2006 November 18 Saturday
Texans Turning Against Illegal Immigration

As we all know by now, El Presidente Jorge W. Bush loves Mexican immigrants and can't get enough of them. However, the New York Times reports on signs that down in the Lone Star state other Texans have clearly had their fill and don't want any more. A the state and local level in Texas popular anger about illegal immigration drives demands for policy changes.

HOUSTON, Nov. 15 — In a sign of rising passions over immigration issues, Texas lawmakers prepared for the 2007 session this week by filing a flurry of bills that would deny public assistance and other benefits to the children of illegal immigrants, tax money transfers to Mexico and the rest of Latin America and sue the federal government for the costs of state border control.

At the same time, a Dallas suburb, Farmers Branch, became the first Texas municipality to enact measures fining landlords who rent to illegal immigrants, authorizing the police to seek certification to act on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security and declaring English the city’s official language.

Since Congress and the Presidency are firmly in the hands of traitors expect to see even more state and local initiatives to get rid of illegal immigants. Our elites oppose the wishes of the masses on illegal immigration. The masses have more control over local and state politicians. So popular demands are more likely to get translated into policy at the state and local levels.

To hear Open Borders advocates tell it Texas was supposed to be a place where whites, blacks, and Hispanics got along in a way that should serve as an example for the rest of the nation. More likely flat and large Texas just provided whites lots of places to flee to - at least for a while. But my interpretation of the anger building there is that the problem is getting harder to escape by moving.

Conservatives in Texas have noticed that low skilled immigrants cost more than they pay in taxes.

Perhaps the most sweeping, proposed by Representative Leo Berman, a Republican from Tyler, would deny state benefits, including welfare payments, food stamps, disability payments and public housing and unemployment assistance to the children of illegal immigrants. The children, if born in the United States, are American citizens.

Automatic granting of citizenship to people who are born here ought to be reversed by legislation. Babies born to foreigners ought to be sent packing with their parents and without US citizenship.

Every year some pregnant South Korean women fly to the United States obstensibly for a vacation and stay long enough to have a baby on American soil which they then take back to Korea with a birth certificate that'll qualify them for a US passport when they get older. The practice probably happens with women from other countries as well.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2006 November 18 06:13 PM  Immigration Policy State Local


Comments
John S Bolton said at November 18, 2006 10:49 PM:

Immigration control is our only truly popular means of constraining the growth of government aggression against the net taxpayer and the productive citizenry.
It imposes losses on no one but foreigners who have no valid claim on the net taxpayers of this country, except those citizens who like to help the net taxpayers get plundered by foreigners.
The mass-immigrationists would use rational arguments rather than attempted smears, if they had some good ones to use.
It is particularly appropriate for Americans to react as if officials were motivated by malice,
in that our constitution is unique for assuming exactly that.
If officials may be assumed to seek an increase in their power from motivations of benevolence,
why then do we need the provisions which are found in the founding documents?

John S Bolton said at November 18, 2006 11:34 PM:

Such political moves as in Texas today, show that the public is not buying the propaganda about immigrants being workers and net contributors by definition.
For the immigrationists to pretend that immigrants are workers by definition,
is as unfounded and fictitious as if
I were to say that immigrants are in need of dialysis by definition.
They don't say workers for the most part, or good-hearted for the most part,
or valuing family for the most part, since that would invite the question of what about those who aren't.
The whole scam rests on anti-discrimination as the necessary feature of immigration policy, as if we get better immigrants by not discriminating between higher and lower quality.

Bob Badour said at November 19, 2006 6:24 AM:
To hear Open Borders advocates tell it Texas was supposed to be a place where whites, blacks, and Hispanics got along in a way that should serve as an example for the rest of the nation. More likely flat and large Texas just provided whites lots of places to flee to - at least for a while.

There is another influence. Texas has long had a 'Mexican American' population who were more-or-less Spanish with little or no Amerind heritage. Other than black hair and a slightly darker skin complexion, these descendants from Spanish settlers were no different from other Texans: Same attitudes, same accents, same language, same dress, same professions--largely ranching.

Most of the recent illegal immigrants are more-or-less Amerind with little or no European heritage: Different attitudes, different accents, different language, different dress, different professions, different outcomes.

Stop-PC-war said at November 19, 2006 10:48 AM:

"Every year some pregnant South Korean women fly to the United States obstensibly for a vacation and stay long enough to have a baby on American soil which they then take back to Korea with a birth certificate that'll qualify them for a US passport when they get older. The practice probably happens with women from other countries as well."

SF had pregnant Hong Kong women and now China women flying in to give birth for the last 40 years. Numbers are in thousands.

Arabs in Dearborn do the same on a large scale. After birth baby and birth certificate are taken back to Arabia. Often birth certificate is sold to a rich family with a baby of the same sex and approximately the same age. That newly aquired US birth certificate will bring in due time 20-50 family members into USA.

Tony said at November 19, 2006 3:19 PM:

The reason of course why El Presidente Jorge is all in favor of immigrants is that they provide cheap labor for his corporate cronies, both in their enterprises and gardens. It's not out of goodness - a concept with which he's totally unaware anyway.

Re heavily pregnant women arriving and giving birth. Ireland was inundated with Africans and Muslims with the same idea. Got so bad we had to change the constitution to deny citizenship to the parents. Even though overwhelmingly passed in the Referendum, the courts invariably override it in the interests of 'human rights' and allow the whole extended family to remain - invariably as social welfare dependnets.

