Archive for May, 2007

“Reader! Whoever thou art, remember this…'” Call Your Senator No Amnesty

May 30, 2007

Reader! Whoever thou art, remember this…’

from Vanishing American (with apologies for liberties taken).

“Before this day is gone,” Call your Senator, read our lips, no new amnesties.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging the future but by the past.”

The 1986 Amnesty Act didn’t work and brought in more. Steve Sailer points out it led to Hispanic men bringing in women and a baby bubble that fed the LA Gang Bubble that started in the 1990’s and that now has blacks on Greenlight in LA as SPLC tells us, apparently without plagiarizing Colorado Media Matters for once.

Steve Sailer:

 

Demographers Laura E. Hill and Hans P. Johnson of the Public Policy Institute of California wrote in 2002:

“Between 1987 and 1991, total fertility rates for foreign-born Hispanics [in California] increased from 3.2 to 4.4 [expected babies per woman over her lifetime]. (Understanding the Future of Californians’ Fertility: The Role of Immigrants”).

Today, California’s amnesty baby boom generation is between ages 10 and 19, entering their prime gang violence years.

== End Sailor Quotes

== SPLC’s own (non-plagiarized from CMM) material on LA gang warfare:

Gauging the Gangs
A respected writer spent five years studying the Mexican Mafia. What he discovered will shock even the most seasoned cop.
interview by Brentin Mock

SPLC does a much better job when they give credit where its due instead of skimming the work of others without citation.

== Back to Vanishing American

“Henry’s best known speech, from March 1775, just before armed clashes broke out between the British and the colonists, contains the immortal phrase, ‘give me liberty from amnesty, or give me death.” :”

The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the South will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms (or is it a giant sucking sound of our ER’s being taken from us)…Let it come. I repeat, Sir, Let it come…Is grass so long, or house work so bleak, as to be purchased at the price of the blood stains of the Virginia Beach Teens Allison Kunhardt and Tessa Tranchant? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me Liberty from Amnesty or give me my Senator’s stock portfolio!´´

Another quote:

…Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power, the telephone, fax machine, email, letters and office visits to our Senators. Three millions of people at Numbers USA and Fairus, armed in the Holy cause of Liberty from Amnesty, and in such a country as that which we possess, for the moment, are invincible by any force which our McKennedy enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up Virginia Dare friends to fight our battle for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave, the diligent telephone caller…”

If we admit this comprehensive amnesty of consolidated government, it will be because we like an end to what began so splendidly. Some way or other Kennedy and McCain must have a great and mighty stock portfolio; these Senators must have a ranch, a town house in DC, Georgetown, of course, one in Boston on Beacon Hill, a summer place at Chappaquiddick, and a number of servants and other things. When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, Sir, was then the primary object…But now, Sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of amnesty, guest worker and legal immigration, is about to convert this country to a powerful and mighty Bush Rove McSlave Galley.”

“It’s a little-known fact that Henry left a message for posterity, to be read after his death:”

Near his last will, Patrick Henry left a small envelope sealed with wax. Inside was a single sheet of paper on which he had copied his Resolutions against the Amnesty Stamp Act. On the back, Patrick Henry left a message that he knew could only be read after his death, but not America’s he hoped. It began with a short history of his Resolutions against the Amnesty Z-Stamp Act, which had “spread throughout America with astonishing Quickness.” (by bloggers and not the MSM) As a result, the colonies were united in their “Resistance to Mexican Taxation by Immigration,” and won “the War which finally separated the two Countries and gave Independence to ours.”

Whether America’s independence “will prove a Blessing or a Curse,” Henry continued in his message to posterity, “will depend on the Use our people make of the Blessings which a gracious God hath bestowed on us. If they are wise, they will be great and happy. If they are of a contrary Character, they will be miserable under Political Correctness and a witness to their own omnia cleansing. Righteousness alone can exalt them as a Nation. Reader! whoever thou art, remember this, and in thy Sphere, practice Virtue thyself, –Call Your Senator– and encourage it in others. P. HENRY

Its a little known fact that Henry had two middle initials, L.D., thought by some to be Lou Dobbs, from which initials he coined his famous phrase, “Give me Liberty or give me credit card Debt.” (Which your Senator owns through his stocks and gets your 18 percent on) by which he also meant, “Give me Liberty from working for Men’s Median Wages in 1973 forever, unless I fall into some other group that makes even less like women, Hispanics, blacks, Native Americans and many others.”

I ask Vanishing American’s pardon for reusing so much of his quotes and post, but I had a double espresso this afternoon. See his post for Patrick Henry in the original and the citations to his sources and forgive this Poor Richard’s use of his words, by which I am reminded: Early to Bed and Early to Rise helps you call your Senator against this Amnesty Act and will mean one day you and your descendant’s wages will rise above men’s median wages in 1973 (graph page 18). And remember also that sage advice from Polonius, neither a borrower nor amnestier be, for amnesty doth lose both itself and votes.

Advertisements

NYT CBS Poll Q74: 69% Prosecute & Deport

May 28, 2007

In Question 74 of the New York Times CBS Poll, 69 percent of what were judged usable respondents said that illegals should be prosecuted and deported. This is reported in their lengthy pdf file available here.

74. Should illegal immigrants be prosecuted and deported for being in the U.S. illegally, or shouldn’t they?

  • Should be prosecuted 69
  • Should not 24
  • DK/NA 6

5/18-23/07

Immigration Bill Provisions Gain Wide Support in Poll
By JULIA PRESTON and MARJORIE CONNELLY
Published: May 25, 2007
A careful analysis of the pdf and its inconsistencies is reported on at Times Watch:

The Poll’s Goals
“The New York Times reports its own poll on immigration, complete with slanted questions and a slanted cherry-picking of the answers.” Posted by: Tim Graham 5/25/2007 3:33:00 PM. Graham points out the inconsistency of the answers for Q74, not mentioned in NYT article, and other questions highlighted in the NYT article.

The NYT and its pdf give no information on how many people were contacted initially to come up with the final list of usable responses. Many of the questions are not reported even in the pdf.

Q74 is almost at the end of the NYT survey. This is after all the positive information on the bill has been given as part of or before other questions. At this point, the pollster can’t drop the person without losing all the time spent on the previous, apparently, 73 questions. A cynic might infer that the NYT poll couldn’t disqualify people for answering yes to Q74 without losing the answers they wanted for the other questions?
In some cases, the NYT CBS poll gave people information and then asked them questions in light of that information. This information was only positive for the bill? So it appeared to this reader.

What about giving information about jobs. Consider the following potential questions based on information provided.

Info provided:

The census, an office of the US government, reports that the median wages of men have been the same since 1973, see graph page 18. The increase in legal and illegal immigration started in 1965.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports (in an Excel spreadsheet) that since1965 the labor force participation rates of white men fell from 80 percent to 75 percent and black men from 80 percent, about the same as whites to 66 percent.

NYT CBS style Questions following this fact:

Do you think immigration is why 75 percent of white men and 66 percent of black men still have jobs?

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.

Do we need more immigration so that white and black men can keep the jobs they still have?

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.

Do you believe that median wages for men would be substantially lower except for the positive benefits of immigration on wages?

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.

Do you think that the only thing that can keep wages of men from going down is more immigration?

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.

Why do you think that 80 percent of black men had jobs in 1965, but only 66 percent do now?

