America's waking up, but not fast enough

I wasn't going to add a new post today, just the second part of yesterday's comments. But the headlines today demand comment.

If anyone had doubts that the massive surge of illegal aliens in this country was a problem, a review of today's news, and a little reflection on those headlines, should reinforce the idea that there is nothing short of a major social confrontation and homeland security crisis brewing.

On the open borders and let 'em do what they want side:
Immigrant boycott aims to 'close' US cities
March to Capitol planned to push immigrant rights
Immigration issues coming to a 'big stop'
Muslim Americans to Join Immigration Marches
Guatemala Workers Support US Immigrants
Politicians Who Care About Immigration: Mexico's Presidential Candidates

On the secure borders and enforce the laws side of the issue:
Backers Of Illegal Immigration Bill Rally
Group Opposing Government Services For Illegal Immigrants Rally At Capitol
Arizona Lawmakers Working on $60M Plan to Curb Illegal Immigration
State immigration showdown looms
Anti-illegal Immigrant Ballot Initiative Kicks Off
Court urged to back RICO law in hiring of illegal immigrants

Emphasizing the duality of the country on the issues:
Brothers in Congress Split on Immigration
Boycotting the boycott? Immigrants ponder May 1 walkout
Immigration splits Christian right

Media bias:
Anti-Immigrant Group Active on East End

While citizens are starting to ramp up efforts to counter the efforts of illegal aliens and their supporters, the opposition isn't just waiting around. They have declared to "close" our cities, march on the US Capitol and have enlisted the Mexican presidential candidates who have come out demanding fully open US borders and an end to any legal action against illegal aliens.

In addition, CAIR, the radical Council for American Islamic Relations, which is intolerant of any criticism of Islamic terrorists, has come out in support of the May 1st boycott. Calling on their members and supporters to participate in the boycott and rallies. While they won't say publicly, no doubt the boycott is seen as a way of weakening the US government and further divide the American people, both of which they would view as advantageous to their goals.

Americans are split on the issues, the need for a secure America balances against the traditional compassion for the "underdog." On the other side of the issue, supporters of illegal aliens worry the boycotts; rallies and walkouts will backfire, waking a sleeping giant in the American people who will view these actions as an attack on the US.

And the media can't help itself, specifically the New York Times, of course, referring to a local chapter of the Minutemen as an "anti-immigrant," wild-eyed, gun-toting, unstable group.

If you think the issue is limited to the US, think again, European nations have long struggled with the issue of immigration and illegal aliens. The recent riot in France by second-generation Muslim youths was fueled by clashes between the French and Islamic cultures.

In "Labour's shambolic immigration and asylum policy," an article on the British Conservative party website, Tony Blair and his Labor party are blasted over statements and policies on illegal immigration while the calls for a British national ID card strengthen. The national ID card is thought to be a means of controlling illegal immigration and identifying possible terrorists.

American's need to wake up and stop worrying about petty issues like the price of gas and pay attention and get involved in an issue that is set to tear this nation apart and change the face of America for years to come. It won't be a change for the good folks.

The problem is "behavior"

According to Jennifer & Peter Wipf of the About.com site, "Your Guide to Immigration Issues," "Not All Conservatives Hate Immigrants, But Boy Do They Hate 'Handouts'. "This headlined their response to an article by Amy Hess on About.com’s "Your Guide to Conservative Politics: U.S." site.

Amy tries to shore up her compassionate Conservative credentials by providing a point by point or her answer to those in this nation illegally. While she reiterates the points generally posited by the supporters of President Bush's position, she ends with this, "Those folks waving Mexican and Colombian flags obviously have pride in their home countries - and yet don't want to live there. I wonder if they put all their hard work and passion into fixing their home governments, in cleaning up their own countries, what they could accomplish."

But what it found interesting in the combination of these two items is Jennifer and Peter's assumption that most "Conservatives hate immigrants." That is implicit in the statement titling their April 25th posting. This is typical of the left, take an issue that is centered on behavior and assign it to a group of people.

Jennifer and Peter, conservatives don't hate immigrants, as you would like to portray them. Conservatives hate the actions of illegal aliens who've entered the USA by illicit means.

Conservatives hate the expectations of those same lawbreakers that they deserve to have their actions overlooked and to be accepted as though they followed the law regulating immigration. No, they expect this nation to no just overlook their actions; they expect us to reward them by putting them to the head of the line, in front of those who've gone through the legal process.

