PMEL Forum

It was billed as "A Day Without Immigrants."

According to its propagandists, official and media, the purpose of the May Day walkout from schools and jobs and boycott of shops and stores was to show how much immigrants contribute and how they deserve appreciation and respect, and not to be treated like criminals.

But if this was all it was about, there would have been no need to go on strike. Americans have always welcomed immigrants. They are better treated here than anywhere on earth. While most Americans believe we now need a timeout to assimilate the 36 million here and their children -- like the moratorium we had in the Roosevelt-Truman-Eisenhower-Kennedy years -- no one urges any denial of rights to legal immigrants.

What, then, was May Day really all about?

May Day was a strike against America. It was a show of force, a demonstration of raw street power to force the government of the United States into granting to 12 million illegal aliens, who have broken our laws and broken into our country, not only the full benefits of U.S. citizenship, but full citizenship.

It was brazen act of extortion to coerce Congress to grant amnesty now, and not to enforce our immigration laws or secure the Mexican border -- or to be ready for big trouble in the streets.

Congress cannot capitulate. The response of any Congress that calls itself American to such extortion should be a direct one:

"We are not intimidated. There is going to be no amnesty. The border fence goes up this summer. Those are our non-negotiable answers to your non-negotiable demands. Demonstrate all you want. We're not capitulating."

The message that would go out to the world would be electric: Congress will have said, first, that the United States will not be cowed by strikes or boycotts by law-breakers. Second, America intends to re-establish control of her border. Third, the invasion route from Mexico is going to be closed, forever.

Fourth, those who come to America henceforth will be those we invite in. And, as guests, they will behave as guests -- or they will be going back home. As for businesses that cannot get along without illegal foreign labor, if some of their CEOs are prosecuted and put to work in Arizona building that security fence, they will rapidly rediscover how to make a buck without colluding in an invasion of their country for commercial purposes.

We are at a turning point in American history. In July of 1954, President Eisenhower, discovering that illegal aliens were pouring into the Southern United States at a rate of a million a year, put in motion Operation Wetback, which halted the invasion and sent back scores of thousands of illegals to Mexico. Many more returned voluntarily.

Thirty years later, Ronald Reagan declared an amnesty for 3 million illegal aliens, conditioned on sanctions on U.S. businesses that did not cease to hire them. Following that amnesty, the flood began. Now we have 12 million illegals here.

Between 2000 and 2005, 4.5 million were caught at the border. Four million are believed to have gotten in. No one knows exactly how many. Even Bush concedes that, among the illegals, one in 12 has a criminal record. If we have 12 million illegals here now, that means the U.S. government, in dereliction of its duty, has let into this nation in the last 20 years 1 million criminals -- like Beltway sniper John Lee Malvo -- to prey on American citizens.

While almost half of all Mexicans, in a national poll, indicated a desire to move to the United States, the rest of the Third World has gotten the message. One in every 10 citizens of Central America and the Caribbean countries has already arrived. During the War on Terror, the number of those coming into the United States illegally from countries "other than Mexico" (OTM) has tripled.

These OTMs are coming from as far away as China and Iraq.

Fifteen years ago there were 3 million to 4 million illegals here.  There are now 12 million. If these 12 million are amnestied and the border fence is not built along all 2,000 miles, the next amnesty will be for 20 million or 30 million.

During the "Generals' Revolt," when half a dozen senior officers called for the firing of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, President Bush saw a challenge to his authority and had to throw it back. If Congress does not throw back this challenge, if Congress now capitulates to this extortion, America should start shopping for a new Congress in November -- an American Congress.

Rally 'Round the (Mexican) Flag
by James R. Edwards, Jr.

Recent and upcoming pro-amnesty rallies, where thousands of illegal immigrants and other foreigners make outrageous demands on the United States, prove several things.

One, there's no basis for the claim that only amnesty would bring the 10-12 million illegal aliens "out of the shadows." Illegal aliens aren't cowering in fear of being caught and deported. Hundreds of thousands of them brazenly march in American streets, identify themselves to news reporters as illegals and enter congressional office buildings to pressure U.S. politicians for amnesty.

Two, the demonstrations, such as in Los Angeles, Washington and New York, prove that the Bush administration won't lift a finger to enforce the laws on the books. Every member of Congress has anecdotes from his district where local police called Homeland Security after taking illegal aliens into custody, only to be told to free the lawbreakers because the feds refuse to cooperate.

