reform” and “enforcement-only” candidates. Latinos showed a decisive preference for the “comprehensive” candidates.

●What can we say about intelligent and objective talk-show host Chris Core? Black talk show host Tavis Smiley on a recent show, he noted, had invited Republican candidates to a debate at Morgan State University. The questioners were ravenous “inevitables” – Cynthia Tucker, Juan Williams, and Ray Suarez. (Good God!) I nevertheless agree with Mr. Core that the absence of front-runners Giuliani, McCain, Romney and Thompson was a terrible mistake. Suppose, for example, one of them had asserted that as president he would send illegals packing and had emphasized that one of the government’s primary functions is to protect American workers..

It’s what Core said next that stupefied me. Like he was breaking some unpleasant news, Core gingerly informed us:: “Over time – understand this – the United States of America is going to become majority-minority – over time – if you get what I’m saying.” He went on: “The typical white voter is going to become a minority.” Despite all his talk about no amnesty, no guest-worker, etc, in Mr. Core’s mind, as in the minds of the inevitables, assimilation is over.

Core Values. As recently as 1965, 98% of Americans were either white or black. I think it is fair to say the white majority and the black minority shared similar values (core values) although they came at this from opposite directions. Whites believed in the rule of law, spoke English like it was the national language, and believed America was God’s gift to the world. Few whites objected to singing the national anthem or saying the pledge of allegiance and most regarded the Constitution as an almost sacred document. Black Americans agreed, except, they asked:: How about including us in? How about no “separate, but equal?” How about extending constitutional protections to us? How about letting us vote and prosper?

During the 70 years prior to 1965, the whites had undergone an astonishing transformation. Thanks to a drastic cut-back in immigration, a “just” war, intermarriage, and general prosperity, Italian-Americans, German-Americans, Greek-Americans, Jews and other citizens of European heritage had assimilated. They spoke English, were abandoning their ethnic enclaves, and viewed the “old country” as a source of humor – how NOT to do things. From disparate roots, America had reforged a nation. At the same time, the definition of “white” had undergone a profound metamorphosis. No longer pink-faced, sandy-haiired, and straight-nosed, whites ranged in color from pink to tan, their hair ran from straight to down-right kinky, and noses came in all sizes and shapes – beaks, hooks, and schnozzes.

Black Inclusion? The big question was: could black Americans be integrated in the same way? Blacks came to the table with 300 years of grievances and suspicions. Whites came to the table with a combination of guilt and racism. And instead of helping black Americans on the final leg of their journey, official white America determined to set them apart – again.

Affirmative action became just another way of judging people by the color of their skin and not for their talents and merit. As a result, black time-servers and true achievers alike, in jobs and schools of higher learning, were suspected of being unqualified. The “Great Society” all but destroyed the black family, leading to all manner of communal pathologies. And the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act – disingenuously called by its supporters “Civil Rights legislation for the World” – invited unskilled and semi-skilled workers in to compete head-to-head with blacks for their jobs. Black American workers, with American ideas of fair treatment, and “protected” by stringent labor laws, lost out to legal and illegal “minority” workers arriving from the Third World.

Almost immediately, bureaucrats extended their separatist policies to all the new ethnic groups. Soon their bureaucratic gifts became bureaucratic necessities as ethnic groups gained citizenship and political clout. Aware of the awesome power democracy accords new, growing, and identifiable voter groups, ethnic organizations promoted naturalization. Naturalzations, which averaged 112,000 per year in the 1960s, rose to an alarming average of 626,000 per year in the decade 1997-2006. Census now breaks down our federal, state, county, and political district populations into 335 ethnic, racial, and ancestral groups. The resulting percentages can often be converted into undeserved ethnic gains.

Black America deserved the shot they never got at “equal outcomes.” The Jena 6 March – seven times around the U.S. Justice Department Building – did not bring its walls a’ tumblin’ down. It merely reflected impotent rage at the collapse of the case for equality we once so ardently espoused.