That's what conservatives have a problem with Pete and Jen. It's about actions and attitudes. At least you got one part right, the part about handouts.

Handouts of money, handouts of unearned opportunity, handouts of disregarded bad behavior, but then, those are the very things on which the liberal agenda is based.

Not All Conservatives Hate Immigrants, But Boy Do They Hate "Handouts"
One Last (Gentler?) Note on Immigration
Sens. Say Bush Favors Citizenship Plan

Obfuscating the issues

There is a diverse mix of headlines today but taken together they form a mosaic of opinion. Commenting on it gets lengthy, so I'll break it up into two days.

The liberal media and pro-illegal immigration supporters would be buoyed by the item in The New York Times that declares, "For Latinos in the Midwest, a Time to Be Heard." The gist of the story is that Latino's in small town America are coming out the woodwork to declare their permanence in the landscape.

But the story isn't about illegal aliens, it reports on "legal" immigrants who have been a productive part of the work place for years. It also illustrates the tactics of the pro-illegal lobby to obfuscate to issue by blending legal immigrants and illegal aliens into a single group, assigning the troubling issue of "illegal" activity to those who have come into this country lawfully.

In doing so they stir up fear among our legal immigrant communities by implying that legislation under consideration will negatively affect them too. To be honest, it will if they have family or friends here illegally or if they break the law by employing illegal aliens. But there is no effort or desire create laws that will change the status of legal, law abiding immigrants in this country simply because of who they are.

Another tact of the pro-illegal lobby is to gin up sympathy for the plight of illegal aliens. In an article titled "Student's Prize Is a Trip Into Immigration Limbo," the NYT highlights the plight of an abandoned Senegalese teen, left behind by his mother in 2001 when she returned to her homeland.

This technologically brilliant young man was abandoned a second time when the woman his mother arranged to care for him reneged on the deal, leaving him to return to New York City and fend for himself.

Certainly this story pulls at our compassion and sense of fair play, yet it is a very isolated and unique situation and has little bearing on the illegal immigration issue at our southwestern borders.

Yes, legislation under study can impact him, but more likely the INS will look on this young man, abandoned as a minor and here in this country through no effort of his own, far differently than they will a similar aged young man crossing the US borders under cover of night with the explicit intent of breaking our laws for his personal gain.

On the other side of the issue, the Minuteman Project has seen an increase in stature and membership in recent weeks as citizen concern over border security strengthens.

They are finding, according to Stephen Eichler, the group's executive director, "...these guys actually have teeth, they don't all chew tobacco, they don't all have a gun rack in the back of their truck." Even as the left tries to marginalize the Minutemen, mainstream America is seeing who they really are.

Still, that doesn't stop the opposition's efforts to create a misleading impression of the group. Heidi Beirich, deputy director of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project stated her opinion that most of the new recruits will go to a rally or two and realize, according to her, "'My God, I didn't sign on for this' (the groups alleged "extremist attitudes")."

While the membership of The Minuteman Project has increased to 200,000 as concern for border security increases, Phoenix's KNXV-TV is reporting a poll which they said showed Arizonians to be "hawkish on border enforcement." Of the respondents, "nearly half of the 380 registered voters surveyed statewide say the most important priority in addressing illegal immigration is securing the border."

At the same time the poll, according to KNXV-TV, indicated "moderation" among those polled toward immigrants reporting, "43 percent say illegal immigrants should be allowed to earn citizenship if they've lived in the country for a while."

Hmm, that last figure would indicate that 57% of those polled disagreed with that statement. So "nearly" 50% for border enforcement is "hawkish" while 57% who disagree with allowing illegals to earn citizenship is considered "moderate."

more tomorrow...

For Latinos in the Midwest, a Time to Be Heard
Student's Prize Is a Trip Into Immigration Limbo
Minuteman Project gains mainstream appeal amid the immigration debate
Arizonans hawkish on border enforcement, moderate on immigrants

"You old white people. It is your duty to die."

"We have beaten you. Leave like beaten rats. You old white people. "

"California's going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who doesn't like it should leave."

"They're afraid we're going to take over the governmental institutions...They're right. We will..."