  1. Bigotry
  2. Republican bigotry
  3. Racism
  4. Secret plan by Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond
  5. Don’t know

Black wages are still below white wages.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/p53b.html

black white median wage graphs

How many immigrants will it take to get black wages to converge to white wages?

  1. 1 million per year
  2. 2 million per year
  3. 3 million per year
  4. 4 million per year.
  5. All of the above.

Why have the wages of women stayed below those of men?

  1. Men are pigs
  2. Employers are pigs
  3. Secret plan by jocks who resent male teams being cut to comply with federal regs
  4. Not enough immigrants.

Why did Black wages converge towards white wages before the 1965 Immigration Act but stop afterwards?

  1. Klan was strong before 1965.
  2. Public interest law firms can use 1964 Civil Rights Act to control principals and teachers.
  3. Lack of multicultural education curriculum materials before 1965.
  4. Blacks got poor education before 1964 in schools to keep their wages down.
  5. Not enough immigrants.

The census graph shows that women’s wages still don’t match men’s, see graph page 18.

What will it take for women’s wages to converge to men’s?

  1. 1 million immigrants per year.
  2. 2 million immigrants per year.
  3. We need employers to determine the answer and tell us.
  4. Matching every willing immigrant to a willing employer.

A Canadian Harvard study shows that wages in Canada and the US are depressed by immigration. (See Patrick Cleburne at Vdare on this study.)

After hearing about this study do you think:

  1. Canada needs more immigration to undepress these wages.
  2. America needs more immigration to undepress wages.
  3. America and Canada are the problem: Mexico is the solution.
  4. Don’t know, Don’t care, bigot or otherwise unusable response.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that black men, white men, Hispanic men and Asian men will all have lower labor force participation rates in 2014 compared to 2004. This was before the 2006 and 2007 Bush McCain Kennedy Kyl amnesty plans.

Do we need more immigration to prevent this?

  1. Yes.
  2. No, but count it as yes anyhow.

–Information for next question

The top 1 percent got 20 percent of income before income restriction in the 1920’s, 10 percent and heading lower before the 1965 Immigration Act (legal immigration), and are now back up to 20 percent and headed higher.

Income Inequality U Shape Timeline

Would income inequality have been even lower in the 1950’s if there had been immigration at the bottom of the U?

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.

Is the only thing that is keeping income inequality from being higher today the high influx of poor people whose great number averages out with that of the rich to keep income inequality down?

  1. Yes.
  2. No, I went to school before they fell apart, but I’m sure if I went to them today I would answer yes.

If there are enough poor people, who are all equally poor, it doesn’t matter if there are a few rich people. Its just envy of the rich to disagree with this outcome, and bigotry of the middle class towards the poor to try to keep them out?

  1. Yes.
  2. I think I heard a luncheon speaker say this, it must be true.

–Next Question

7 of the top 8 wealthiest Senators voted for S. 2611, amnesty, affirmative action, non-deportable crime, and a pathway for the top 1 percent of households to continue to enjoy 20 percent of each year’s income, compared to 10 percent before Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act. The only 1 of the top 8 who didn’t vote for S. 2611 didn’t vote, Jay Rockefeller. McCain is 7th and Kennedy 8th in wealth.

Worker Productivity Graph has gone up since 1973

Even though men and women’s median wages are the same or lower than men’s were in 1973 (graph page 18).

Open Secrets wealth of senators in 2005

2006 Amnesty Bill S 2611 Roll Call at senate.gov

Is it possible for us to pay our Senators enough for what they do for us?

  1. No.
  2. Yes, but count it as no anyhow. (We will.)

–Information Next Question

“Numbers Drop for the Married With Children
Institution Becoming The Choice of the Educated, Affluent”

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 4, 2007; Page A03

PORTLAND, Ore. — Punctuating a fundamental change in American family life, married couples with children now occupy fewer than one in every four households — a share that has been slashed in half since 1960 and is the lowest ever recorded by the census.

The first census was in 1790. The census is reporting the unhelpful information that men’s median wages are the same since 1973, (graph page 18) and that women’s wages today, and blacks are lower than all men’s wages were in 1973.

How can we teach the census to do better work?

  1. Get them to drop respondents who have the wrong answers.
  2. Tell people with the wrong answers they are bigots.
  3. Exclude blacks, whites, men, women, Hispanics, and Asians, unless they get speaking fees of $50,000 per lunch.
  4. Find one lesbian Hispanic immigrant female who makes more than the median wage of men in 1973 and put her picture on census.gov in place of all these pdf’s full of wrong graphs (page 18).
  5. If we had called Pat Buchanan a bigot one more time, we wouldn’t have these problems.
  6. Restrict census data to the S & P 500.

What do you think of this poll?

  1. More immigrants are the answer.
  2. Invalid response.
  3. Don’t know.
  4. Survey respondent disqualified.
  5. Spoiled survey ballot.
  6. My chad is hanging.
  7. Do pollsters get speaking fees?

Media pundits are paid $50,000 or more to speak at corporate lunches and ride corporate jets to and from them.

  1. More immigrants are the answer.
  2. Is this a question?
  3. A prayer?
  4. More immigrants are the answer.
  5. Final Jeapardy, What is the reason the pundits support immigration?

==Appendix: others commenting on this poll.

Scott Rasmussen

NY Times/CBS Poll Finds that 69% Believe Illegal Immigrants Should Be Prosecuted

Just 26% Favor Senate Immigration Plan

Which Poll is Right on Immigration?

Posted by: Michael Medved at 10:29 PMMedved slams Rasmussen for not push polling for immigration. Instead Rasmussen just asks if they support the bill without giving them any information.

Lawrence Auster

Do two-thirds of the American people really support legalization?

65 percent of Muslims seek strict application of sharia law

Here are two data that blow out of the water the idea that most Muslims are “moderates,” i.e., that most Muslims believe in Islam only as an individual religion, not as a political religion. Andrew Bostom writes:

Polling data just released (April 24, 2007) in a rigorously conducted face-to-face University of Maryland/ WorldPublicOpinion.org interview survey of 4384 Muslims conducted between December 9, 2006 and February 15, 2007–1000 Moroccans, 1000 Egyptians, 1243 Pakistanis, and 1141 Indonesians–reveal that 65.2% of those interviewed–almost 2/3, hardly a “fringe minority”–desired this outcome (i.e., “To unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or Caliphate”), including 49% of “moderate” Indonesian Muslims. The internal validity of these data about the present longing for a Caliphate is strongly suggested by a concordant result: 65.5% of this Muslim sample approved the proposition “To require a strict [emphasis added] application of Shari’a law in every Islamic country.”

Amren: “NY Times/CBS Poll Finds That 69% Believe Illegal Immigrants Should Be Prosecuted

Vdare:

Immigration Restrictionists Dominate Slashdot Poll

[Randall Burns] @ 9:46 pm [Email author] [Email This Article] [Print This Article]

Steve Sailer on “pollaganda

http://www.cnn.com/2006/images/06/21/lou.dobbs.tonight.poll.results.pdf

Google News: immigration poll

poll site:numbersusa.com

http://www.numbersusa.com/search/?action=showresults&start=0&All=poll&searchType=www.numbersusa.com&Phrase=&Any=&None=&Submit=Search

Stein Report on NYT CBS poll:

http://www.steinreport.com/archives/010394.html

CIS executive director Mark Krikorian critiques poll at NRO. This is particularly informative and short.

