Adios, America: The Left's Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole (8 page)

In 2003, 70 percent of the 2,300 babies born in Stockton’s San Joaquin General Hospital’s maternity ward were anchor babies.
¹⁴
By 2013, Stockton was bankrupt. Any politician who opposed our insane anchor baby policy would be smugly denounced by the
New York Times
—and wouldn’t lose a single vote.

Granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens has turned American citizenship into a game of Red Rover with the border patrol. The anchor baby foolishness takes this country’s immigration policy completely out of Americans’ hands and puts it into the hands of foreigners. It would make as much sense to allow Mexican migrant workers to decide when America goes to war.

As Chief Justice Fuller quaintly wrote in
Wong Kim Ark
: “Nobody can deny that the question of citizenship in a nation is of the most vital importance. It is a precious heritage, as well as an inestimable acquisition.”
¹⁵
Not
anymore. Now anyone can get American citizenship. The Somali warlord Hussein Mohammed Aidid was an American citizen. Muhamed Sacirbey, the foreign minister of Bosnia-Herzegovina in the 1990s, was an American citizen. Valdas Adamkus, the president of Lithuania, was an American citizen—and an employee of the U.S. government at the same time. The head of the Estonian army, Aleksander Einseln, was an American citizen. Iraq’s ambassador to the United States in 2003, Rend Rahim Francke, was an American citizen.
¹⁶
A slew of Islamic terrorists are “American citizens,” such as al Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlaki and his son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. You can read about the younger al-Awlaki’s “mop of curly hair” and “wide, goofy smile” in the
New York Times
op-ed “The Drone That Killed My Grandson” by Nasser al-Awlaki.
¹⁷

The amnesty-pushers have beautiful homes, beachfront property, European vacations, Senate offices, vast portfolios, influence with the Harvard admissions committee, and powerful friends in the media and politics. What do they care about American citizenship? But for most Americans, our most precious possession is citizenship in this amazing country. That endowment is being bartered away by our elites in exchange for votes, for profits, or for campaign dollars.

AMERICA TO POLLSTERS: WE SURRENDER

Although we’ve been authoritatively informed that a majority of Americans support a “pathway to citizenship,” approximately five hundred times in the last two years alone, according to a quick Nexis search,
¹⁸
that is a lie. This is part of the media’s campaign to convince Americans they’re nuts for preferring not to turn America into Mexico. Polls are irrelevant if you lie to the people being polled.

          
Poll: Do you support commonsense gun safety or are you against it?

          
Headline: MAJORITY OF AMERICANS SUPPORT GUN CONTROL.

          
But I hate gun control!

          
Too late! You agreed to “commonsense gun safety”—that means gun control.

Similarly, polls purporting to show a majority of Americans supporting a “pathway to citizenship” invariably offer choices that are not on the table, that no one has proposed, and that do not exist in any piece of legislation. The amnesty option is always loaded up with imaginary hurdles that illegal aliens will have to clear—learning English, passing citizenship tests, and paying fines, fees, and “back taxes.” The non-amnesty option always seems to entail rounding up 11 million illegal aliens, putting them on buses, and deporting them. Neither of those choices describes the position of anyone on either side of the immigration debate. Amnesty proponents have no intention of making illegals jump through any hoops whatsoever to become citizens, and not a single amnesty opponent has proposed any program to round up and deport 11 million illegals. Maybe just one, if you count me.

This is how the Left uses polls to manipulate public opinion, rather than quantify it. They provide the ingredients for today’s political discussion, and you’re not allowed to choose any items off the menu.

But can’t I be against amnesty without voting for rounding up illegals at gunpoint?

No! Look at the menu—no substitutions!

BROOKINGS POLL: WOULD YOU PREFER A UNICORN OR A LOCH NESS MONSTER?

Typical is a Brookings Institution poll, asking respondents to choose one of two imaginary options:

          
“The best way to solve the country’s illegal immigration problem is to secure our borders and arrest and deport all those who are here illegally.”