These and other quotes and alarming information from the California Coalition for Immigration Reform can be read in a letter verified with a coalition representive on Boycott the Boycott.

Read the letter

Make your plans, write your Congressmen and Senators!

Vicente Fox's open border policy

While US residents wrangle with the problem of illegal aliens crossing an unsecured border to find jobs and draw on public assistance, Mexico's President Vicente Fox praised these Mexicans and denigrates US citizens for not taking a stand against their illegal acts.

Mexico received $20 billion in 2005 funds sent to family and friends from illegal aliens working in the US. Those dollars are critical to the Mexican economy, contributing about 3% of the gross domestic income and about 10% of all import income.

In 2004 Mexico's annual income per person was $6770, certainly unimpressive by US standards, but on the world scene a very strong showing. Still, an illegal coming to the US can earn $16,000 - $20,000, live in communal housing with 10-20 other illegals holding down expenses and send at least half their income back to Mexico.

The Mexican economy counts on those dollars and Fox calls those Mexican illegally crossing the US border heroes. While the Mexican economy is far short of that of the US, it has grown to the extent that Mexico is now classified as a middle tier economy.

Fox counts on that income, encouraging Mexicans to cross our borders for US jobs, all the while denigrating US citizens for their anger and concern for the open borders and negative impact these illegals have on the US economy.

On the other hand, Fox's government exacts a heavy hand on Central and South Americans entering his country illegally on its southern border. They are hunted down, robbed, beaten, imprisoned and raped. They have no rights under the Mexican constitution, not even to protest or demonstrate against the Mexican government.

The mobs of illegals we've seen in the US in recent weeks would never occur in Mexico, they would find themselves immediately arrested, beaten, robbed and deported.

Any feigned concern Fox my express in the context of international relations can be completely discounted in the illumination of the acts of his government and statements made by him and his representatives.

Fox is in favor of open borders, but only on the northern side of his nation.

In Mexico, Immigration Seen As Inevitable
The Immigration Debate - NPR
CIA World Factbook - Mexico
Media Ignore Mexican Gov't Brutality of Central American Immigrants
Wikipedia - Economy of Mexico

It's all in the numbers...

According to the Public Policy Institute of California, one in 15 California residents and one in 25 US workers is an illegal alien. The report also noted that the flow of illegal aliens into the US is greater than legal immigration.

According to a Washington Post/ABC poll, "three-quarters of registered voters in California support providing undocumented workers who have been in the United States for five or more years a path to citizenship."

This while the same poll revealed one-third of Californians support making illegal entry into this country a felony. That's 65% higher than the rest of the nation where the poll revealed 20% of Americans support a felony charge.

These two pieces of information seem in contrast until you consider the first paragraph. If that illegal 15% of the California population was included in the study, and no doubt they were, their opinions would skew the results away from that of the legal population.

Of course they would push for a "path to citizenship" as a means to stay in this country. But what about the second number, the third who favor a felony conviction for illegal entry?

Further down in the report it's revealed that 47% of Los Angeles county residents believe immigration is a major problem while 25% of those in the Central Valley agree with that sentiment. If we are to believe the rhetoric that illegals are core to the California agricultural workforce, the Central Valley is where they would concentrate while there would be fewer numbers of them in the metropolitan areas.

From that we can extrapolate that the legal residents see the issue as a much greater problem than the study, diluted by the illegal population, would indicate. To bad those numbers weren't released.

Just another indication of selective reporting to support a particular side of an issue.

Report Finds 1 out of 15 Californians is Illegal Alien
Californians Overwhelming Support A Path to Legality For Immigrants
Illegal Immigration: National Debate Has Crucial Implications In California

The price of dishonesty

While waiting in a doctor's office I came across an old issue of US News and found the commentary by Mort Zuckerman interesting and timely.

It had been a month since the London train bombings and Mr. Zuckerman was making an appeal for strong enforcement of our borders and surveillance of potential terrorist cells here. There was no hand wringing or worry of alienating a particular group.

As he put it, "Platitudes will not suffice. New and tougher measures must now be on the agenda: tighter immigration reviews, many more of the closed-circuit television cameras that worked so well in London, monitoring of Islamic centers to be sure they are not used to recruit local Muslims to jihad, and more scrutiny of all travelers."

So, I wondered, what does Mr. Zuckerman think about the current situation? I went to some of the current issues of US News to try and glean some of his thoughts.