We All Want the Same Things? Chris Core continued: “. . . and you are going to get a combination of Asian, black and Hispanic – and,” he comforted us parenthetically, “it shouldn’t make any difference in terms of issues – [which] is going to be a majority.” Chris! Chris! What have we been talking about all these years? It DOES make a difference. Every ethnic, racial, and ancestral organization wants non-citizens and illegal aliens from the group they claim to represent to be able to vote. They want every government document and conversation (”Press “7″ for . . . ) translated into their languages. They want equality of outcomes regardless of merit. They want taxpayer funding for their programs. They want government agencies identified by ethnicity, led by identifiable ethnics, to promote their ethnic interests. They want favorable treatment for the economic, military, and political interests of their countries of origin. Most of all, they want more immigration – more people who share their language and respond to their cultural cues.

These are all natural and understandable goals. We have been aware of them for three centuries. But only today do we undertake to devalue and overwhelm white and black Americans who alone retain the core values of this society. They are about power. And in a democracy, power is in numbers.

I have no fly on the wall to tell me what goes on in the sanctums of the Republican Party, but in a winner-take-all electoral system, 40% is a losing percentage and 40% of a larger population is a bigger loser. While Giuliani and Huckabee cling to the comprehensive approach, I am guessing that many Republicans believe this portends the death of conservative American values. They know that it takes time to develop a conservative outlook. They want to hold the line on numbers in hopes newcomers will find it in their interest to assimilate and then judge their party on an American scale of values.

What Chris Core and the inevitables need to get their arms around is: “majority- minority” doesn’t work. Majority-minority means assimilation is over. It’s what happened to the American Indians. It only “works” in a dictatorship - and then, only for awhile. We simply cannot assimilate the numbers that are coming in. Between 1916 and 1965, we averaged 218,000 legal immigrants per year. Nobody ever advanced a good reason why we needed more.

New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, the self-described “[bleeping] steamroller,” ran into an Abrams battle tank when he announced the state would issue driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. The fire storm of criticism that erupted engulfed Hillary Clinton’s campaign when the former First Lady, clearly caught off guard, endorsed Spitzer’s plan.

A couple of days later in an interview with CNN correspondent Candy Crowley, Clinton stuck her other foot in it. Let’s enumerate.

Foot no. one: Clinton described the governor as on the “front line” thanks to the failure of Congress to pass “comprehensive immigration reform.” We ALL know what that means – if we had just legalized all the illegal aliens then they’d all be eligible for driver’s licenses, problem solved!

Foot no. two: What “Front Line?” New York State, Clinton asks us to believe, is beleaguered by illegal alien drivers – they don’t know how to drive, and they can’t interpret the signs, and they don’t have insurance. It’s a crisis and, and, and . . . Fearless Public Servant Spitzer did what had to be done. In fact, this was a sleezebag deal introduced without consultation by an arrogant would-be usurper. It may even have been a pay-off for a back-room pre-election deal.

Foot no. three: “They [governors] should not be making immigration policy,” she went on. “The federal government should be making that policy.” Right, Mrs. Clinton, governors should not be making immigration policy that flies in the face of federal policy on licencing undocumented aliens. Wrong, Mrs Clinton. Congress, aware that it cannot gain control of illegal immigration without state assistance, has given states lots of room to innovate. Check out laws in Arizona, California, Georgia, and Oklahoma.

For sheer licentiousness, however, it’s hard to beat Rudy Giuliani. Campaigning in New Hampshire, Giuliani was asked about Hillary’s foot-in-mouth spectacle, RG delivered an hilarious, (carefully rehearsed?) mimic of Hillary’s fumbling response while suggesting he would never grant driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. Mr. Former Mayor, aren’t you the one who argued your “sanctuary city” all the way to the Supreme Court? Isn’t “a pathway to citizenship” for illegals one of your campaign promises? Isn’t that just another form of “comprehensive immigration reform?” Admit it, Rudy! When it comes to illegal immigration you are really on the same page as Bush and Clinton.

by William Buchanan

Unable to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” legislation to destroy America once and for all, certain members of Congress have turned to nickel-and-diming us to death. Their first effort, the so-called DREAM Act, failed to gain cloture. Still in the wings are AgJobs, H-1B, and Puerto Rican Statehood – fatal potions all. But the current shrag is sovereignty for “indigenous native Hawaiians.”

