Immigration, the movement of people from one country to another, is thousands of years old. Immigration to America began in the early 1600s.  Most of these early immigrants came from Europe during the period of exploration.  However, eventually Asian immigrants migrated to the United States to help with the building of the early railroads. As centuries and centuries have passed, more and more immigrants from all over the world have come to live and work in America.  Some of these immigrants arrived here legally while others arrived illegally.  Today, in the twenty-first century, the greatest influx of immigrants is from Mexico.  But, regardless from which country they come from, all immigrants have one major goal: to become a citizen of the United States and to achieve the American dream of economic success.  Needless to say, most immigrants are willing to risk their lives in their effort to get to America’s shores.  Also, many times these immigrants do not fully understand what they will have to face when they get to the shores of America.

As a direct result of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York City, America’s immigration has become a focal point for all Americans.  Many Americans want the borders of the United States to be closed to most foreigners.  They do not trust the motives given by these immigrants who want to come to the continental United States.  Many Americans even want all the borders of the United States fenced off from those who seek to enter illegally.  Americans do not want to face the atrocities of another large-scale terrorist attack.  Also, they are vehement toward foreigners taking their jobs, especially the many Mexicans that cross into America on a daily basis.  Therefore, the main question concerning the immigration problem in America is whether to permit open immigration or restricted immigration.

Open immigration would permit immigrants the privilege to occupy lands that should be occupied by native-born Americans.  However, many Americans are in favor of letting immigrants use their private property, even along the southern borders of the United States.  According to Anthony Gregory of the Future of Freedom Foundation, there are several reasons for purporting an open immigration policy.  He states, “The market supports them.  They work, purchase goods and services, and pay for housing. Continuing to shut out immigrants, or becoming even more restrictive with the borders, further reinforces the notion that so much public land should be protected by government, and takes us a step away from our ultimate goal of eventually privatizing it.”  (1)

But, many Americans do fear that their willingness to support an open immigration policy could lead to many legal problems.  Of course, one major concern is the possibility that the government might try to create an immigration policy that would prevent them from permitting foreigners on their own private property.  Also, like most federal bureaucratic policies, immigration polices tend to become a form of socialism.  As a result, the federal government would create enormous budgets, a large number of bureaucratic leaders to execute the immigration policies, and an increased tax base to fund the program. At the same time, the involvement of law enforcement groups could become abusive and corrupt.  (1) As stated by Mr. Gregory, “Immigration controls are expensive, and they clearly don’t work that well. More than a million foreigners enter America illegally every year.  A serious attempt to keep them out would require even higher taxes, a more militarized border patrol, and vast invasions of the privacy of employers and other Americans.  It would potentially require a national ID card, as well as an army of border police and federal agents to round up and repatriate illegals.  It would depend on central planning, which, as all free-market economists should know, simply doesn’t work.  The border guards have already been implicated in a number of scandals, and the idea that the government can maintain efficiency and honesty in its border police, when the federal government does a poor job of preventing corruption and degradation among city police, prison guards, and even in the highly regimented military, requires quite a stretch of the imagination.”  (1)  Also, he stated, “As borders are tightened, a black market in immigration will expand, leading to increased violence and government corruption. The war on drugs has utterly failed to keep drugs out of the country, and yet has succeeded in draining away enormous resources and eroding precious civil liberties; a war on immigrants would yield similar results.”  (1)

Opponents of open immigration believe that it could promote socialism in America.  Then America’s democratic ideals could possibly be lessened.  Immigrants are noted for using and expanding welfare programs after arriving in the United States.  They also are accused of making America’s culture change negatively.  Many of the immigrants to America bring their countries socialistic ideology with them, too.  Open immigration, according to many Americans who want a restricted immigration policy, permits foreigners to trespass on American soil and to violate private property rights of United States citizens. Therefore, many Americans have developed a negative opinion toward immigrants coming to their nation.  (1)

Throughout the history of the United States, there have been anti-immigrant groups. According to Tom Barry, in his article “The Immigration Debate,” “Campaigns against new immigrants have generally coincided with the business cycle, rising in intensity with economic slowdowns, declining in times of prosperity. There are two main corollaries to this rule.  One, the U.S. public generally views immigrants with more or less hostility according to the color of their skin, their English-speaking abilities, and the degree to which their religions and cultures depart from Judeo-Christianity and Two, in times of war, immigrants from nations in conflict with the United States are especially suspect.” (2)