On February 27th in comments on the brouhaha over the NSA monitoring of conversations of terrorist suspects in foreign countries he wrote, "What is relevant is how to develop a system that empowers government to monitor potential threats in the most agile, timely way possible while reassuring the public that it is not abusing its powers."

In the March 20th issue, Mr. Zuckerman, writing about the ascendancy of Hamas to control of the Palestinian Authority and the possibility of foreign aid, he wrote, "How can Europe even begin to think about subsidizing terrorism? That would be the effect of the stealth efforts to keep money flowing to Palestine despite its takeover by Hamas. The quaint notion that this terrorist organization will change its spots doesn't survive even a moment's scrutiny."

Then on April 17 Mr. Zuckerman begins the hand wringing. In "A Little Sanity Please" Zuckerman argues for the contribution immigrants have made to the United States over her history and in recent times. He begins by citing the need for unskilled labor and backs it up by stating that politicos need to flat out tell the citizens and legal residents of the US that we are not going to expel any illegal aliens. In his words it is a "moral, political, and financial burden" we cannot take.

He winds up by making a pitch for Sen. John McCain's bill, which failed to pass the Senate but McCain has vowed to take up again when the senate returns from it's recess. Zuckerman wrote this bill "would give them (illegal aliens) the traditional American second chance to play by the rules and become legal--a chance traditionally given to previous immigrants."

I would have to agree with you Mr. Zuckerman that America has given immigrants second chances, and third and more. However, and this is a big however, those immigrants came to this country legally. They assimilated into our society and added flavor. They did not disassociate themselves and refuse to become a part of the whole of society.

They worked hard, just like most of today's illegals, but they also took classes to learn about their newly adopted nation, it’s history and it's government. They struggled with but learned the English language and proudly practiced their skills while communicating with their new countrymen. After a period of years of following the proper, legal path, they proudly stood and took the oath of citizenship and became Americans.

They loved their new home and defended it, her people and her laws with no thought of occupying this land for their former homelands. Indeed, this was their new homeland and they were proud of her.

By contrast, the illegals of today come here under cover of darkness, secreting across a border they knew to be unsecured, misrepresented and lied about themselves, their circumstances, their nationality and their intentions.

While they came for and many now demand the benefits of citizenship, they have no intention of making the commitments or taking on the responsibilities of it. They try to use our compassion against our laws by coming here specifically to have their children who become citizens by birth, then demand that we cannot separate them.

They work in jobs, buy homes, use services, attend schools, accept state educational monies and federal assistance, all under the guise of a legal resident, then when discovered and prosecuted they cry foul. They say, "you cannot send us away from our homes, our families, our jobs, it's not moral."

Well, I'd have to say, it's immoral that you come here by illegal means, then when discovered lay claim to the fruits of your activity.

In the legal world, and we are a nation ruled by law, the criminal forfeits the fruits of his enterprise. Even legitimate goods such as houses, cars, boats, clothes, jewelry and so on, if found to be a benefit gained through the profits of criminal enterprise, are forfeit. They were obtained as a result of illegal activity.

It is no different for the illegal alien. You broke the laws of the land; you must pay the price for your actions. Had you followed the legal path, we would not be having this "conversation," but you didn't. You chose the easy path, but the seemingly easy path often ends up the hardest. It's just a fact of life.

If you desire to come to this nation legally and join the ranks of legal residents, we will welcome you with open arms. But until then, our compassion causes us to hurt on some level for you, but on another level our strength as a nation depends on you following the proper path to residency and citizenship.

The Poison Among Us - US News Aug 8, 2005
Using all the tools - US News Feb 27, 2006
In No Uncertain Terms - US News Mar 20, 2006
A Little Sanity, Please - US News Apr 17, 2006

A crackdown on illegals?

Two stories caught my attention today on the illegal immigration front. The first, a Reuters piece but also reported by the NY Times and others, is the arrests of some 1,200 illegal aliens and seven managers (current and former) of the Netherlands based IFCO Systems North America.

Of the companies roughly 5,800 US employees, about half had problems with their Social Security numbers in 2005. The story here is that at last, in a very big and public way, the INS is finally cracking down on this problem.

While it's difficult to determine the size of it's US subsidiary, world revenues for IFCO Systems, based in Amsterdam, were $573.3US million in 2005.