But Homeland Security won't even enforce immigration laws when illegal aliens show up en masse for political theatrics. One good, prominent enforcement action at one of these events would send a signal well understood in any language: The laws are on the books for good reasons, and we intend to enforce them.

Three, the differences in Congress over how to deal with this issue reflect the two bodies and how each works. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives heard constituents loud and clear. H.R. 4437, which enjoyed strong bipartisan support, takes an "enforcement-first" approach.

The Senate Republican factions lack consensus on immigration issues. Senators tend to be much more out of touch with the people they represent. They tend to hear mostly from bigwigs, while lowly staffers answer the mail from average constituents.

Thus, just before Easter recess the Senate couldn't agree on a legislative approach. The Senate Judiciary Committee bill is a poison concoction of mass amnesty plus promiscuous guestworker plus illegal farmworker amnesty plus more than doubling of already-too-high legal immigration levels plus in-state tuition for illegal aliens.

The Hagel-Martinez "compromise" that Majority Leader Bill Frist inexplicably embraced is a blanket amnesty bill. It legalizes nearly all the illegal alien population, treating classes of illegal aliens according to how long they claim to have been here. Length of unlawful presence determines how many modest hoops someone has to jump through. It also more than doubles legal immigration levels.

The Frist bill, while omitting amnesty-guestworker schemes, doubles legal immigration. And like the other Senate legislation, Frist's S. 2454 has mediocre enforcement measures that don't measure up to the House-passed bill or even the Cornyn-Kyl (S. 1438) enforcement provisions.

Before recess, the Senate couldn't rally 60 votes to debate any of these bills. That's good, because any of them would do more harm than good.

Four, the coordinated amnesty rallies unveil the leftist ties and tactics of these groups. As the Washington Times has reported, organizers such as ANSWER and key instigators have Marxist roots. They've developed fellow travelers among Big Business, Big Religion and Big Labor.

Agitators picked the Communist May Day for another round of demonstrations. Recent "day without an immigrant" and May 1 "boycott" protests employ the favorite Communist "general strike" tactic. Demonstrators and organizers alike freely invoke ugly name-calling -- "racist," "xenophobe," "bigot" -- to stifle honest debate and intimidate decent people into silence.

Five, conditions are right for bold American leadership. President Bush could rally the "silent majority" of Americans who favor faithful enforcement of immigration laws and immigration cuts. This could help him rebound from all-time low approval ratings and salvage GOP control of the House and Senate in the traditionally brutal second-term midterm elections.

For six years, President Bush has reflexively mythologized immigration, confused capitulation for compassion, browbeaten and derided patriotic Americans as "vigilantes" and half-wits. He has continually pushed for open-ended "guestworker"/amnesty schemes and, with rare, post-9/11 exception, systematically undermined every effort at meaningful immigration enforcement.

In short, he has sold out the American people at every turn on immigration issues.

The fact the Republican-led House has displayed bold statesmanship on this issue should help insulate incumbents in upcoming elections. The House passed the kind of immigration bill the American people (as opposed to foreign interlocutors and elitists) really want.

The Senate's schizophrenia and delusional views on immigration explain the poor ratings Congress gets on this issue. They also expose Senators to greater vulnerability come Election Day.

All in all, the demonstrations present America with a choice. We'll look like spineless college administrators or Gov. Ronald Reagan in their response to 1960s campus unrest. Either we'll wave a white flag, grant amnesty and open the borders or we'll take back the red, white and blue, resolve to fight for our country and begin enforcing immigration laws today.

HAHAHAHAHA...a look at ten years ago...from the Columbus Dispatch....

"With a 97 - 3 Vote, the Senate passed an immigration bill to tighten Boarder Controls, make it tougher for illegal aliens to get U.S. jobs and curtail legal immigrants' access to social services."

damn joke...that's all this is...a damn joke...if you can beat 'em, join 'em... I'm moving to Mexico....since they're moving to the U.S..

Mexico's Immigration Law: Let's Try It Here at Home

by J. Michael Waller
Posted May 08, 2006

Mexico has a radical idea for a rational immigration policy that most Americans would love. However, Mexican officials haven't been sharing that idea with us as they press for our Congress to adopt the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill.