Poll: Public Wants Illegals to Go Home
Public Prefers Enforcement, Not Senate Legalization Approach

http://www.eagleforum.org/alert/2007/05-22-07.html

poll site:fairus.org

poll site:vdare.com

The poll that counts: Call your Senators. Scroll down for lists of numbers to call, stop immigration free fax services, etc from Frosty Wooldridge:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty260.htm

Insightful comments on current and past polls related to immigration at Vanishing American.

immigration poll site:VanishingAmerican.blogspot.com

Worse, the more information the pollsters give those questioned — about current levels of immigration, alternative policies, fiscal costs — the more strongly they oppose the legislation. So you need to get hurry this bill through the entire legislative process before Americans learn what’s in it.

From:



–>

–>

E-mail Author
Author Archive
Send to a Friend
Print Version

Double Agent Karl
Machiavelli takes a look at the immigration bill.

By John O’Sullivan

National Review seems to be tacking back towards being a conservative magazine from being an arm of BOG (Bush occupied government). If National Review had still been on the American side before the 2000 and 2004 elections, it might have mattered. But better to have them late than never. This is the Return of the Apostate Son.

= Postscript and unresolved issue:

Because Q74 (prosecute and deport 69% yes) comes at the end, its late for the pollster to discover that the respondent is not responsive and should be considered an unusable response without losing their work? If the person answers against immigration early in the poll, the pollster can try to get them to drop out, e.g. by suggesting the person responding is a bigot. Or the pollster can resort to using more subtle means, like marking the response invalid or unusable.

How many people did they contact for the NYT CBS poll? How many dropped out? At what stages? At what questions? Why were the results of Q74 at variance with other answers as pointed out by Tim Graham? Aren’t pollsters supposed to be steeped in statistics and scientific method? Why didn’t the New York Times have an article by the pollster scientists who did the poll and designed it discussing this issue?

If this poll was submitted to a peer reviewed scientific journal, wouldn’t they make the authors discuss the internal inconsistencies that Tim Graham and others have pointed out? Doesn’t the NYT claim to be scientifically rigorous? Now that critics have pointed these issues out, why doesn’t the NYT have the pollsters discuss these in an article published in the print edition and on the web page? Isn’t that what real scientists would do in a controversy over results?

=Compare Scientific Article and Poll

A scientific article might have a readership of 1000 people or even less. If there are inconsistencies or problems, at least 100 of those 1000 and likely even more will learn of it.

For an NYT poll at least 10 million hear of it. However, only 10,000 or less hear of the controversies and maybe only 1000 or even the same 100 the scientific details of polling.

So if the NYT poll was published in the Journal of Polling Science it would end up with the same 100 people knowing the methodological problems as when published in the NYT.

In addition, a science article with these flaws, especially if concealed and then exposed, would be remembered by the 100 for decades. So it would be permanently linked to the authors as dubious and sloppy work at best. NYT polls don’t survive that long in memory.

This is why they published it in the NYT even though they knew the scientific problems before publication. If the same poll was submitted to the Journal of Polling Science, they would not have published it without all these issues being resolved. That would have taken months at least, and the poll would not be fresh.

The NYT knows or believes that after a couple news cycles, the only people still concerned are a few people, and the NYT thinks they don’t matter. They went through this calculation in advance of publication, knowing the polls inconsistencies. They chose to hide the poll inconsistencies by not discussing them in the article and even withholding some questions and answers from the pdf. They said these were for future use. But no one is interested in poll data that is very old, except the 10,000 down to 100 poll wonks.

The NYT and CBS have adopted as a business practice to present poll findings when the poll results are inconsistent and don’t support the statements in their main news articles or stories. This is intentional scientific fraud. This is a business policy of engaging in fraud for profit.

== Some final questions

What percentage think that Senators who support immigration should be prosecuted?

At least retired?

DHS heads?

What about Senators who vote their stock portfolio instead of the median wages of their constituents?

Do we have a Senate of stock portfolios?

Do we have a nation of 1973 median wage earners?

==

This article represents speculation, hypotheses or opinion. All statements should be restated as questions. All other disclaimers apply.

Call Senator John Warner, Jim Webb: Allison Kunhardt, Tessa Tranchant

May 24, 2007

I made more calls to my senators and other to stop amnesty and guestworker. I called again to Senator Jim Webb and thanked him for opposing guest worker and to vote against the final bill because it still has guest worker, and thus honor his campaign pledge to vote against guest worker.

I also did a couple other suggested calls. I’ve called my state Republican office and they told me to call the Republican National Committee, RNC, which I did. But I’m going to call them again too. They said they didn’t deal with that, but they have to deal with it if they lose people from the Republican party. That impacts them too.

Keep calling even if you’ve called. Find out the amendments each day at Numbers USA and Fairus. Call on the amendments and call to them thank when they vote our way on amendments. Keep this up. Get family and friends to call. Also fax and do personal faxes and emails in addition to faxing services.

Bush may be taking his revenge on Buchanan Perot voters for voting against his father in 1992. This is discussed at the link below.

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/05/17/bush-senate-amnesty-vendetta-on-buchanan-perot-voters-for-92-00-betrayals/

This is no time to let up. If you haven’t called, call. If you’ve called, call again. Find out the new amendments and call about them.

Statistics on median wages, flat since 1973 for men, etc below:

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/a-nation-of-lou-dobbs-democrats/

The labor force participation rates of black, Hispanic, Asian and white men are all projected by the government to fall from 2004 to 2014 even without this bill.

http://www.bls.gov/emp/emplab05.htm

That means an increase in every type of crime and family breakup. This means your kids won’t have job security, so they can’t get married, have kids, stay married and have more kids. That’s the revenge Bush wants on Buchanan Perot voters for not supporting his dad in 1992. He got Saddam Hussein, now he wants us.

Below is a thread at Free Republic

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1836423/posts

“Parents of crash victims attend event targeting illegal immigration
The Virginian-Pilot ^ | May 19, 2007 | GILLIAN GAYNAIR”

“Call Webb, Warner and Drake, and tell them in a nice way that their jobs depend on their vote on immigration,” said Bill Buchanan of the American Council for Immigration Reform in Arlington. “Do nothing, and things will get worse. You must direct your efforts to make this state less attractive to immigrants.”

About 50 people attended the event – all of whom had to show identification to enter – which was designed to encourage people to join Help Save Virginia. The group grew from Help Save Herndon, a group that came together over concerns about day laborers in their town.

The meeting was sponsored by the Virginia chapter of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps.

“The event was scheduled before the March 30 car crash that killed Virginia Beach teenagers Allison Kunhardt (also spelled Alison Kunhardt in some webpages) and Tessa Tranchant. Alfredo Ramos, an illegal immigrant, has been charged with aggravated involuntary manslaughter.

Alison’s father, David Kunhardt, and Tessa’s mother, Colette Tranchant, attended Friday’s gathering.”