As a result of the new anti-immigrant sentiment in the United States, hate and fear have spread through the nation.  Communities will become split over the immigration issue. Race, politics, and culture will become the major points of discussion.  Mr. Barry stated, “It has already caused immigrant communities and their supporters to pull back from their creative initiatives to make them more openly participative members of their communities.  No longer is there the political will to support measures that would allow undocumented residents to use their home-country identity papers in the process of opening bank accounts or obtaining a loan.”  (2)

Modern anti-immigration movements associate immigration with terrorist activities.  As a result, the rights of immigrants and the nation at large have been lessened.  At the same time, opponents of immigration want all America’s borders and harbors closely guarded. They also believe that equating immigration with terrorism will finally get the American people to decrease the amount of immigration drastically.  Anti-immigration activists are calling the borders “terrorist alley.”  Of course, this label puts many immigrants in danger from those who see them as terrorists.  (2)

Since the American people have diverse views on the immigration issue, what is the federal government’s position?  Basically, the United States government is trying to be more careful in its selection of the immigrants wanting to enter the nation. At present, there are over 30 million immigrants in the United States with millions more wanting to come.  But, since the Immigration and Naturalization Service is understaffed and is not able to quickly verify the status of these prospective immigrants, the federal government has become very selective in its choice of who is permitted to come to the United States. According to Alexia Elejalde-Rui, in an article written for the Public Broadcast System, “The U.S. government is trying to strike a delicate balance between maintaining the diversity of the United States and ensuring the security of a country devastated by terrorism. Many people fear that the new security measures will violate the rights of non-citizens and discourage people from immigrating to the United States. This change would threaten the values of freedom and acceptance on which the country was founded.”  (3)

If the United States is going to combat its immigration problem, it must decide the rationale for the influx of immigration.  There are several reasons for America’s current immigration problem. Migration is one of the main reasons.  It makes it easier for family members of immigrants to come to the United States. It permits an immigrant who becomes a U.S. citizen to sponsor family members.  This would help them obtain visas to come to the United States.  The other reasons for increased immigration are: “illegal immigration; the amnesties which have allowed immigrants to make the transition to legal status and obtain green cards without leaving the country; and immigration law violators.”  (4)  Therefore, a new immigration policy must be established that would lower the number of immigrants allowed to enter the United States illegally.

The increase of immigrants to America will continue unless a better immigration policy is instituted.  The back door approach to controlling immigration must be checked.  In 1986, a general amnesty program was adopted in the United States.  As a result of this program, over three million illegal aliens were given permission to stay in America.  But, these same people could not sponsor their families to come live with them. Today, the government is talking about establishing a new amnesty program.  This could bring the total illegal alien population to over six million.  If the United States doesn’t close its back doors to renewed illegal immigration efforts, the nation will face an even larger influx of immigrants. (4)

How can immigration be controlled?  First, legal immigration must be maintained at an acceptable level, approximately 550,000 people.  However, this number is much higher that the number suggested by the Federation for American Immigration Reform.  Second, employers should be made to verify the eligibility of all their employees. This could be done by verifying social security numbers and alien ID numbers with the Immigration and Naturalization Service.  Third, the INS should be able to keep up with the entrance and exiting practices of immigrants.  However, immigrants coming from Mexico and Canada could create a minor problem.  This would be made more manageable by exempting these people when visiting for short periods of time.  Finally, the United States must stop giving benefits to illegal aliens at the expense of the American tax payer.  (4) According to Jack Martin, in his article “Immigration Run Amok,” “Unless those who enter the country illegally or who violate the terms of their visas are made to pay a penalty, the immigration law is nothing more than an easily bypassed obstacle for all but law-abiding people.”  (4)