The Hawaiian’s Turn? Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) belongs to that select body of senators (Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, etc.) who support every “comprehensive immigration reform” bill and oppose every effort at true immigration reform. For more than seven years and in five Congresses Mr. Akaka has introduced something called the “Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act.” (Remember: no bill really dies until its sponsor is gone.) Akaka’s 2004 effort so unnerved constitutional law scholar Bruce Fein (The Washington Times, October 6, 2004) he predicted “enactment would mark the beginning of the end of the United States.”

Unfortunately, past Congresses have already proceeded down the path of good intentions by setting aside 200,000 acres and the island of Kaho’olawe in trust pending Hawaiian native self-determination. Unfortunately, too, a companion bill in the House, H.R. 505, has finally born fruit.

House Debate. During the October 24 House debate, supporters fired off an encyclopedic barrage of tired rhetoric to justify the bill. The word “indigenous” was spilled like hot coffee on every evocation. The overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy 114 years ago was termed a “great injustice . . . Native Hawaiians,” it was asserted, “have an inherent sovereignty based on their status as indigenous, native people . . . This is not about race;” said Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK), “this is about the sovereignty of an indigenous people.” Hunh?? To lend gravity to their groundless brief, proponents even dragged out that ancient head-scratcher: “How we treat native indigenous people reflects our values and who we are.”

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) tried to set the record straight. “Our Constitution,” he said, “seeks to eliminate racial separation, not promote it . . . This bill may violate the 14^th amendment equal protection clause.” Among other things, “Congress lacks the power to invent Indian tribes . . . Even the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has objected strongly and consistently to the ‘race based’ classifications in this legislation.”

Westmoreland went on: “Hawaii is the most integrated society in the U.S. – there are no Hawaiians living apart from other Americans.” Under this legislation, he said, “Anyone with one traceable drop of Native Hawaiian blood could claim the same right to this alternate government.” Bruce Fein noted that native Hawaiians are “first-class American citizens crowned with a host of special privileges.” In fact, for some reason, H.R. 505 details a 1993 “Apology Resolution” and lists in its findings section twelve special privileges of substantial breadth accorded to native Hawaiians. How abjectly can a nation grovel and still retain respect?

Finally, passage of the bill gave the lie to repeated assertions that this was a bi-partisan, indeed, non-partisan venture. On passage, Democrats voted “YEA” by 222 to 1, Republicans voted “NAY” by 152 to 39.

Creating A REAL Can of Worms. According to Eni Faleomavaega, the Delegate from American Samoa, “We” (the Congress) have recognized American Indians and Native Alaskans as indigenous peoples. “The only remaining group to be recognized,” he said, “are the indigenous people of the State of Hawaii.” But are they the only remaining unrecognized indigenous people?

A 2002 Zogby Poll found that a majority of Mexicans believe the American Southwest belongs to Mexico and that Mexicans migrate here as a right and not as a privilege. A whole host of Latino organizations and Mexican separatists claim to represent indigenous peoples. Like Hawaii, we took the Southwest by force of arms. But unlike the Hawaiians, Mexicans are here in politically significant numbers. Hawaiian self-determination will be just another way station as we self-determine ourselves piecemeal into oblivion.

Who’s Indigenous? Which leads to a question: When are “We” going to become “indigenous people.” When I was a youngster – a schoolboy – a long time ago – I unselfconsciously described myself as a “native-American.” In my mind, that meant I was someone born in America and loyal only to America. I and my classmates all spoke English and pledged allegiance to the only country and culture we knew. We were all Americans – or so it seemed to me. We had not yet had to contend with the concept of “indigenous” and nobody ever said we were a “nation of immigrants.”

But there’s a problem and I’d like to speculate about it. The purpose of massive immigration is to game the labor market in favor of the employer and against the worker – to maximize the employer’s profits and minimize the worker’s wages. I take this as a given and regard massive immigration as economically foolish and socially disastrous.