Look at the photo of the two teens killed by the illegal drunk driver who had a prior record and wasn’t deported. This case is getting to Senator Warner. If you live in Virginia call Webb and Warner about it. This is working. Find out about
cases like this at other sites like Vdare. When you look at the photo of these two teens you will get the energy to call again. This is a fight and these two are martyrs.

search:

teens Brenda Walker site:Vdare.com

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1836423/posts

Keywords:

Pat Buchanan. H. Ross Perot. Ralph Nader. Reform Party. George H. W. Bush. George W. Bush. John McCain. Teddy Kennedy, Edward M. Kennedy. Shamnesty. McAmnesty. McKennedy. Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act 2007. Bush Senate Amnesty.

==

By voting for amnesty, Senator John Warner and Senator Jim Webb take ownership of these deaths. Ask them if they take ownership of these deaths by voting for amnesty. Remind them they take ownership of these deaths by voting for amnesty.

Senator Lieberman spoke of protecting asylum today on the Senate floor. He takes ownership of current, past and future deaths from asylum grantees and refugees. Remind him he takes ownership of past deaths and remind him of them by name.

==

Senator Warner is the 21 st wealthiest Senator. Men’s median wages are the same as in 1973, but productivity has gone up. That mostly went into profits and thus stock prices. Senator Warner didn’t trade the lives of the two teens for us to have higher wages.

Senator Warner traded their lives and our having lower wages so he could have higher stock prices. He takes ownership of their deaths by his stock profits. Senator Warner profited from their deaths by keeping our wages down while productivity went up, so all the productivity gains were channeled away from us to his stock portfolio.

Open Secrets Wealth of Senators, Warner is 21st in 2005

Senator Warner traded the lives of Allison Kunhardt, Tessa Tranchant for his stock portfolio. He took ownership in their deaths. Remind him of that.

==Appendix

http://helpsavevirginia.com/

search

Minuteman Civil Defense Corps Virginia

Minuteman Civil Defense Corps Virginia site:splcenter.org

SPLC Center is also making hay of the group sponsoring the event for the parents of Allison Kunhardt and Tessa Tranchant. Do they take ownership of the two teens deaths by their constant support of illegal immigration? By their attacks on Lou Dobbs and the Minutemen? When “public interest” law firms target teens by taking ownership in what kills them, what should we do? Call our senators. Call Jim Webb and John Warner.

(Final Note for SPLC: Cite your sources. If you use Colorado Media Matters work then cite them. CMM is also on the left, but doesn’t have a huge fancy HQ like SPLC does. Maybe people on the left would rather give their money to CMM which did the hard work on the Leprosy sources. CMM also cited and linked the US government graph that said Indochina refugees, legal immigration, were responsible for the Leprosy bulge in the 1970’s. CMM had the integrity to link to a graph that went against their main claim, by showing that legal immigration does cause Leprosy. SPLC as a public interest law firm has at least a double obligation to list references that teach away from its positions. Also SPLC owed equity to CMM and to tell the whole story when it set out to correct Lou Dobbs. They didn’t do that by not linking to the CMM page or the graph from the US government that said Indochina refugees, legal immigration, caused the 1970’s Big Bulge in Leprosy.)

Also see CMM here on this story.

Pew Research Poll Flaws: Muslim Americans: Middle Class

May 23, 2007

The Pew Research Center and other Pew units and others conducted a survey of Muslims. However, they interpret their results incorrectly. A careful analysis of their appendix like material in their pdf shows that the opposite conclusion should be drawn to their conclusion.

The correct conclusion is that Muslims in the US would stop answering survey questions in the middle when the survey switched from complaining about discrimination against Muslims to whether Muslims, and the survey respondent in particular support al Qaeda or terrorism. Pew reports that response rate was so low they had to up the fee from 25 dollars to 50 dollars to get people to go beyond the middle of the survey.

The survey questions start out slow and then ask about discrimination against Muslims. Then in the middle they start to switch to terrorism by Muslims. At that point, they encountered resistance to answering. They had so many Muslims drop the survey, it was done by phone, they had to change their design to offer 50 dollars. Then Muslims would answer and give the “correct” answer of not supporting terrorism, in large numbers, or al Qaeda.

However, what Pew did was unintentionally create an experiment in experimental economics. For 25 dollars US Muslims won’t criticize al Qaeda or terrorism. For 50 dollars, a few, but still not many, will. Thus the real conclusion is that Muslims do support al Qaeda and terrorism, including against Americans. For 25 dollars, they won’t pretend they oppose them, but for 50 dollars they will. In addition, they had to give their name and address to get the 50 dollars, so they couldn’t get the money without being identified.

Starting from 60,000 or 55,000 (they use both numbers) of contacts, Pew eventually got over half of its 1,000 final survey respondents to say that they didn’t support terrorism or al Qaeda. However, to do this they had to do the following:

  1. They had to increase the payment for the survey from 25 dollars to 50 dollars after people balked in finishing the survey when asked to answer questions on these issues.
  2. They had to go back to old survey respondents who were English or Spanish speaking, tended to own a house and be in one place, and tended to go to mosque less.

Thus the Pew survey was really experimental economics. It switched from being a survey to an experiment in economics when they had to increase the payment from 25 dollars to 50 dollars to get people to not just complain about discrimination but to say that they opposed al Qaeda and terrorism. For 25 dollars, they wouldn’t do that.

To get the money, they have to give their true name and true address, to get delivery. They are thus at risk if they say they support al Qaeda and terrorism. So they have to say they don’t support them, in effect. Despite this, some did anyhow. So the experiment was narrowed to a specific issue, how much money do you have to be paid to say you oppose al Qaeda and terrorism. For those responding it was between 25 and 50 dollars.

However, the actual conclusion is slightly more subtle. They started with 55,000 or 60,000 contacts and ended up with 1,000 usable ones. By design, they were only going to get no answers to support al Qaeda and terrorism, since they had to give their name and address to get the money. So the real survey issue was how much do you have to pay to get 1,000 useable responses if you start with 60,000 contacts?

This experiment resulted in the answer that its 50 dollars.
Phrased differently, to find 1,000 Muslims desperate enough
to say they oppose al Qaeda and terrorism against Americans, how much do you have to pay if you start with 60,000 calls. The answer is 50 dollars is enough but 25 is not. So its really helping designers of flawed surveys plan their budget.

From the start of 60,000 calls to 1,000 usable results, and a payment of 50 not 25 to get them, plus an additional recontact of another subgroup they could rely on more, and they admit that, in effect, they allow us to infer that:

Muslims in the US support al Qaeda

Muslims in the US support killing Americans in the US.

These conclusions are strengthened by analysis of some of the other survey questions. Some of this analysis is below, and some at the threads at Jihad Watch and the commentary by Robert Spencer, Hugh Fitzgerald, and posters there.

In particular, 55 percent said they didn’t think the US was sincere in the war on terror (see Question Q.H4), and only 40 percent said that Arabs did 9-11 (Question Q.H3). These were questions they felt safe to answer as they really felt to get the 50 dollars. The answer is not what they believe, its a way to express their animosity against Americans.

But to answer those “safe questions” they had to answer if they supported al Qaeda or supported terrorism. To induce them to say no to those two, which they had to do because the survey took their name and address to pay them, they had to be paid 50 dollars, when paid 25 dollars they would stop the survey and give up the 25 dollars despite having given enough of their time to get half way.

==Here is what Pew said

Muslim Americans: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream.

PDF Download the complete report

 

“The first-ever, nationwide, random sample survey of Muslim Americans finds them to be largely assimilated, happy with their lives, and moderate with respect to many of the issues that have divided Muslims and Westerners around the world.”