              
Or:

          
“The best way to solve the country’s illegal immigration problem is to both secure our borders and provide an earned path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the U.S.”

Absolutely no one has proposed that we deport all those who are here illegally—much less “arrest” them. No one. Mitt Romney had the toughest stance against illegal immigration of any major presidential candidate since Dwight Eisenhower, and he only suggested encouraging illegal immigrants to “self-deport,” i.e., go back the same way they came. We didn’t “round them up” to get them here, and we don’t have to “round them up” to get them home. As for the Brookings poll’s second option—“both secure our borders and provide an earned path to citizenship”—there’s no “both.” There’s no border security, ever. And there’s no “earned” path, either. It’s no-strings-attached legalization now and vague promises of border security later.

          
Poll: What ice cream flavor do you prefer: Delicious chocolate or three-day-old raw squid?

          
Headline: CHOCOLATE AMERICA’S FAVORITE ICE CREAM FLAVOR!

Marco Rubio went on a worldwide tour swearing that his “comprehensive immigration reform” absolutely insisted on “enforcement first.” Then the bill was unveiled and it said:

          
Step One: Everyone who came here illegally is legal.

          
Step Two: After they’re amnestied, they can bring in all their relatives.

So Rubio’s plan—approved by a majority of the Senate, including fourteen Republicans
^*
—was: Dessert first, then, we all agree, no more dessert! We’ll start the diet tomorrow!

When would the enforcement part of Rubio’s “Enforcement First!” plan have kicked in? Answer: Never. As Rubio said on
Fox News Sunday
: “Basically, Homeland Security will have five years to meet that goal. If after five years Homeland Security has not met that number, it will trigger the Border Commission, who will then take over this issue for them.”
¹⁹
So if the Department of Homeland Security failed to secure the border, ANOTHER GOVERNMENT COMMISSION WOULD BE CREATED! (
That always works
, said the Department of Education.) And if the second commission failed, Rubio would personally write a strongly worded letter. Would the 11 million illegals already legalized lose that status if the border remained wide open? Of course not. Refer to Step One. But the bill sure would have spent a lot of taxpayer money!

WALL STREET JOURNAL
POLL: OR HOW ABOUT A SASQUATCH?

In November 2014, a
Wall Street Journal
–NBC News poll asked respondents if they would support “a proposed pathway to citizenship” that: “allowed foreigners who have jobs but are staying illegally in the United States the opportunity to eventually become legal American citizens if they pay a fine, any back taxes, pass a security background check, and take other required steps.”
²⁰

After the word “foreigners,” everything in that poll question is pure fantasy.

Let’s start with: “staying illegally in the United States.” We’re talking about people who sneaked into the country by hiring smugglers, wading through the Rio Grande, and hiding in truck beds. They traveled through remote desert locations in the dead of night, fled from U.S. agents, and stole American IDs. They broke the law and—look me in the eye, illegal aliens—they know they broke the law. But at the
Wall Street Journal
, how they got here is a complete mystery—maybe we dragged them across the border. All we know is, right now, they are “staying” illegally in the United States. Perhaps if what illegals did to get here were not hidden from poll respondents, it would seem less draconian to propose that they go home the same way. The return trip would be a lot easier.

Moreover, all that stuff about jobs, fines, and taxes is utter nonsense. I know it, the
Wall Street Journal
knows it, and the Mexicans hurtling toward our border with the speed of cannonballs know it. But it convinces Americans who aren’t paying attention that we’re only going to get the most diligent illegals. Not only that, but we’re going to make all kinds of money off of amnesty! The last amnesty was loaded up with fines, fees, back taxes, and English lessons for illegal aliens. Let’s review how that panned out: English-language requirement—dropped by the INS; fines—dropped by the INS; fees—waived by the INS; back taxes—dropped by the IRS.
²¹

Rubio’s amnesty didn’t even contain the promises of the Reagan amnesty. The only “fee” in Rubio’s bill was defined as the actual cost to the government to process an illegal immigrant’s application. Who else is supposed to pay that? In fact, however—you will, taxpayer. The bill allowed the INS commissioner to waive the fee for any reason. The INS already waives fees for illegal immigrants who are on government assistance, which is 71 percent of them. We want no delay in legalizing the neediest immigrants!