Wolf-Dog said at November 19, 2006 4:22 PM:

Randall Parker:

"Every year some pregnant South Korean women fly to the United States obstensibly for a vacation and stay long enough to have a baby on American soil which they then take back to Korea with a birth certificate that'll qualify them for a US passport when they get older."

--------------------------------------------------------------

Since South Korea is quite prosperous due to their incredible productivity and scholarly upbringing, in comparison to impoverished Mexicans, probably a very small number of South Korean women are having children in the United States. Do you have the statistics for illegal South Americans who are having children here intentionally?

But in any case, in order to counter the many inefficiencies of the immigration law, it is best to immediately modify the annual immigration lottery that gives tens of thousands of green cards to people who meet only a minimum of requirements. Raise the registration requirements to enroll into the green card lottery, so that the a minimum SAT (for candidates under 18)and/or GRE (for candidates over 23) score requirement of 1 % top percentile ranking, is required not only in the aptitude sections of the verbal and math scores, but also in 3 achievement tests of SAT or GRE in the subject that the candidate chooses. This would DRAMATICALLY increase the quality of the US population.

MW said at November 19, 2006 4:32 PM:

I see nothing wrong with immigrants who follow the legal and ethical means to enter "The Land of the Free" "The Melting Post" that "ILLegal Immigrants" who so nicely displaced the "Rightful citizens who happened to be here *First*. Then became "Terrorists" against the homeland that they came from. Yes the settlers who came here used terrorist tactics against there homeland to secure their freedom in their new home. How is that ok??? The people who "Bitch" the most about immigrants seem to have FORGOTTEN that their ancestors were immigrants, DUH! These are the ones who complain about the Mexican and Asians the most. Tough s&#t!

Matra said at November 19, 2006 5:10 PM:

MW, perhaps some day you will learn that there's a difference between settlers and immigrants never mind descendants of settlers who built the country and illegal alien colonists representing Mexico. But given that you still haven't figured out the difference between "their" and "there" I don't expect that to be any time soon.

Percy said at November 19, 2006 6:09 PM:

I can understand why Texans have become angry, but they need to direct their anger as much at the ridiculous levels of so-called "legal" immigration in the US as illegal. IMHO this framing of the debate in terms of "illegal vs. legal" was a clever trap set up by the open-borders defenders to distract immigration opponents from the real danger, which is the nearly 1.2 million legal immigrants who come into the US every day.

Unlike the illegals, the legals can vote, and they're among the ones pushing most ardently for further open-borders measures. Furthermore, the sheer levels are overwhelming the social services of cities across the country, especially the SW-- cities like Los Angeles, San Diego and Phoenix are nearing collapse as their traffic and environmental pollution levels go through the roof with these mostly legal immigration levels. They've become almost unlivable for the natives.

Those of us who care about our country's integrity and our environmental health need to be just as tough and bulldog-stubborn at opposing so much legal immigration, as we are in opposing the illegal kind. The numbers should be cut back to maybe 150,000 legal immigrants a year from 1.2 million a year as it currently is. Otherwise, American Caucasians are destined for minority status around 2025 or so-- with all the additional social upheaval and ugliness that would result from that.

Vanishing American said at November 20, 2006 12:49 AM:

I agree with the comment above that we need to be just as concerned about legal immigration as about the illegal kind. I see a lot of people who are very vocal about the illegal invasion (as they should be) but who then defensively proclaim that they are all in favor of any legal immigrant entering our country.
I think the obvious reason is they are afraid of appearing bigoted or xenophobic, afraid of the race card being played, so they quickly cover themselves by avowing support for all legal immigration. I've asked some of these people what they would say if and when an amnesty is passed, and 30 million or so illegals become legal. Will that make everything all right? And if the amnesty, as proposed, increases the numbers of legal immigrants, what will these people say then?
Mass immigration, both legal and illegal, is the problem.

nz conservative said at November 20, 2006 8:43 PM:

In New Zealand, a lot of East Asian immigrants buy houses and then leave their families in NZ and get the NZ taxpayer to pay for their health and education, while they work overseas paying taxes in their country of origin.

This is a major problem with the wealth-based immigration policies NZ and Canada adopted in the 1990s.

The incidence of pregnant women coming into western countries just to secure passports is increasingly common. A reasonable rule to establish would be that a child and their parent most have to live in the host country for at least ten years before they can apply for citizenship.

Myke said at January 5, 2008 4:58 PM:

We must stop all immigration. And we must deport the illegals who are here. I think states acting on their own will be the only way it gets done. States that stop the free rides for illegals. Fine the employees. Only the states can do it because Washington will do nothing and will try to stop the states in any way they can.
They are doing nothing about securing our borders. They are waiting for the next election when the new President orders open borders. All Dems, John McCain, and some of the candidates who now say they want illegals sent home but before they started running for Pres was all for giving them welfare and of course lets bring the children into it. IF they want anything done they try the "its for the children " guilt trip. With all the illegals who are pouring across our borders, and the rate they have babies America is doomed. If they started the fence today it would take ten years to get it to where it would be effective. Ten years of more illegals coming in, having babies, and getting free med, welfare, and sending billions of dollars home. Dollars they get here but is not going back into our economy.
All this is done to get the NAU thru. Why else would they let millions of illegals enter, terrorists enter. It is to get to the North American Union so the elites can sit in their lavish homes of the hill and look down on poverty, just as the corrupt leaders of Mexico and India, etc do.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©