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/483/muslim-americans

http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf

==Comments made by OA at Jihad Watch on this topic

Fitzgerald: A peculiar poll

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/016578.php

 

“To compensate respondents for their time and to make participation in the survey more attractive, an incentive of $50 was offered for completing the interview. The study began with $25 incentive, but this was subsequently increased to $50 to further minimize mid-interview termination. Three-quarters of the respondents provided name and address information for receiving the incentive payment.”

Page 72 of pdf.

The poll questions are in categories, Q.A, Q.B, etc. Q.D. (page 95 of pdf) is about discrimination against Muslims. Q.F is where they start to ask about extremism by Muslims . Q.F. is page 95 of the pdf. So when the poll switched from Muslims being discriminated against to Muslims engaged in terrorism, people stopped answering questions when they were paid 25 dollars.

So they had to increase the payment from 25 dollars to 50 dollars so that people would continue to answer questions after Muslims being discriminated against in Q.D. to Muslim terrorism in Q.F and afterwards. Q.H is when they ask the heavy questions on Muslim terrorism, almost the end of the poll.

So at 25 dollars, the RDD survey respondents would all stop answering as soon as the questions stopped being discrimination against Muslims to Muslim terrorism and extremism.

Posted by: Old Atlantic [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 23, 2007 09:59 AM

Translation of above. For 25 dollars, people will talk about discrimination after 9-11. But to say that terrorism is bad, i.e. to say other than what they believe, they require 50 dollars. They won’t say al Qaeda is bad for 25 dollars but will for 50 dollars.

Posted by: Old Atlantic [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 23, 2007 10:03 AM

This ended up being experimental economics. As experimental economics we discover that to get Muslims to say al Qaeda is bad, we have to pay them 50 dollars, 25 is not enough. This is a different part of economics than survey research, but a valuable contribution nonetheless. Hats off to Pew, they proved that Muslims do support al Qaeda and that it takes 50 dollars to get them to say they don’t.

Posted by: Old Atlantic [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 23, 2007 10:09 AM

 

To summarize, the Pew Study was experimental economics. Their experimental design, by accident, was to determine by experiment how much money it takes to get Muslims to say they are against terrorism or al Qaeda.

Pew discovered by varying the amount of money offered that Muslims in the U.S. would not say terrorism is bad or denounce al Qaeda for 25 dollars but would for 50 dollars.

For 25 dollars, Muslims in the U.S. would complain about discrimination after 9-11, but would not answer questions about whether they supported al Qaeda or terrorism.

The conclusion of the Pew Experimental Design was that it takes 50 dollars to get a Muslim in the U.S. to say they are against terrorism or al Qaeda and 25 dollars is not enough. This is the proper statement of the conclusion of the Pew exercise.

Its reasonable to infer from this that Muslims in the U.S. support al Qaeda and terrorism and killing Americans.

It is reasonable to infer from this that Virgil Goode was right, stop Muslim immigration.

Virgil Goode Right: Stop Muslim Immigration

Paul Begala waylays Bay Buchanan, Virgil Goode, and 9-11 Truth

Note all the comment made by J.S. in this thread on providing name and address.
Posted by: J.S. [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 23, 2007 10:38 AM

Posted by: Old Atlantic [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 23, 2007 10:42 AM

The table on page 11 of the pdf on criticism of US foreign policy may be the closer representation of actual feelings.

Criticism of U.S. Foreign Policy
US Muslims vs. General public*
War in Iraq % %
Right decision 12 vs. 45
Wrong decision 75 vs. 47
DK/Refused 13 vs. 8
100 vs. 100

War in Afghanistan
Right decision 35 vs. 61
Wrong decision 48 vs. 29
DK/Refused 17 vs. 10
100 vs. 100

U.S. War on Terrorism
Sincere effort 26 vs. 67
Not sincere effort 55 vs. 25
Mixed/DK/Refused 19 vs. 8
100 vs. 100

*General public comparisons were taken
from the following Pew nationwide
surveys, respectively: April 2007,
December 2006, March 2004.

From Jan to April 2007, when these questions were asked, they felt safe to be this critical. The criticism of the war on terror, 55 percent “not sincere” sounds sincere.

Posted by: Old Atlantic [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 23, 2007 11:27 AM

“Nearly 60,000 respondents were interviewed to find a representative sample
of Muslims.”

We might restate the conclusion a little. It takes 50 dollars a person to troll through 60,000 Muslims
to find over 500 out of a 1000 willing to say that they are against al Qaeda and terrorism. Paying 25 dollars isn’t enough to get them to answer questions on terrorism, that will only get them to complain about discrimination after 9-11.

In the end, paying them 50 dollars, they still came up with fewer than 1000 Muslims willing to say they were against al Qaeda and killing Americans.

Posted by: Old Atlantic [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 23, 2007 11:40 AM

If we take the under 1000 willing to say they were against terrorism and al Qaeda out of the 60,000, we have less than 2 percent of Muslims in the US out of the sample they started with were willing to denounce al Qaeda and killing Americans.

To get even that many they had to increase the payment for answering questions about terrorism to 50 dollars, because at 25 dollars they stopped answering questions after the discrimination questions.

They also had to recontact an old survey group whose characteristics they knew were much more friendly.

We can look at this as a search for at least 500 US Muslims willing to denounce al Qaeda and terrorism. To get that many they had to up the money for saying specifically that from answering questions on discrimination and reuse an old sample that they knew was more friendly.

Posted by: Old Atlantic [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 23, 2007 11:48 AM

==

Younger Muslims support suicide bombing in greater numbers

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/016577.php

Survey Finds US Muslims Mostly Mainstream by Jim Lobe

“Similarly, a plurality (48 percent) of Muslim Americans also said they believed the war in Afghanistan was a mistake, compared to less than 30 percent of the general public.”

“Only 22 percent (of Arab born Muslims) said they believed that Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks, compared to 40 percent of all Muslim Americans.”

The response on this question is like the leading indicator in business cycle prediction. The response on “Is suicide bombing ever justified” is a lagging indicator. Also, some Muslims may not accept the term suicide bombing to describe 9-11, 7-7, etc. The Pew survey may not be a culturally valid survey for Muslims, especially non-convert Muslims.

A better question might have been: Is it ever justified to kill non-Muslims? Is it ever justified to kill non-Muslims in the United States?

The following argues that the Left is attracted to Islam precisely because it is a non-Western religion. Leftist awakenings have a track record of wanting to get rid of the people who embody the old culture. The above survey, to the true leftist, may be good news. It shows that Muslim immigration is working, it is creating irreversible change in culture by changing the people.

Kennedy Leftist Awakening: Irreversible Change by Immigration

Posted by: Old Atlantic [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 23, 2007 07:30 AM

 

==

 

One million American Muslims are Muslims first, Americans second

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/016574.php

“Q.E12 Do you think of yourself first as an American or first as a Muslim?” Page 93

“14 In April 2006, the question asked Christians living in the U.S., “Do you think of yourself first as American
or first as a Christian?”” Page 93 footnote.

Muslim Christian

28 == 48 American First
47 == 42 Religion First
18 == 7 Both equally
6 == 1 Neither/Other
1 == 2 Don’t Know Refused

This compares the response for Muslims in the US
to Christians in the US from a 2006 survey.