Until now, it had been feared that any INS and Homeland security crackdown would be limited to migrant workers and small businesses. It was thought big business was exempt from action on this issue, shielded by Republicans in Washington. This action on IFCO's US arm serves notice that no company is free to hire at will those who cross our borders illegally.

In almost an addendum to the Times story, Homeland Security announced the addition of 20 teams to track down some 590,000 immigrants who've ignored orders to leave the country and cooperation "with state and local officials to try to identify and if possible deport a large share of the estimated 630,000 foreign-born individuals who are arrested on criminal charges and put into jail."

In another story, it's been reported there are fractures in the coalition of groups supporting illegals. It seems there are concerns, rightly so, by some that the planned May 1st boycott could backfire. There are worries that if they boycott, some could lose their job and further alienate them from US citizens and legal residents and fuel negative public opinion.

Their concern is legitimate. Citizens are already concerned about the illegal immigrant issue, with the worries over national security and the economic impact of so many illegals on jobs, the economy and government services. The displays of illegals and their supporters in the past few weeks has only heightened that concern as photos and film showed 10's and 100's of thousands in the streets of a number of cities marching under the banner of the Mexican flag and demanding "rights".

Yet despite the concerns by some, the arrogance of the majority was voiced by organizers like Nativo Lopez, a boycott supporter and president of the Mexican American Political Assn., who called for a more confrontational approach. "So what's the ruckus about a boycott? We need to put the focus of power with the worker and immigrants, not in the hierarchies, to resolve the immigration reform debate."

Thumbing her nose at Homeland Security, the INS and the legal residents of the US, Julita Rincon, 21, an illegal immigrant and University of Houston student who leads a student activist organization, issued this challenge, "If immigrants continue demonstrating in large numbers, are they going to fire all of them?"

I wonder if Homeland Security will take notice and pay Ms. Rincon a visit?

Workers, managers arrested in immigration case - Reuters
U.S. Cracks Down on Hiring of Illegal Immigrants - NY Times
IFCO Systems US
Immigrants Divided on Boycott - LA Times (Registration Required)
Immigration allies splinter - San Jose Mercury News
Divisions emerge over nationwide boycott, protest - Ocala Star Banner

Taking a break...

I'll take a break today from posting to give ya time to digest the previous few days postings. Take time and consider your plans for your personal boycott of the boycott.

What's The Big Deal?

No doubt there are some Americans still asking themselves, "what's the big deal with this immigration stuff?" Well, if border security, terrorist incursion, and 10.5 million (some estimate as many as 30 million) illegal aliens increasing the burden on our social, medical, and governmental services* doesn't concern you, then maybe this will.

This summer Mexico is having it's presidential elections and will few here will mourn the departure of Vincentes Fox from the Mexican presidency, the favored contender for the role is someone who could make him look like a lily white rose.

The ultra-leftist Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador is the current front runner and he's had the support of some people we in the States should take notice of. According to Dick Morris recent intelligence reports support the rumors Venezuela's Hugo Chavez has be bankrolling this election. The question is, why should Chavez take interest.

Consider that Chavez along with his buddy Fidel Castro have been working quietly to increase the influence of socialism/ communism in the western hemisphere.

According to The American Empire, "Chavez is doing everything he can to turn elections in Latin America his way. And he is building a military machine to threaten anyone who doesn't step into line. Backing up Venezuela right now is Cuba, Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Uruguay. Chavez is supporting rebels in Colombia, and financing left wing politicians (his clients) in Peru and Mexico."

Mexico would be the crown jewel in his scheme. Between Venezuela and Mexico, the United States buys 30% of it petroleum imports. With that much control, they could, together, hold us hostage on the world markets. Of course we have enough reserves here to cover it, but the producers are tied up by government and environmental regulations. In any case, they couldn't drill fast enough to make up the shortage should Chavez implement this scheme any time soon.

But beyond that, a socialist government sharing a 2,000 mile border with the United States could cause all kinds of problems for us. We've seen what happened to the citizens in the western Europe communist states as their governments took more and more, giving the proletariat less and less while the ruling class enjoyed the largess of their power.

In Europe though, crossing the border to escape this abuse was difficult at best, the governments tightly controlled travel and visas. Bordering nations also tightly controlled their borders to protect against not only the communist threat, but the economic threat of the suffering lower classes in their neighboring states.