Frosty Wooldridge of News With Views believes that Congress and the President are trying to dismantle America by arrangement.  He doesn’t understand why Congress and the President will not secure America’s borders when 80 percent of the public want a solution to the current immigration problems.  (5)  According to James Youngblood, a private citizen interviewed by Frosty Wooldridge, “Aside from all of the obvious problems, what bothers me the most about the immigration question is the huge gap between what the great majority of people in this country appear to think should be done and the almost polar opposite stance that is taken by the government.  This gap — or disconnect — between popular sentiment and official policy is so large that you have to question what, exactly, is really going on.”  (5)  Mr. Youngblood also stated, “From my own experience, when you see something that is this far out of kilter, it’s a good idea to look for some kind of unstated agenda or overall design.”  (5)

However, what could be President Bush’s unstated immigration agenda?  According to Edward Nelson, in a U.S. Border Control article, “I believe the President has a totally different agenda.  I believe he is intent on creating a borderless, hemispheric, free trade zone from the tip of South America to the North Pole.  He is trying to emulate the European model, but unlike Europe, where most of the member nations are all First World economies, the Americas model has the richest and most advanced nation living next door to a banana republic, complete with corrupt politicians and oppressed, impoverished, illiterate people.”  (6)  Mr. Nelson further stated, “And to accomplish his dream, he, necessarily, is required to hold our borders open, knowing he is putting us at greater risk of terrorist attack; knowing that our health and welfare systems will buckle and collapse under the strain of massive overpopulation; knowing that our environment will suffer terribly; knowing that thousands of Americans will die of Third World disease for which we have no immunity; and knowing that our social fabric, our language, culture and heritage will be torn to shreds.”  (6)

What affect would the Free Trade Area of the Americas have on the immigration problem that the United States is having?  According to William F. Jasper, in his article “FTAA: Forced to Accept Aliens,” If the borderless, hemispheric, free trade zone (Free Trade Area of the Americas) becomes a reality, the number of legal and illegal immigrants in America could increase five fold, ten fold, or possibly twenty fold.  Of course, most Americans do not have a clue about the proposed FTAA.  If they did, they would vote all the politicians who supported it out of office, especially since most people would be against it.  This is the reason that one of the key provisions of the FTAA is being kept secret. The borders of all the countries that participate in the Free Trade Area of the Americas would be open to any and all immigrants.  But, some of the immigrants migrating to America could be terrorists. Therefore, the integration of economics and politics could, in reality, destroy the sovereignty and safety of the greatest nation in the world.  (7)  According to Ron Strom of the World Net Daily, “Under the planned FTAA, Americans will gradually lose control over their destiny; their property, their taxes, and they will lose the protection of their rights by the Bill of Rights.  The FTAA, like the European Union, will eliminate the enforcement of national borders to foster the free flow of peoples, not just products. National borders will become like our state borders. The immigration problem will be solved, since there will be no more immigration, only migration of populations at will.”  (8)  Therefore, according to the current administration, the FTAA or the North American Union, as it is referred to today in many political circles, might be the only solution to our illegal immigration crisis.  Of course, if something that works isn’t instituted soon, millions of illegal immigrants will be given the same rights that legal immigrants have in the United States.  As a result, the laws that have already been passed to protect the American citizenry from the illegal entry of persons into the United States will become null and void.  Then it would become almost impossible to protect American citizens from those people in other nations that seek to destroy America from within.

  

References

 

1. Gregory, Anthony. “In Defense of Open Immigration” The Future of Freedom Foundation. 11 November 2005<http://www.fff.org>.

2. Barry, Tom. “The Immigration Debate” International Relations Center. 14 November 2005<http://www.counterpunch.org>.

3. Elejalde-Ruiz, Alexia. “Changing Immigration Policy” MacNeil-Lehrer. 11 November 2005<http://www. pbs.org>.4. Martin, Jack. “Immigration Run Amok” Federation for American Immigration Reform. 12 November 2005<http://www.afsa.org>. 5. America’s Destruction by Design, www.rense.com6. “U.S. Border Control” U.S. Border Control. 13 November 2005<http://www.usbc.org>.

7. Jasper, William F. “FTAA: Forced to Accept Aliens” The New American. 15 November<http:// www.stoptheftaa.org>.

8. Strom, Ron. “Free-Trade Pact a Threat to U.S. Sovereignty” WorldNetDaily. 15 November 2005<http://www.worldnetdaily.com>.