The symbol == is used to separate the columns, since I couldn’t find a tab and didn’t want to figure out a table in html.

Posted by: Old Atlantic [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 23, 2007 08:08 AM

Page 90 (of pdf, all my page numbers refer to pdf page number. Official page number is 84.)

IF BELIEVE KORAN IS WORD OF GOD (Q.E4=1), ASK:
Q.E5 And would you say that [READ, IN ORDER]?
3-07

Muslims == General Public (Bible)
86 Koran == 69 The Bible is the word of God, (NET)
50 Koran == 35 The Bible is to be taken literally, word for word,
25 Koran == 28 That not everything in the Bible should be taken literally, word for word.
11 == 6 Other/Don’t know/Refused (VOL. DO NOT READ)
8 Koran == 22 The Bible is a book written by men and is not the word of God (NET)
1 == 2 Other (VOL. DO NOT READ)
5 == 7 Don’t know/Refused (VOL. DO NOT READ)

GP footnote 10 In March 2007, both general public questions asked about “the Bible” instead of the Koran.

Posted by: Old Atlantic [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 23, 2007 08:15 AM

==Pew Staff

The Muslim American study was funded by a generous grant from The Pew Charitable Trusts and was
conducted jointly by two of the Pew Research Center’s projects: The Pew Research Center for the People
& the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, with additional advice and assistance from
staff in the Pew Hispanic Center and the Pew Global Attitudes Project.
Pew Research Center
Andrew Kohut President
Paul Taylor Executive Vice President
Elizabeth Mueller Gross Vice President
Scott Keeter Director of Survey Research
Richard Morin Senior Editor
Vidya Krishnamurthy Communications Manager

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
Andrew Kohut Director
Carroll Doherty Associate Director, Editorial
Michael Dimock Associate Director, Research
Richard Wike Senior Researcher
Nilanthi Samaranayake Survey and Data Manager
Juliana Horowitz, Rob Suls, Shawn Neidorf Research Associates
James Albrittain Executive Assistant

Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life
Luis Lugo Director
Sandra Stencel Deputy Director
John C. Green Senior Fellow in Religion & American Politics
Gregory Smith Research Fellow
Daniel A. Cox Research Associate
Sahar Chaudhry Program Assistant

www.pewresearch.org

==Other comments on this poll
23 May 2007 Vdare
Muslim Fifth Column Polled

[Brenda Walker] @ 10:26 am [Email author] [Email This Article] [Print This Article]

Brenda Walker links to the following:

One in four Muslims sympathises with motives of terrorists
By Anthony King

Last Updated: 11:55pm BST 23/07/2005

Page 1 of 5

The group portrait of British Muslims painted by YouGov’s survey for The Daily Telegraph is at once reassuring and disturbing, in some ways even alarming.

 

http://www.steinreport.com/archives/010384.html#comments

http://www.eontarionow.com/international/2007/05/23/user-comments-on-pew-research-centers-survey-of-us-muslims/

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/05/pew_propaganda_spin.html

May 23, 2007
Pew propaganda spin

Richard Baehr
Are Muslim Americans mostly middle class and mostly mainstream, as headlined by the Pew Research Center? Is there any other group which would be surveyed for which the labels “moderate” and “assimilated” would be used when more than one quarter of those under age 30 support suicide bombing attacks, and only 40% believe that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by Muslim terrorists?

Cheerleaders for Pew:

Tom Regan

The Real Picture on Muslim Americans

=
.Survey: U.S. Muslims Assimilated, Opposed to Extremism.
By Alan Cooperman

Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 23, 2007; Page A03

“Though socially conservative, Muslims lean toward the Democratic Party, six to one.”

“One of the poll’s most striking findings, Kohut said, is that African American Muslims are considerably more likely than immigrant Muslims to express support for al-Qaeda.”

Comments

OldAtlantic wrote:

Will SPLC go on Lou Dobbs to point out the flaws in the Pew Poll conclusions?

In particular, will Richard Cohen and Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center go on Lou Dobbs to correct the flawed conclusions of the Pew poll? They are good guys, they will want to correct this.

==Pew Puzzles

Pew polls tend to be puzzles.   Their study on immigration and wages in 2006 was a similar puzzle set to the public.  They explicitly said they were not determining if immigration lowered wages overall in the US, just that where immigration was high didn’t result in lower wages there, according to their study.  Even if we accepted that result, we would still have the issue that the impact on wages was felt everywhere, which would explain why there is opposition to immigration everywhere.   Even if immigration impacted the place of immigration first, immigration started in 1965 so there has been plenty of time for the effects to spread out evenly over the whole country.

V2: Ted the magic driver with a plan called amnesty

May 22, 2007

Ted, the magic driver lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist with a lamb called Kopechne,
Little Georgie Junior loved that rascal Ted,
And brought him strings and sealing wax and other fancy treads. oh

Ted, the magic driver lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist with a plan called amnesty,
Ted, the magic driver lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist with a lamb called Kopechne.

Together they would travel on a boat with billowed sail
Georgie kept a lookout perched on Ted’s gigantic tail,
Noble kings and emirs would bow whene’er they came,
Pirate ships would lower their flag when Ted roared out Jo’s name. oh!

Ted, the magic driver lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist with a plan called amnesty,
Ted, the magic driver lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist with a lamb called Kopechne.

A drowner lives forever but not so little girls
Painted wings and giant rings make way for other swirls.
One grey night it happened, Mary’s vapor came no more
And Ted that mighty driver, he ceased his fearless roar.

His head was bent in sorrow, green tales fell like rain,
Ted no longer went to play along the Chappie lane.
Without his little girl friend, Ted could not be brave,
So Ted that mighty driver sadly slipped into his cave. oh!

Ted, the magic driver lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist with a plan called amnesty,
Ted, the magic driver lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called amnesty.

==Note

This is modified from version 1.

==Keywords

Mary Jo Kopechne

Edward M. Kennedy

Teddy Kennedy

Chappaquiddick

George Bush Junior

Bush Kennedy McCain Senate Amnesty

John McCain

http://www.ytedk.com/

Peter, Paul & Mary, Puff, the Magic Dragon

Formatted lyrics

“puff the magic dragon”

Ted the magic driver with a plan called amnesty

May 21, 2007

Ted, the magic driver lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called amnesty,
Little Georgie Junior loved that rascal Ted,
And brought him strings and sealing wax and other fancy treads. oh

Ted, the magic driver lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called amnesty,
Ted, the magic driver lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called amnesty.

Together they would travel on a boat with billowed sail
Georgie kept a lookout perched on Ted’s gigantic tail,
Noble kings and emirs would bow wheneer they came,
Pirate ships would lower their flag when Ted roared out his name. oh!

Ted, the magic driver lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called amnesty,
Ted, the magic driver lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called amnesty.

A drowner lives forever but not so little girls
Painted wings and giant rings make way for other swirls.
One grey night it happened, Mary’s vapor came no more
And Ted that mighty driver, he ceased his fearless roar.

His head was bent in sorrow, green tales fell like rain,
Ted no longer went to play along the Chappie lane.
Without his little girl friend, Ted could not be brave,
So Ted that mighty driver sadly slipped into his cave. oh!

Ted, the magic driver lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called amnesty,
Ted, the magic driver lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called amnesty.

