Adios, America: The Left's Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole (3 page)

It’s entirely possible that the only Hispanics enraged about amnesty are the ones we see on TV. In polls, a majority of Hispanics answer “Don’t know” to the question “Who is the most important Hispanic/Latino leader in the country today?”
⁵
Self-appointed Latino spokesmen, claiming to speak for millions, apparently speak for about fifteen people. At least Al Sharpton has a posse of two hundred losers he can drag around with him. Most Hispanics seem completely unaware that they’re part of some angry movement led by Jorge Ramos. The notion of Hispanic unity—much less Hispanic-black unity—is pure liberal fantasy. Puerto Ricans and Dominicans hate one another, blacks and Mexicans hate one another, Haitians and African Americans hate one another, and everyone hates the Cubans.
⁶
Republican elites apparently don’t talk to their servants: They’re convinced Cuban Marco Rubio will be catnip to Hispanic voters. Yes, remember how Manhattan women flocked to Sarah Palin just because she was a woman? GOP political consultants will never steer you wrong.

The only place a failure to pass amnesty will produce genuine, heartfelt remorse is in the better sections of town, when wives of Wall Street bankers realize that Manuela the nanny will not be able to get taxpayer-subsidized healthcare.

There is simply no reason for Republicans to legalize 30 million people who will vote 8–2 against them. They don’t have to be embarrassed about opposing immigration because of how the immigrants vote. The reason Democrats
support
immigration is because of how they vote. Al Gore didn’t mind challenging military ballots during the Florida 2000 recount. Obama challenged the petition signatures of every single Democrat running for an Illinois senate seat in 1996, disqualifying all of his opponents and “winning” by being the last man standing.
⁷
Israel won’t allow Palestinians to return to homes they used to live in because of how they’d vote. Palestinians demand
a right to return to their pre-1967 homes, but Israel says, quite correctly, that changing Israel’s ethnicity would change the idea of Israel.
⁸
Well, changing America’s ethnicity changes the idea of America, too. Show me in a straight line why we can’t do what Israel does. Is Israel special? For some of us, America is special, too.

Democrats aren’t big on amnestying other lawbreakers. They don’t hysterically demand amnesty for accounting cheats or polluters—not even for “the children” of accounting cheats and polluters. Enron executives were hard workers. They loved their families and wanted the best for them, just as I’m sure MS-13 gang members love their families. Think of how the executives’ children have suffered—the divorces, the broken families, the prison sentences. Why do we have to punish the children?
⁹
How many breaks did liberals cut the Amirault family in Massachusetts after they were sent to prison in the child molestation hysteria of the 1980s, even after it was proved they were innocent? Martha Coakley fought like a banshee to keep Gerald Amirault in prison well after the charges were exposed as a fraud. Where was his amnesty? Democrats only care about the children of lawbreakers when it will get them 30 million new voters. Convicted felons are next.

Republicans have no obligation to make a grand forgiving gesture toward lawbreakers, hoping that Hispanics will applaud their sportsmanship. This doesn’t require bravery. It requires that Republicans not be idiots. Democrats are just going to have to get 30 million new voters some other way.

STEP ONE: SECURE THE BORDER;

STEP TWO: REPEAT STEP ONE

As Reagan’s amnesty proves, it’s pointless to talk about what to do with the illegal aliens already here until we’ve secured the border. When the bathtub is overflowing, the very first thing you do is: TURN OFF THE
WATER. You don’t debate whether to use a rag or a mop to clean up the water, whether to get a bucket or put a hose out the window, whether to use towels or sponges. The No. 1 priority is: Shut off the water.

Obviously, any amnesty functions as a magnet for more illegal aliens. Nothing shows the bad faith of amnesty advocates with more blinding clarity than their steadfast refusal to seal the border. Ordinary people see this and know they’re being lied to.

The “border security” measures of every amnesty bill all employ the same meaningless Washington metric of success. In government, effectiveness is measured not by results, but by how much money is spent. How effective is it? Why, we’ve tripled the budget! That’s what Republican Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee actually said about Rubio’s “Gang of Eight” amnesty bill, formally titled “The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013”—which was way better than its original title: “We Surrender.”