 Dr. Parnell is a retired public school educator and presently teaches social science courses at a private, Christian high school in Georgia.  He is the author of From Schoolhouse to Courthouse: Exposing America’s New Terror from Within (Wheatmark Publishing, ISBN: 1-58736-613-4).  He is also a guest columnist on several online websites.  

A desperate push is underway to enact the Climate Security Act sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CN) and Sen. John Warner (R-VA). It would impose cap-and-trade mandates on anything that generates carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and that pretty much includes everything involving energy use, including backyard barbequing.Just what “climate security” is remains a mystery. It suggests that humans actually have something to do with the climate and only idiots believe that. If that were true, there would be no tornadoes tearing up the mid-west or hurricanes threatening the east coast. There would be no droughts, no blizzards, and other weather phenomena.

The Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the most virulent environmental organizations, famed for finding ways to impede any kind of development nationwide, whether it’s housing for a growing population, ranching and farming to feed it, or anything industrial that might provide jobs, is sponsoring a May 29 briefing for “America’s editorial board members and op-ed page editors, via a conference via phone.

You can expect newspapers to publish a raft of editorials and op-eds praising legislation based on the notion that CO2 must be reduced to stop global warming.

The problem for the environmentalists is that the Earth is now a decade into a cooling cycle that even U.S. government agencies such as NOAA acknowledge. The other problem is that CO2 represents about 0.038 percent of the Earth’s atmosphere which is comprised mostly of water vapor. So there is no global warming and the role of CO2 is negligible. Earlier this month there was news of some 31,000 scientists from around the world who have signed a petition debunking the global warming hoax. More than 9,000 of them were PhDs.Among those participating in the NRDC conference call will be Sen, John Kerry of Massachusetts whose resume makes no reference to any knowledge of meteorology or climatology.The Senate would be better off to pay some attention to the estimates of the costs involved in establishing a program to reduce “greenhouse gases.” A study by the Heritage Foundation predicts the following:

# The impact on the economy would be horrendous. Heritage estimates that cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses of at least $1.7 trillion that could reach $4.8 trillion by 2030 (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars).

# Single-year GDP losses of at least $155 billion that could exceed $500 billion (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars).

# Annual job losses that would exceed 500,000 before 2030 and could exceed a million.

# The annual cost of emission permits to energy users to cost at least $100 billion by 2020.

# The average household will pay $467 more each year for its natural gas and electricity (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars). That means that the average household will spend an additional $8,870 to purchase energy over the period 2012 to 2030.

It’s worth noting that a similar bill in 2005 was defeated by a vote of 60-38, an even larger margin that an earlier 2003 vote.

Cap-and-trade legislation is a non-solution to a non-problem and this vote will take place at a time when most of the public has wisely concluded that global warming, except for Al Gore’s fulminations about the coming end of the world, is just so much hot air. Such carbon credits, however, would likely make him and his fellow conspirators very wealthy through the creation of exchanges for their sale and trade.

What makes this legislation so utterly wicked, inane and insane is that it would wreck what is left of our already injured economy, trying to pull itself together after the mortgage loan debacle of our financial institutions, and facing the rising costs of oil whose full effects have yet to be felt as they ripple through the economy.

The fact that environmental organizations would try to get such legislation imposed tells you everything you need to know about their true agenda regarding America. Alan Caruba writes a weekly column posted on the website of The National Anxiety Center, www.anxietycenter.com. He blogs at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com.  

“Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love. Either God is for black people in their fight for liberation and against the white oppressors, or he is not.”

-          Black Theology and Black Power, Dr. James Cone, 1969

Barack Obama must be called to renounce Black Liberation Theology. Can an American be compelled to renounce their religion, a freedom guaranteed by the Constitution and one which has been so dearly held by Americans for over 200 years? No, but there is a major distinction between asking someone to renounce their religion versus a highly controversial school of so-called theology.

Obama claims to be a Christian, and no one can or should demand that he renounce Christianity. He must, however, publicly clarify his beliefs with respect to what is considered Christianity in America compared to the destructive, racist creed taught at Trinity United Church in Chicago, where he has been a member for the past 20 years.

If Barack Obama indeed subscribes to Black Liberation Theology, whether he admits to it or not, this will make him the most dangerous individual to ever aspire to the Presidency. There is no debate on this point.