NO Nation of Immigrants. Since 1965, corporate America and corporate-sponsored ethnic organizations have been promoting massive immigration, in part, by convincing Americans that this is a “nation of immigrants” – an idea that is mathematically impossible and culturally untenable. The elevation of indigenous tribal groups appears to me to be just another method for relegating the descendants of immigrants who came here as long as 500 years ago to continuing immigrant status. We are invited to act as though the unique American culture that totally dominated this nation for hundreds of years is just a figment of our imagination.

YES Indigenous Americans. When does one become indigenous? Apparently, it takes thousands of years and you need not subscribe to any American values. I reject this. Original Americans (descendants of those who were here at the time of the American conquest) are and should be well-treated and respected. They are an important part of our history and culture. But if you were born in the United States to legal residents, salute the American flag, speak English as your first language, have no foreign loyalties, love the U.S. Constitution, fight for America when asked to serve, believe in the rule of law, believe that America is the last best hope of mankind, and vote for what is best for America, you are an indigenous American – a native American – pass it on!.

By William Buchanan 

According to a report in the International Herald Tribune (October 20-21, 2007), there has been an astonishing shift in the world’s private markets. During the last eight years the American lead has been overtaken by China – that’s Communist China.

On January 1, 2000, the American economy bestrode the world. One measure of this is the size of publicly-traded corporations. In terms of market value in year 2000, fourteen of the twenty leading companies were American and not one was Chinese.

As of October 17, 2007, however (a little less than eight years later), no less than eight of the leading twenty publicly-traded companies are Chinese and the Americans now count only seven. It’s only one measure, to be sure, but it is a telling one.

Is this a sign of things to come? I believe it is. America has been on the economic offensive since World War I. In ninety years, we have forgotten what it feels like to not be on top. But historically no nation stays there forever. And China remembers when, long ago, it was on top – the “Middle Kingdom.”

America’s success lay in its can-do spirit, its wealth (piled high during two world wars and a post-war boom), and its huge, multi-hundred million person market. The market baton is now being passed to a nation with four times our population. Moreover, while we divide and conquer ourselves by importing cheap labor, China empowers itself by putting home-grown cheap labor to work.

I am not suggesting that this is a disaster, but America will need to respond with a more defensive economic position in the future and, dare I say it, a greater emphasis on patriotism.

It all seemed multiculturally-correct that that most diversity-minded of governors, Tim Kaine of Virginia, should appoint Dr. Esam Omeish, a prominent Muslim leader, to his new Commission on Immigration. It soon came to light, however, that seven years ago, Omeish delivered a speech at Lafayette Square in which he said of the Palestinians (”Philistieims” is the word he used) “. . . you have known the jihad way is the way to liberate your land.” And, shades of the 21st Century, there it was on videotape for all to see.

Dr. Omeish was forced to resign but immediately offered a defense that we’ve heard regularly since 9/11. It’s all a “misinterpretation.” These statements were taken “out of context.” He was apparently using the word “jihad” in the sense of some kind of internal mental struggle. However, that’s hard to accept. For if you look at the sentence above – “Palestinians,” “liberate,” “land” – it seems pretty clear, contextually, that what he is talking about is the jihad of suicide bombers, car bombs and Katyusha rockets.

It strikes me as curious that after 1,400 years of existence and with over one billion adherents, Muslime Arabs use the same word, jihad, to describe everything from planes crashing into the World Trade Center to some personal inner battle for identity, or whatever. There does not even appear to be an Arab adjective to modify the word jihad and differentiate the two meanings. The consequences of misinterpretation are too dire to be fobbed off as “It’s an Arab thing; you wouldn’t understand.”  And I hasten to add that in other Islamic cultures, they may actually assign different words.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

 By William Buchanan

Illegal alien women come to the United States pregnant, or get pregnant after they arrive. The result is usually a U.S.-citizen baby. These women either go home or remain here illegally – in rare instances they get caught. When the U.S.-citizen becomes an adult, he or she applies for the immediate legal (outside of quota) admission of the mother. Illegal alien women have been doing this ever since 1924 and it’s gradually become a major cause of U.S. population growth.