“The fact is,” Corker exclaimed, “we are investing resources in securing our border that have never been invested before.”
¹⁰
Why, he’s so serious about getting in shape, he’s taken out three gym memberships! Increasing the pensions of border agents is not a measure of border effectiveness. We’re interested in results, not outlays. Even within the meaningless category of “Money Spent,” it can be spent in ways that are counterproductive. If the bill includes one dime for ACLU attorneys to process immigration claims, then part of the money we’re spending to make the border more secure is going to make it less secure. Rubio’s bill gave $150 million to nonprofits to help illegal aliens apply for amnesty.
¹¹

Most Hispanics are smarter than Marco Rubio. In 2011, 73 percent of California Hispanics said they’d support a candidate who wanted to “secure the border first, stop illegal immigration, and then find a way to address the status of people already here illegally.”
¹²
In a 2014 Univision poll, 58 percent chose “require border security first” over “pass immigration reform.”
¹³

PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN GATED COMMUNITIES TELL US FENCES DON’T WORK

Americans ought to be suspicious about being incessantly told fences “don’t work.” It’s like being told wheels don’t work. The media maniacally repeat this nonsense, hoping to lull people into thinking,
Maybe it is impossible to control the borders.
The
New York Times
explains, for example: “Would-be migrants still find ways over, under, through and around them.”
¹⁴
Wheels still find ways to bend, break, or spring leaks.
China built a thirteen-thousand-mile wall several centuries before Christ, and it’s still working.

The
Times
gave the game away with this sentimental glop about border fences being “the approach favored by ancient empires: the raising of a wall.” The article continued: “The barrier wasn’t very likely to overturn the law of supply and demand, but it did serve as a useful symbol of the process of alienation, a closing-off of lives and minds, along the line it traces.”
¹⁵
Yes, that’s precisely the idea! Aren’t fences peachy? Tellingly, the
Times
added: “Still, the tattered ideal of a world without borders holds great power.” For whom is a “world without borders” an ideal? People who don’t much care for America, I gather.

Even Republicans who pretend to want a secure border are always telling us fences won’t work. The NEW WAY of stopping tubs from overflowing is to use mops and blow-dryers. Sure, we can always turn the water off, but that won’t work because it could always spring a leak. Let’s just keep mopping. Responding to an increasingly annoyed public, Congress has repeatedly voted to build a border fence. But somehow, the fence never gets built—and Congress does nothing. In January 2011, Obama’s Department of Homeland Security announced that it had “ended the Secure Border Initiative Network” on the grounds that “it did not meet cost-effectiveness and viability standards.”
¹⁶
And if there is one thing the Obama administration absolutely insists upon, it’s cost-effectiveness and viability!

The steadfast refusal of the amnesty crowd to agree to a fence tells us that Americans should not budge on the point. In addition to being the only sane, logical thing to do, demanding a fence forces amnesty proponents to admit that they have no intention of ever sealing the border. The surge of ninety thousand poor Central Americans across the border in 2014 proved that. Obama pretended his hands were tied.
It’s the law!
It wasn’t the law. So either Obama is stupid or he was deliberately lying, and the smart money is on “deliberately lying.” But Democrats—and some Republicans—insisted there was some mysterious “loophole” in the law that prohibited this country from stopping illegal aliens at the border. If politicians really believed that, why didn’t they close the loophole?

Instead, amnesty supporters tried a surprise argument: To stop illegals pouring across the border, Congress had to pass amnesty. They were hoping to stun us into silence with the stupidity of their argument. No one was prepared for it.
I’m sorry, Your Honor, we didn’t bring our notes on that. We were ready for “It’s wrong” or “What about the children?” We weren’t expecting: To stop the surge at the border, we need to reward the people surging across it.