Obama must be asked directly whether or not he accepts Black Liberation Theology as preached by pastors who subscribe to this doctrine and as described in James Cone’s book, Black Theology and Black Power, the chief text of BLT (as admitted to by Rev. Jeremiah Wright on March 1, 2007). No less will do, and unless he is asked this question, Americans will have been grossly irresponsible with regard to their civic duties. In truth, were the establishment press not corrupt and Americans more scrupulous in their discernment, Obama’s campaign hopes would have been dashed in March 2007.

One of the most prominent of our broadcast journalists has all but pledged to interview Obama on his television program, perhaps the most widely-viewed of its kind in America. This gentleman was duly critical of the candidate and Reverend Wright when the issue of the pastor’s racist and anti-American sentiments came to light. Will he ask Obama the all-important question?

At this juncture it appears extremely unlikely that he or anyone else will. Should this occur, it is even less likely that Obama will comply, so grave would be the implications of such action.

Were Obama to renounce Black Liberation Theology, the backlash from militant BLT pastors, their cohorts (such as the Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan) and black Americans who have been brainwashed into maintaining solidarity with influential blacks even if they are far wide of the mark would be so severe, not only would the candidate lose the black vote, but his campaign might all but disintegrate. His renouncement would be framed as a rejection of the aggregate of black Americans.

This columnist has stated on national television venues that Barack Obama lied about his knowledge of Rev. Wright’s militancy. Given the nature of Black Liberation Theology and those who preach it, it is an impossibility that he was never present when statements were made similar to those which aired. Such verbiage is the meat of this doctrine. That an adherent to this vile cult would lie in order to attain the presidency is no stretch, of course, but the glaring evidence of this lie must come to light.

Barack Obama was (as he says) “drawn to” Trinity United; it is the belief of an increasing number of America’s more astute observers that this was because he recognized it as a strategy whereby he might put an acceptable face on his religious and sociopolitical leanings, which are actually more akin to that of the Nation of Islam and more generic black nationalists than any Christian denomination. Join a radical Christian church; at least it has the word “Christian” tied to it. Perhaps the “Jesus” BLT promotes was one in whom Obama could believe (difficult though he may be to find in the New Testament). Inasmuch as there are almost innumerable varieties of Christianity in the U.S. and criticism of black culture is not considered politically correct, I am certain much calculation arrived at the likelihood that he would get away with it.

He was right, of course. The genesis of Obama’s book The Audacity of Hope, which helped pave the way for his candidacy, was a sermon delivered by Jeremiah Wright. This insight with respect to who the candidate is or might be remains a surreal paradox: Audacity is an acclaimed literary work (which some pundits claim Obama didn’t actually write), but one which has failed to serve as the red flag it really is.

The reason Obama must be called to renounce Black Liberation Theology is twofold: One, to determine his sincerity or depth of his duplicity. Two, is in order to hold him accountable at a later date, sort of like: “I did not have sex with that woman.”

If cornered as candidate or President, Obama might conceivably spin BLT into a far more innocuous phenomenon that it truly is, but having been cornered, Americans will be “looking at his feet,” if you will: Scrutinizing his actions rather than his words.

For my part, I submit that if Obama was sitting in the pews of Trinity United Church as a member for 20 years, he has no place anywhere in American government, let alone holding the highest office in the land.

Americans have every right to elect an odious and treacherous individual to the White House if they so desire – assuming they know what they are getting. Right now, they have no idea.

I guess out on Lake Blowbegone, patriotism isn’t kosher? Keillor just seems, nose in the air, to find all that lowborn patriotism so woefully gauche. At least, one might get that impression by reading the attack penned by Garrison Keillor against the patriotism evinced by the folks who don their red, white and blue, along with their leather jackets and hop on their Hogs to join the long line of motorcycle riders at “Rolling Thunder” on Memorial Day in Washington D.C. This year, Keillor was so put off by the patriotic bikers that he was driven to his keyboard to regale us all with his bad metaphors and surly disposition.

With “The roar of hollow patriotism,” Keillor found that he just couldn’t stomach the loud patriotism expressed by the Harley riders in D.C. He also seemed to say that if you are a “fat man with a ponytail” you shouldn’t be allowed to express that patriotism in a manner you so wish to express it.