The alleged fine has enough exceptions to ensure that no one ever pays it. The law provides that any illegal alien currently under the age of twenty-one is exempted, but so are illegal immigrants of any age who merely have a GED and assert that they came to the United States before age sixteen.
²²

As we know from Reagan’s amnesty, when nearly 1 million illegal immigrants falsely claimed to have been farmworkers to get amnesty, foreigners who have already broken U.S. laws are not always punctilious about telling the truth to government officials. Under the special agricultural amnesty of the 1986 bill, the INS received nearly one hundred thousand applications from “farmworker” illegal aliens living in the lush, fertile farmland of New York City. Another hundred thousand applications were mailed in directly from Mexico.
²³
Some “farmworkers” told agents that cotton was purple or described pulling cherries from the ground. Within the first three years of the agricultural worker amnesty, the government identified 888,637 fraudulent applications, of which it approved more than 800,000.
²⁴
And consider that the age at which someone who is living in the shadows first began living in the shadows is a lot easier to fake than prior farmwork.

True, any wealthy illegal immigrants would be required to pay back taxes. Unfortunately, there are no wealthy illegal immigrants. Half of Americans don’t pay income taxes! No illegal immigrant will. That leaves only Social Security taxes. We’re always told that we need to amnesty illegals to shore up Social Security. How, exactly, are people who make so little money that they don’t pay income taxes going to save Social Security? If we had an adversarial press—or even a curious press—it would ask:

          
Will immigrants be paying in as much as they take out?

                
No, they won’t.

          
So that makes it worse, right?

                
Why yes, it does. I only hoped you would not ask that question.

Under Rubio’s bill, illegal immigrants weren’t even required to pay their back Social Security taxes. Instead, the IRS was directed to collect only those taxes already “assessed.” Guess how Social Security taxes are assessed against people without valid Social Security cards? They aren’t.
Even before the INS commissioner starts waiving payments, illegal aliens owe $0.00 in back taxes.
²⁵
Rubio’s bill could have required employers to calculate the Social Security taxes illegal aliens owed, but that idea was expressly rejected by Senate negotiators in early 2013. Amnesty supporters complained that it was just too hard to collect back taxes from illegal aliens. As Senator Jeff Flake explained, “Getting back taxes is incredibly difficult, particularly when someone has paid into a fraudulent Social Security number.”
²⁶

Okay, fine. Then how about dropping poll questions claiming that illegal immigrants will be paying “back taxes”? The
Journal
poll was taken in the fall of 2014—more than a year after the Senate bill had explicitly dropped the possibility of collecting back taxes from illegal aliens. But the question polled not only implied that illegal aliens would pay “back taxes,” but claimed that that particular question gave respondents “more details about the proposal.” Not any proposal on Planet Earth.

30 MILLION NEEDY IMMIGRANTS, SURPRISINGLY, NOT GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY

Somehow, the idea that the mass importation of poor people is good for the economy has caught on like a runaway train. Everyone agrees!

These claims refer to the size of the entire economy, which inevitably expands the more humans we have living here. So does your household budget if I move in to your extra bedroom. The cost of your electricity, cable TV, water, food, newspaper subscriptions, Netflix subscription, and overdue books will go through the roof. But don’t worry, I’ll be writing you a check for $250 a month. Unfortunately, I will be eating $400 worth of food every month. So the size of your household GNP has increased, but you aren’t ahead of the game. I am ahead of the game. The entire benefit is captured by
moi
.