There is (or ought to be) a joke that makes the rounds at certain bars. An alien of the illegal persuasion spots a luscious blonde or brunette also of the illegal persuasion, sitting at the bar. He sidles up to her and asks: “Can I be of service?” And nine months later there’s another U.S.-citizen baby. In some quarters this is “a blessed event.” For many, including me, it’s a cause for alarm.

The Citizenship Reform Act, sponsored first by Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-CA) and then by Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA), was proposed to one Congress after another between 1995 and 2006. For a child to be a U.S. citizen by birth, this bill required at least one of the parents to be a U.S. citizen or legal immigrant (green card holder).

However, there was a caveat. For citizenship to devolve from the man to the child, he had to be married to the woman giving birth. Only if the U.S. citizen or green card-holding male was married to the illegal alien female giving birth, would the child be a U.S.-citizen. This would completely change the search dynamic. The bar scenarios would no longer bear fruit.

H.R. 1940, the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007, changes course in three important ways:

1. It defines what the 14^th Amendment means by “. . . , and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, . . .”

2. It allows illegal alien males serving in the U.S. military to father U.S.-citizen babies;

3. It allows males who are citizens or green-carders, but not married to the illegal alien mother, to nevertheless father U.S.-citizen babies by them.

I am sympathetic to these changes for two reasons. First, while illegal aliens are not allowed to serve in the military, inevitably some do get in. Some members of Congress will be moved to sign on to this bill out of regard for this undeniable service. I doubt it will cause many more illegals to slip past the strict rules against their serving.

Second, an inherent problem with legislation like this is constitutionality. It will be enough for the U.S. Supreme Court to buy the interpretation of the 14th Amendment in this bill – I believe they will and they must. However, the previous effort, the Citizenship Reform Act, would have presented the Court with a second constitutional hurdle. In an age increasingly sensitive to gender bias, the Court could easily strike down a bill with language that granted a powerful right to unmarried women, while denying it to unmarried men. The important issue is the citizenship issue. Why take a chance presenting the Court with two constitutional questions?

Returning to the Bar Scene. Should H.R. 1940 pass, fallow unmarried illegal alien females would have to be seen in a different kind of bar and their “message” might have to be a little more obvious. The illegal alien impregnator or “sperm donor” would no longer be eligible, only citizens and legal immigrants would qualify.

For decades, my predictions about immigration have proven right in almost every respect. So as a futurist with a track record, I feel it is my duty to make a prediction. Should H.R. 1940 pass, young men will purchase “personals” in certain newspapers and periodicals touting their abilities and their pedigree. “Young man, legal, interested in attractive women, 18 and over, for fun and pregnancy. No charge. Proof of prior births supplied – nineteen already! Status credentials and my DNA supplied – to you and to U.S.C.I.S.” No charge of prostitution could be lodged – this is about consenting adults performing for free. A brokerage business might develop to verify the status and reproductive capacity of the man – imagine the illegal alien female demanding: “First, let me see your papers!” I’m not sure who would pick up the broker’s fee.

After the constitutionality of the Birthright Citizenship Act is confirmed, we can revisit the gender issue, especially if my prediction proves accurate.

“Learn from your own history,” said a high school history teacher of mine, whose name I’ve forgotten.

When white Englishmen arrived on these shores, they came as invaders, conquerors, settlers, and colonizers. They did not come as immigrants and did not intend to assimilate into the cultures of the American Indians they encountered. They did not wish to become Algonquians or Mohawks. They wished to impose a new language, fee simple land ownership, English methods of farming, to import new breeds of livestock, and introduce new forms of exchange.

When American Indians figured out what was going on, they either allied with the newcomers or attempted to destroy them. Neither effort worked. Thus began a conflict that would rage for almost 300 years as the better-organized and armed Brits/Americans swept ever-westward. President Andrew Jackson justified the “Trail of Tears” by arguing that whites invading the lands the Indians vacated would have slaughtered them had they remained. American invaders, whose numbers and power were augmented by more white aliens from Great Britain and Europe, were unstoppable in the struggle for supremacy.

Read the rest of this entry »