Along the US/Mexico border though, it's a vastly different story. Obviously, from the issues currently facing us, our border security is lax at best, some would say porous or non-existent. Couple that with a socialist state, al la Cuba, and you have a recipe for disaster.

If the estimated 400,000 illegal crossing per year don't bother you, what about when it reaches a million, or 2 or 3 million per year? All of them looking for a better life, competing for jobs, services, educations. Some of them desperate and despairing, and angry.

An editorial piece is reportedly in the Mexican publication, Expansion entitled, "A proposito de "Con todo respeto, Los Angeles es nuestro." Translation? "With all due respect, Los Angeles is ours."

According to Neal Boortz, "in the body of the editorial you'll find this sentence: "Waiters, waitresses, chamber maids, babysitters and farmhands are instigating a cultural reconquest in cities like Los Angeles, Portland, Washington, New York, Denver."

While I can't vouch for the authenticity of the editorial (it's cited several times on various web sites, but I couldn't find the quote on the Expansion web site.) There are no doubt many in Mexico who agree with that sentiment.

With our porous borders, some, and soon maybe many, will decide to act on that sentiment and make it their reality.


* "The annual gross cost to U.S. taxpayers to provide schooling, hospitalization, and whatever plethoric benefits are out there for the 30 million illegal aliens is approximately $400 billion per year funded by bona fide U.S. taxpayers. That's $400 billion per year and going up." - Jim Gilchrist

Flying The Mexian Flag - Neal Boortz
Post-Fox Mexico (Will a Hugo Chávez-style leftist become president south of the border?) - Weekly Standard
Mexico's Hugo Chavez - Front Page Magazine
Why Mexico's Presidential Election Matters to YOU! - The American Empire
Communist Mexico - Toby Westerman
The Crushing Economic Burden of Illegal Immigration - Jim Gilchrist
Immigration raises economic debate - Dallas News

What's the real issue?

To hear some of the people advocating for the illegal immigrants, you would think almost every citizen living in the US is racist. Time and again the "R" word is mentioned when this issue is discussed. See "Rally of illegals' advocates..."

It has become standard policy among those on the left that when faced with an issue where common sense is in opposition to their agenda; call the opposition's advocates "racist" and by association paint all others on that side of the issue.

None of us, well, most of us, don't want that label applied to us so when it's brought out, we take cover and run. The fact is, while there is considerable misunderstanding between members of the various racial groups here, for the great majority of people it's just that, misunderstanding.

For most of us, once we begin to understand each other, once that barrier is broken and we talk civilly, we may not agree, but we lose our fear of each other. It's not one sided, it goes both ways.

Granted, there are some in every group who are racist, it's inevitable, but to use the term as a standard tactic diminishes the power of it.

So illegal immigrant advocates have pulled put that brush and begun to apply broad strokes across the population of the US who are interested in securing the borders against those who would do us harm. Let's face it, in these perilous time there are those who wish to do us harm. And the color of our skin, our religious background, or ethnicity will be no shield against their very real hatred.

To the advocates of the illegals, "be genuine, be real in your arguments. Don't hide behind bogus issues. Argue the merits of your position and don't demonize someone else just because they disagree with you."

The issue is security, of our nation and our economy. That's something we should all be able to circle around because it very personally touches us all.

Why May 1st?

Did you wonder why the illegal immigrant supporters chose May 1st for their boycott? We all probably assumed it was because the first of the month was easy to remember and being the first of the week it would be more likely workers and students would take off or walk out of their jobs. After all, they would get a 3-day weekend!

But since this protest is primarily oriented towards those of Latino decent (specifically Mexicans but also South and Central Americas) Cinco de Mayo, only 4 days later and on a Friday would be more apt to motivate the protesters. It would also give them a three-day weekend, many most likely were already going to take the day off and it would give a nod to their heritage

So why not May 5th? The answer lies in the roots of the protest. Concocted by International ANSWER, a creation of the World Workers Party, this protest is not about (illegal) immigrants. It is about protesting the US capitalist economy and trying to gin up enough emotion to cause our system problems on that day.

While it barely makes a blip in the US, worldwide May 1st is celebrated in protests and demonstrations as International Workers Day. It is the primary holiday of socialists, communists and anarchist groups throughout the world, with massive displays of military power (remember the military parades of the old Soviet Union?) and massive demonstrations for workers rights.