That's too bad, because Mexico, which annually deports more illegal aliens than the United States does, has much to teach us about how it handles the immigration issue. Under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

At a time when the Supreme Court and many politicians seek to bring American law in line with foreign legal norms, it's noteworthy that nobody has argued that the U.S. look at how Mexico deals with immigration and what it might teach us about how best to solve our illegal immigration problem. Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:

in the country legally;
have the means to sustain themselves economically;
not destined to be burdens on society;
of economic and social benefit to society;
of good character and have no criminal records; and
contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

The law also ensures that:

immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country's internal politics;
foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;
those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

Who could disagree with such a law? It makes perfect sense. The Mexican constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens -- and the denial of many fundamental rights to non-citizens, illegal and illegal. Under the constitution, the Ley General de Población, or General Law on Population, spells out specifically the country's immigration policy.

It is an interesting law -- and one that should cause us all to ask, Why is our great southern neighbor pushing us to water down our own immigration laws and policies, when its own immigration restrictions are the toughest on the continent? If a felony is a crime punishable by more than one year in prison, then Mexican law makes it a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

If the United States adopted such statutes, Mexico no doubt would denounce it as a manifestation of American racism and bigotry.

We looked at the immigration provisions of the Mexican constitution. [1] Now let's look at Mexico's main immigration law.

Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:

Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)
Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)
Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37)
The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest." (Article 38)
Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:

Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
A National Population Registry keeps track of "every single individual who comprises the population of the country," and verifies each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86)

A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).

Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:
Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)
Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)
Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:

Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico -- such as working with out a permit -- can also be imprisoned.

Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,

"A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally." (Article 123)
Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)
Foreigners who "attempt against national sovereignty or security" will be deported. (Article 126)

Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:
A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

All of the above runs contrary to what Mexican leaders are demanding of the United States. The stark contrast between Mexico's immigration practices versus its American immigration preachings is telling. It gives a clear picture of the Mexican government's agenda: to have a one-way immigration relationship with the United States.

Let's call Mexico's bluff on its unwarranted interference in U.S. immigration policy. Let's propose, just to make a point, that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) member nations standardize their immigration laws by using Mexico's own law as a model.

This article was first posted at CenterforSecurityPolicy.org.

When I hear the word " Mexico" I think of a pile of $h!+ with flies all over it or a bunch of people piled into a old white Chevy van. I guess that's the same thing.

The protests of this last week can be encapsulated this way: thousands of criminals wanted the government to ignore their crime. That reality is not changed by saying that they "are human and we need to recognize their humanity." Of course we recognize their humanity; they just need to follow the law. We will not justify their lawlessness any more that we would justify the lawlessness of a trespasser or thief on the grounds that they "needed" the property they took. Marching in the street, protesting the enforcement of a law does not justify breaking that law. A legal system that rewards lawbreakers is destined to collapse into anarchy. Indeed, those who protested this last week were asking for anarchy; an open border and unlimited immigration. That is dangerous for our country (as 9/11 pointed out), and extremely shortsighted.

Our immigration laws may be complicated, but that does not justify ignoring them. We should enforce those laws, and, if the enforcement proves that the laws are unworkable, then you look at changing the law. But until that happens, the laws should stand, and they should be enforced.

I say we protest the real old fashion way with pitch forks and torches.

On May 1st, 2006 as a result of the Mexican boycott, national retailers reported 4.2% lower sales for the day, with a 67.8% reduction in shoplifting.

Buenos Dias!

A Letter from a Slave to an Illegal Alien
by Herman Cain

Dear Illegal Alien,

My ancestors were brought to this country in chains against their will, and sold and forced to work like common farm animals. They had to abide by the laws to stay alive.

My ancestors endured abuse and unlawful deaths for 250 years before the civilized hearts of this nation recognized that "all men are created equal," regardless of race or color. We went from slaves to free men and women, but without the freedom of equal rights, equal access to opportunity and equal protection under our nation's laws. That struggle took another 100 years, culminating with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Throughout my ancestors' 350-year struggle the objective was always "one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all." When that liberty and justice finally became legally recognized as our civil rights, some of us ran through the doors of opportunity, some walked, and some chose to stay on the outside to criticize and complain. Still, our nation's history has always been defined by one set of laws, one language and one flag of unity. This is what defines the United States of America!

Therein lies your biggest problem. The public perception is that you want a different set of laws, and you want to ignore current laws. You even want an accommodation of your language in our national anthem, and some of your people are flaunting flags other than the flag of the USA.

As a reminder, USA stands for United States of America. It does not stand for "Under Special Assumptions."