Everyone knows that one amnesty begets more illegal aliens, which begets another amnesty. It’s called an “incentive.” There’s less of an incentive if the gate is locked. First lock the gate, then figure out what to do with the people already here. Any amnesty is an inducement to illegal aliens. If you choose to argue it’s not, I refer you to history. This is not the first time Americans have been promised secure borders in return for amnesty. The 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli Act, also known as “The Charlie Brown and Lucy with Football Act,” was supposed to end illegal immigration forever: Give us amnesty one time, then: Never again.
¹⁷

As with all laws that combine the bitter with the sweet, such as tax hikes and spending cuts, we got one and not the other. The amnesty came, but the border security never did. Illegal immigration sextupled. There have been a half dozen more amnesties since then, legalizing millions more foreigners who broke our laws.
¹⁸
Perhaps we could have trusted Washington’s
sincerity thirty years ago, but Americans have already been fooled once—then, six more times. They aren’t stupid.

The two parts cannot be done simultaneously. A border fence must be started first—and completed first. Only after all the ACLU lawsuits and INS rulings have run their course, and the border is still secure, do we move to Step Two. I happen to think we don’t do the amnesty part ever, but it’s tendentious even to discuss what to do with illegal aliens already here until we can prevent more from coming. We’ll talk about legalization as soon as it’s as hard to get into the United States as it used to be to get out of East Germany.

To review:

Step One: Secure the border.

Step Two: Discuss what to do with illegals already here.

AMNESTY IS GOODBYE, AMERICA

Contrary to everything you’ve heard, the only options are not: Amnesty or deporting 11 million people. There’s also the option of letting them stay in the shadows—or
the same thing we’ve been doing for the last thirty years.
Americans are under no moral obligation to grant amnesty to people who have broken our laws. “The moral thing to do” is usually defined as “following the law.” The fact that Democrats want 30 million new voters is not a good enough reason to ignore the law and screw over American workers, as well as legal immigrants already here. How about Republicans try this:
We’re not giving you anything—not even half—because there’s no reason to do so.

The demand for amnesty is not going away. Nothing ever gets struck from the Left’s “To Do” list. Democrats had been angling for national healthcare since the FDR administration. Conservatives thought they killed it with the ignominious defeat of Hillarycare in 1994, but the very next time Democrats controlled both Congress and the presidency—we got Obamacare. To paraphrase what President Bush used to say about
terrorists: The anti-amnesty side has to be perfect every time; the pro-amnesty side only has to win once. And then the country is finished. There won’t be any reason to care about politics, anymore. At least I can finally clean out my attic.

Any other bad law can be repealed.
Roe v. Wade
can be overturned. Obamacare can be repealed. Amnesty is forever.

2

TEDDY: WHY NOT THE THIRD WORLD?

H
OW DID IMMIGRANTS BECOME A SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP MORE POWERFUL
than Americans? I’m not a high-priced political consultant, but shouldn’t politicians be more concerned with what citizens think of them than what foreigners do? It’s a measure of how out of whack public dialogue is on immigration that it comes as a startling concept to even ask if our laws should help our country rather than help other countries solve
their
problems. Wouldn’t any sane immigration policy be based on the principle that we want to bring in only immigrants who will benefit the people already here? Why not take immigrants who are better than us, instead of immigrants who are worse than us?

A good-for-America immigration policy would not accept people with no job skills. It would not accept immigrants’ elderly relatives, arriving in wheelchairs. It would not accept people accused of terrorism by their own countries. It would not accept pregnant women whose premature babies will cost taxpayers $50,000 a pop,
¹
before even embarking on a lifetime of government support. It would not accept Somalis who spent their adult
lives in a Kenyan refugee camp and then showed up with five children in a Minnesota homeless shelter.
²
An immigration policy that benefits Americans would not result in news items like this one: “After arriving from Kampala, Uganda, Ayan Ahmed and her nine children, ages four to eighteen, spent six months in Phoenix. There, Catholic Charities had lined up a furnished four-bedroom home for the family and a neurologist for Ahmed’s eldest son,
who is blind
[emphasis added].”
³