==Keywords

Mary Jo Kopechne

Edward M. Kennedy

Teddy Kennedy

Chappaquiddick

George Bush Junior

Bush Kennedy McCain Senate Amnesty

John McCain

http://www.ytedk.com/

Peter, Paul & Mary, Puff, the Magic Dragon

Formatted lyrics

“puff the magic dragon”

Kennedy Leftist Awakening: Irreversible Change by Immigration

May 21, 2007

The 1920’s and 1960’s were worldwide leftist awakenings that wanted irreversible change. Teddy Kennedy is a leader in the Leftist Awakening of the 1960’s. The 1920’s leftist awakening used ethnic, religious, class, and troublemaker cleansings in many countries to eliminate the physical embodiment of the culture they wished to destroy. The 1960’s Left uses immigration to irreversibly destroy the physical embodiment of the culture it proclaims it wants to destroy. In China and Cuba, and some other countries, the 1960’s Leftist awakening used the same ethnic, religious, class, and troublemaker cleansings as the 1920’s leftist awakenings did.

In the 17th century, the Puritan revolution was followed by the restoration which undid the extreme parts of the Puritan revolution. The French Revolution aimed for irreversible change. Their method was the terror, i.e. kill the physical embodiment of the culture of the ancien regime.

A revolution to replace a king kills the king. A revolution to change a society has to kill the group or groups that embody the culture of the old society. Leftist Awakenings call themselves culture wars.

Leftist Awakenings use some form of cleansings to eliminate the physical embodiment of the previous culture so that it can’t be restored. The Leftist Awakenings of the French Revolution, Nazi, Stalin, Mao, and 1960’s revolutions in the West and world wide all tried to eliminate the physical embodiment of the previous culture.

Each of these Leftist Awakenings targeted the people or groups they thought were a threat to restore the previous culture in a Glorious Restoration. These can be the nobility, professors, priests, Jews, kulaks, capitalists, merchants, or Archie Bunker.

The French Revolution had the “The Terror”. The Russian Revolution had the “Red Terror”, the Nazi Revolution had “The Holocaust” and killed not just 6 million Jews, who embodied the old culture, but also millions of others. The Mao Revolution had the “Cultural Revolution”. These were all Leftist Awakenings.

The 1960’s Awakening is also a self-proclaimed Culture War. It targets the Archie Bunkers. It uses ethnic cleansing by immigration. It demonizes Bunker for speaking out. It demonizes Lou Dobbs as the Nightly Nativist.

Immigration causes ethnic cleansing. If US population is 300 million and stable, then if people live 75 years 4 million die per year. If 2 million enter, then in a steady state, births equal 4 million deaths – 2 million entrants = 2 million.

Births over deaths is 2 million/ 4 million. That is a genetic survival ratio per generation of 1/2. It is 25 years from birth to parent. In 2 cycles, the genes left are 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/4. In 3 cycles its 1/8. So in 75 years only 1/8 of the starting genes are left. That is ethnic cleansing. That is irreversible change. That is eliminating the physical embodiment of the old culture.

If population goes to 450 million, and entrants are 1 million, then 6 million die per year, so births are 5 million. We then have a per generation survival ratio of genes of 5/6. This then goes like 25/36, 125/216, 625/1296, 3125/7776, …

In this Leftist Awakening, they use immigration to reduce the birth rate below replacement of the physical embodiment of the West. Its working.

“Numbers Drop for the Married With Children
Institution Becoming The Choice of the Educated, Affluent

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 4, 2007; Page A03

PORTLAND, Ore. — Punctuating a fundamental change in American family life, married couples with children now occupy fewer than one in every four households — a share that has been slashed in half since 1960 and is the lowest ever recorded by the census.”

The first ever census is 1790. This is irreversible change by eliminating the physical embodiment of the old culture.

Men’s median wages are the same as in 1973. See p60-231.pdf. Immigrants take away job security and that causes young adults to not marry, have children, stay married, and have more children.

In All in the Family, the Left shows Archie Bunker with one child and one grandchild. This is how the Left ethnically cleanses their victim, Archie Bunker. Bunker is a nativist. Bunker is a bigot. Bunker must be cleansed. He is cleansed by keeping him to 1 child and 1 grandchild. His son-in-law has to live at home and has only one child. The Left uses immigration to keep down men’s wages. That keeps the number of babies below replacement. That ethnically cleanses out the physical embodiment of the old culture, Archie Bunker. Immigration is the Terror of the 1960’s Awakening.

Call your Senator today. They vote on cloture tonight, tell your Senator vote no on cloture. That means they can’t move to the next step.

==

This post was also a comment at Front Page Magazine

http://www.frontpagemag.com/GoPostal/index.asp?ID=28306

Title: Osher right: Noam Chomsky Leftist Awakening Old Atlantic 5/21/2007 9:08:16 AM

Lead in there to comment on:

Causing Versus Defusing Rebellion Osher Doctorow Ph.D. 5/21/2007 3:55:22 AM

Great comments by Osher on Chomsky.
Noam Chomsky was and is a leader in what might be called a Leftist Awakening.

==Patrick Cleburne on Steven M. Warshawsky
Good thinking from “American Thinker”

[Patrick Cleburne] @ 9:11 am [Email author] [Email This Article] [Print This Article]

From a quality point of view, I do not think Steven M. Warshawsky’s posting yesterday on the American Thinker web site can really be bettered:

Out-of-control immigration represents the greatest existential challenge of our time. By “existential challenge,” I mean a public policy problem that goes to the heart of what it means to be “American” and which threatens to fundamentally, and perhaps permanently, alter American society for the worse.

(The Kennedy-Bush Immigration Travesty May 20 2007)

==The French Revolution and income inequality appears in an article today linked to by Vdare today.
Immigration And Class Warfare

[James Fulford] @ 3:11 pm [Email author] [Email This Article] [Print This Article]

Martin Hutchinson, who did an article for us once, has a Bears Lair column on immigration and it’s effect on the relatively classless society that has evolved in the US.

[The end of the classless society, PrudentBear.com, May 21, 2007]

==Lawrence Auster has been using the idea of the Eloi and our inability to call our Senators to stop immigration and vote for candidates against immigration like Tancredo

Eloi site:amnation.com

search Eloi Morlocks immigration

==Lawrence Auster on their desire for irreversible change

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/007837.html

For its supporters, this bill is the decisive act in that endeavor, breaking the old America in such a way that it will lose all power of resistance. That’s why they engage in any lie, any fraud, any violation of the normal deliberative process, in order to push the bill through. They are playing for keeps.

Auster has been a leader in pointing this out.

For Senator Lindsey Graham, its saying, “God, let’s see if you can fix what I break.”

==

Kennedy profits from his cleansing of us. The top 1 percent get 20 percent of national income now, 10 percent during immigration restriction, and got 20 percent before immigration restriction.

http://www.cbpp.org/7-10-06inc.htm

Ed Rubenstein at Vdare has commented on this U shaped pattern:

“u shaped” site:vdare.com

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060926_nd.htm

Men’s median wages are flat since 1973.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf

productivity and stock prices go up together, with the productivity of workers going largely into stock prices instead of median wages.