Three-hundred thousand bikers spent Memorial Day weekend roaring around Washington in tribute to our war dead, and I stood on Constitution Avenue Sunday afternoon watching a river of them go by, waiting for a gap in the procession so I could cross over to the Mall and look at pictures.

A “river” of motorcycles? Seems a rather inapt metaphor, doesn’t it? Maybe “stampede” or “herd,” might make more sense, but when I think “river” I think a serene scene of nature as opposed to the cacophony of motorbikes.

But, bad metaphors abound. They get more vicious, too.

A patriotic bike rally is sort of like a patriotic toilet-papering or patriotic graffiti; the patriotism somehow gets lost in the sheer irritation of the thing. Somehow a person associates Memorial Day with long moments of silence when you summon up mental images of men huddled together on LSTs and pilots revving up B-24s and infantrymen crouched behind piles of rubble steeling themselves for the next push.

I find myself mouth agape at the hate expressed by Keillor against these patriotic folks. Is this vitriol warranted?

I also paused after that paragraph searching my mind for a mean way to describe a liberal’s patriotic rally of some sort. But, after wracking my little head for 10 minutes, I realized that it is impossible to describe something that has never happened. At least Keillor had seen a biker’s rally so that he could lampoon them! I’d have to make up what a liberal’s rally might look like from pure imagination. And I just cannot justify the waste of time.

Now part of Keillor’s screed was filled with a loving description of Renoir’s ballerina, Monet’s children in the garden of sunflowers, and Mary Cassatt’s The Boating Party that he wanted to see upon his visit to the Smithsonian. Beyond a doubt these are some of the finest and most important paintings of their kind. But, I found it interesting that Keillor felt that a great way to celebrate Memorial Day was to go see some paintings by Europeans — and one ex-pat, wannabe European — instead of something, anything actually American.

Then Keillor revealed his complete lack of knowledge of anyone outside his circle of tea-drinking, pinky finger lifted, emasculated, lefties with whom he is so used to associating.

You don’t quite see the connection between that and these fat men with ponytails on Harleys. After hearing a few thousand bikes go by, you think maybe we could airlift these gentlemen to Baghdad to show their support of the troops in a more tangible way.

Keillor is obviously so out of touch with America that he is utterly unaware that at the Rolling Thunder rally, a large portion of those bikers he hates so much ARE veterans of our armed forces. They’ve served in Vietnam, the first Gulf War and the current conflicts already!

This is why I ” don’t quite see the connection” between Keillor and anyone who really is patriotic.

He repeated his attack against the people on bikes that he has no knowledge of a few paragraphs later saying that if they read some books on WWII…

…they would get a vision of what it was like to face death for your country, but the bikers riding in formation are more interested in being seen than in learning anything. They are grown men playing soldier, making a great hullaballoo without exposing themselves to danger, other than getting drunk and falling off a bike.

Naturally this pseudo-intellectual warmed up his Bush Derangement Syndrome for another cheap shot at both the bikers and our president.

No wonder the Current Occupant welcomed them with open arms at the White House, put on a black leather vest, and gave a manly speech about how he’d just “choppered in” and saw the horde “cranking up their machines” and he thanked them for being so patriotic. They are his kind of guys, full of bluster, giving off noxious fumes, and when they leave town, nobody misses them.

Yes, these bikers are President Bush’s sort of folks. They are many of them veterans of the armed services as is their president. And, as Keillor is mocking the bikers for not serving (as he imagines and wrongly so) I cannot seem to find any mention of Keillor’s military service. Born on 1942, he graduated college in 1966 and doesn’t seem to have served in the military, oddly enough. Makes one wonder where his criticism of other people’s service, or lack thereof, comes from? Or, more correctly, it makes one wonder at Keillor’s hypocrisy.

I’d say that out at lake Blowbegone, there are fumes noxious enough to rival the cloud raised above D.C. this Memorial Day. Only, I’d prefer that Keillor’s fumes stay out in the isolated wilderness of Minnesota where the rest of us won’t become engulfed in them as they waft uninvitingly from the nation’s newspapers.

(Photo Credit: http://shikow.blogspot.com)