There is no doubt that the USA is a nation of immigrants -- legal immigrants. No one faults you for desiring the opportunity for a better life in the greatest country in the world. Although we do not consider your demonstrations a civil rights movement, there are some lessons you could learn from our 350-year struggle that may help you in your quest to come out of our nation's shadows.

First, your illegal status is a non-starter for obtaining rights, benefits or a short cut to citizenship. It is creating massive public resentment and alienating those with compassionate hearts who might want to support a reasonable and fair road to your citizenship. You will not earn U.S. citizenship as long as you choose to ignore our laws, simply because you have been able to survive here illegally for a number of years.

Granted, our immigration system is cumbersome, inefficient and needs major overhaul, but it is a part of our system of laws. Maybe one of your objectives should be to encourage Congress to overhaul the system, making the process more efficient for every immigrant, which would make it easier and more efficient for you.

Second, your objectives are unclear, and your leadership uncertain. My ancestors' objectives have always been crystal clear, even when our leadership had been questionable, as it is today. Not every so-called "leader" capable of attracting media attention represents African-Americans' best interests. One of our greatest leaders was, obviously, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. during the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Today, unfortunately, African-Americans are leadership-challenged, despite the great progress we have made. Beware of your leaders and those that would mislead you.

Third, get with the program on our use of the English language and respect and allegiance for our one flag. Second languages exist and are respected in many ethnic communities, but they learn the Star Spangled Banner in English. Our soldiers fight and die for one flag. Patriotism is alive and well in this country, just as it was when this nation was founded, and it will stay that way.

Your journey toward the full rights of U.S. citizenship may not take 350 years, but it will take clarity of purpose, certainty of leadership and a lawful, patriotic approach toward attaining the best that this nation has to offer. In this spirit of coming to our great country, you will eventually hear 300 million legal citizens say, "Welcome to America."

Hey, what do you call a mexican who flys a plane?

PILOT, you racists BASTARD!

I hope that's not directed at me, not having a racist bone in my body...  I respect everyone, be they black, white, pink or purple, male or female.  I believe in equal pay for equal work, and the ability to work has nothing to do with the color of your skin, religion, or heritage.  Intelligence comes from your education and experience, not from your race.  Most jobs in this country don't require a penis to perform them, so women can do pretty much anything men can do.

Laziness, on the other hand, may be an inherited trait from your parents.  If your father was a welfare-receiving couch potato, chances are you will be, too...  If your father was a PMEL tecnician, chances are you're a smart kid with a work ethic.

Quote from: docbyers on 05-15-2006 -- 11:13:32
I hope that's not directed at me, not having a racist bone in my body...  I respect everyone, be they black, white, pink or purple, male or female.  I believe in equal pay for equal work, and the ability to work has nothing to do with the color of your skin, religion, or heritage.  Intelligence comes from your education and experience, not from your race.  Most jobs in this country don't require a penis to perform them, so women can do pretty much anything men can do.

Laziness, on the other hand, may be an inherited trait from your parents.  If your father was a welfare-receiving couch potato, chances are you will be, too...  If your father was a PMEL tecnician, chances are you're a smart kid with a work ethic.

Simmer down, Doc, simmer down! It wasn't directed at no body! Just a lil humor!

That's cool.  I just wanted you to understand where I'm coming from...

My father raised me to NOT be a bigot or a racist, and prejudice is not allowed in our family.  I've had my doubts about Marines in the past, but by and large they have proven to be steadfast and true, so my doubts were unfounded...

Now, I wouldn't let Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) in my house, or within 100 meters of my children, but hopefully that doesn't make me a racist, just a protective father...

The only race that I don't like are Arabs. It's not a skin color thing. It's a 9/11 thing. let me clear things up. It's not Arabs, it's Islamic poeple ( which are all just about Arab ).  Yes it is true that I have a deep bitter hate for all Islamic believers. I don't think that muslims have any place in the U.S. military. There has been 8 muslim chaplins in the U.S. military that has been convicted of spying and lets not forget about the muslim soldier that threw a grenade into his higher ups tent in Kuwait just before the invasion. Just look at them if they don't have "infidals" to kill then they are killing each other. I am not labeling them, they are doing that all by themselves. I believe the world would be a better place without Islam. I am not Jewish, but I am very Pro-Isreal. I say we help God's chosen people by wiping their enemy off the map. All of them!