I was in Paris in late April 2001, planning to leave just before May 1st, and our guides told us it was good that we would be going. On the weekend Paris fills up with hundreds of thousands of demonstrators and protesters putting on a rowdy and sometimes-dangerous show of "workers power." For an American in the city at that time it could get ugly.

The socialists of International ANSWER and the WWP apparently saw an opportunity to enlist the supporters of illegal immigrant rights into their campaign to use them as pawns in their effort to bring the protests and demonstrations of millions around the world to the US where the day goes by with barely a whimper.

ANSWER and the WWP will no doubt use the media attention to their advantage, twisting the boycott in their promotional materials as a sign that workers in the US are now getting fed up with their "capitalist government and taskmasters" and are ready to revolt for socialism.

And the people in the street or sitting at home "boycotting" don't have a clue...but now you do.

Together we can Boycott the Boycott!

Are we anti-immigration?

Are we anti-immigration or anti-immigrant? Everyone I speak to agrees with me that immigration is what built this nation. Except for pure blood native Americans, everyone one of us comes at least in part from immigrant stock.

Immigrants built many of the great companies of this nation. Andrew Carnegie (Carnegie Steel and Carnegie Mellon University), Al Wang (Wang Computers), and Andrew Grove (Intel).

Many great American intellectual minds came here from elsewhere. Albert Einstein (Germany), Elie Wiesel (Romania), Hyman G. Rickover (Russia). In music and entertainment there was Bob Hope (England), Yo-Yo Ma (France), Ann Margaret (Sweden) and Carlos Santana (Mexico).

The issue is not that immigration is bad, clearly it's not. It's not bad for America; it's not bad for those who hunger to come to her shores. The issue is at the very core of what gives America her strength. The rule of law.

Those who are now demanding "immigrants rights" are not being genuine. Immigrants, legal immigrants, clearly have rights in this nation. The issue most people have is the "illegal" part of "illegal immigrant."

They are illegal because they broke the law. Laws that protect America and her citizens. Laws designed to control immigration so that those who come can assure us they will be a benefit to our society and not a drain on our resources.

Laws designed to insure that those who come here do so in numbers that are low enough that our society can assimilate them without adversely impacting the citizens. In 2004 there were 800,000 legal permanent residents admitted to the US making a total of 11.6 million legal permanent residents of the US.

For anyone who has come here illegally, circumventing the legal channels, then demand they be recognized, given rights and treatment as though they were a citizen of this country is the height of arrogance.

And that is the problem in the current issue facing this nation.

The "immigrants rights" groups and the Marxist/Socialist groups who are pressing this issue are savvy in manipulating the opinions and emotions of Americans. We are a compassionate people, we love the underdog and hate to see someone abused.

So these groups tell us the illegal simply wants a chance. They say we can't send them back, they've come for the opportunity of provide for their family, and we feel that struggle inside ourselves.

So we take some time to try and understand what is going on, to try to understand ourselves, and in that moment of hesitation, when we are questioning ourselves, they pounce.

It's not on us they pounce; it's on our elected representatives. Those who write the laws and are charged with enforcing them. In our silence as we introspectively try to understand ourselves, our politicians hear the roar of those who would defy and destroy our rule of law and take our silence as consent.

We must not be silent. We must speak out. We must speak out now!

Welcome to Boycott the Boycott

Boycott the boycott is dedicated to motivating regular Americans to make the small effort it takes to show the Washington politicians they are concerned about the lack of action on the issue of illegal immigration and our porous borders.

We simply want to create a simple, tangible way to put our politicians on notice and tell them, "while you hold your fingers in the 'political air' and test the winds for what your decision will be on this issue, we expect leadership!"

"Our porous borders will not be subjucted to political expediency. We want immediate action to close and control our borders. Our nations security depends on it."

While there are certainly criminal elements that are entering our nation with those trying to find a better life, under this cover there is evidence that members of terrorist organizations who will do us harm are also coming in. The borders must be secured!

To show our strength and resolve, we will Boycott the Boycott called for by Internation ANSWER on May 1st and let the economic power of 285 million American citizens speak for itself. Pay attention to us, your political futures and our future as a nation depends on it.