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/08/the_underreport.html

==

Open Secrets

Rank Name Minimum Net Worth Maximum Net Worth

1 Herb Kohl (D-Wis) $219,098,029 to $234,549,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

2 John Kerry (D-Mass) $165,741,511 to $235,262,100 Voted Yes S. 2611

3 Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) $78,150,023 to $101,579,003 Not Voting S. 2611

4 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $43,343,464 to $98,660,021 Voted Yes S. 2611

5 Lincoln D. Chafee (R-RI) $41,153,105 to $64,096,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

6 Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) $38,198,170 to $90,733,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

7 John McCain (R-Ariz) $25,071,142 to $38,043,014 Voted Yes S. 2611

8 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $19,189,049 to $93,043,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

Kennedy and McCain know immigration math. Median wages flat since 1973, productivity up, profits up, stock prices up.

McCain:

http://www.steinreport.com/archives/010372.html#comments

McCain: [Expletive] you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room”

lets wordsmith this:

McCain: [Expletive] you! Morloch Senators like myself, Teddy Kennedy, and Lindsey Graham know more about this than any Eloi in the room”

== Paul Nachman at Vdare says call your Senator today.

http://www.vdare.com/nachman/070520_sellout.htm

Postscript:

OK, you want to know what I do, besides writing occasional pieces, gratis, [VDARE.COM note: we’ve tried to pay him!] for VDARE.COM?

Last year I donated more than $11,000 (tax deductible) to the various organizations fighting for us and more than $5,000 (non-deductible) to political candidates who were focusing on immigration sanity. I’m on track for similar levels in 2007. No, I’m not rich, and I content myself with driving a trashed-out 1984 Mazda truck.

This year I’ve made half a dozen 200-mile round trips to Helena to testify on Montana bills aimed at combating illegal immigration.

Since the start of 2006, I’ve submitted about 85 letters to newspapers (with about 25 published), ghostwritten several published op-eds and letters, and had two op-eds published under my own name.

I also send every NumbersUSA fax (n.b. after customizing them) and make most of the requested phone calls—the latter being a distinctly non-favorite activity.

==

I called Jim Webb’s Senate office

http://webb.senate.gov/

and said to vote against the amnesty guest worker bill and uphold his promise to vote against guest workers. Call now Phone: (202) 224-4024 Fax: 202-228-6363. You can call the district offices if the main number is busy.

Senator John Warner’s number was busy two times.

http://www.senate.gov/~warner/

http://www.senate.gov/~warner/contact/offices.htm

I called Warner’s main number again and it was busy around noon. Then I called a district office and got through. My message for the Senator was I was against amnesty and to vote no on cloture. Call now. Whenever you read this, call.

I also tried calling the White House and the RNC. The White House just rang. The RNC I left a voice mail against amnesty.

RNC 202.863.8500

https://www.gop.com/Secure/Splash.aspx

White House Comment Line: (202) 456-1414

I tried to leave a message but it just rang and rang.

==Call Your state party GOP

http://www.gop.com/States/StateDetails.aspx?state=VA

Tell them you want no amnesty, no guest worker and no legal immigration until women, Hispanic and black median wages catch up with all men’s median wages. If they’ll listen also say you want all men, black, white, Asian and Hispanic men’s labor participation rates to get back to the 80 percent in 1965 before we have any more immigration. The misery index for a society is not the unemployment rate its 100 minus the male labor participation rate. Our society has a misery index that is running a huge fever.

==

Senator Jim Webb and Senator John Warner both voted aye on cloture.  Cloture meant to stop debate on the motion to allow the bill to come to the floor. This advanced the bill.

Jim Webb promised to vote against guest worker. This bill has 400,000 guest workers with an adjustable cap. Both have supported this guest worker and amnesty bill that is harming Virginia. These are not the views of their constituents.

Warner is the 21st wealthiest Senator as of 2005. Immigration keeps men’s median wages to the 1973 level and all others below that, women, black men, Hispanic men, etc. These Senators voted for their personal stock portfolios against the median wages of their constituents. Webb’s pledge to vote against guest workers was not upheld by his vote on Monday May 21, 2007.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.01348:

==

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/21/senate-votes-for-cloture-on-amnesty-bill-69-23/

==

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?tab=main&bill=s110-1348

==
“This Is the Year”Don’t expect Pelosi to kill semi-amnesty.

P.P.S.: Will backers of “comprehensive” immigration reform continue to tout approving poll numbers from polls that specifically cited the now-defunct “back taxes” requirement before asking voters for their opinion about semi-amnesty? The CNN poll of May 4, 2007, for example, got a large favorable response when it asked if people favored

“Creating a program that would allow illegal immigrants already living in the United States for a number of years to stay in this country and apply for U.S. citizenship if they had a job and paid back taxes.” [E.A.]

I wonder what the response would be to a query about favoring

“Creating a program that would allow illegal immigrants already living in the United States for a number of years to stay in this country and apply for U.S. citizenship even if they don’t pay back taxes.”

http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm

==What Republican candidates for President should say:

No amnesty and pause all legal immigration including student visas until

  1. Median wages of blacks, Hispanics, and women catch up with those of all men.
  2. Labor force participation rates of black, Hispanic, Asian, and white men return to the 80 percent level before Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act.

Labor force participation rates including for men and women by ethnic group, black, Hispanic, Asian and white at BLS:

www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/2006/B40.xls

(You can download an excel viewer)

http://www.bls.gov/emp/emplab05.htm

All 4 groups of men are projected to decline in labor force participation rates from 2004 to 2014 by the BLS because of immigration and illegals staying, one way or another.

Men’s and women’s median wages graph page 18:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf

Note that men’s median wages are flat since 1973.

Bloomberg is considering running, presumably to guarantee that men’s median wages stay at the 1973 level by continued immigration and that stock prices continue their rise from the impact of legal immigration since the 1965 Immigration Act.

==

The way to acknowledge Nachman’s Contribution is to call your Senators today.

Bush Kennedy Senate Amnesty Draft Text links

May 20, 2007

The “Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007” in draft is available from the Truth Laid Bear:

http://truthlaidbear.com/immigrationbill0518.php?page=281

Explanation of pdf available Friday May 18, 2007

“you can download here” at National Review Online

==

This should be distinguished from:

S.1348

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (Placed on Calendar in Senate)


Beginning
May 9, 2007
== See Hugh Hewitt:Sunday, May 20, 2007Summary Of The Fine Print Read, And NZ’s Easy To Use Text

Posted by Hugh Hewitt | 4:02 PM

==

It is time for conservatives to stand athwart Teddy Kennedy yelling stop.

http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/9b490f9b-a270-4da6-8770-63eb3931d9a8

==

Bush Senate Z-Visas Allow Family Reunify No Touchback

May 19, 2007

The Z-visa has 3 categories. The Z-1 is for anyone in the US illegally up to Jan 1, 2007.

http://truthlaidbear.com/immigrationbill0518.php?page=260

(b) Definition of Z nonimmigrants- Section 101(a)(15) of the Act
(8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)) is amended by inserting at the end the
following new subparagraph14
“(Z) subject to Title VI of the [Insert title of Act], an alien
who-

“(i) is physically present in the United States, has
maintained continuous physical presence in the United
States since January 1, 2007, is employed, and seeks to
continue performing labor, services or education; or

“(ii) is physically present in the United States, has
maintained continuous physical presence in the United
States since January 1, 2007, and

“(I) is the spouse or parent (65 years of age or older) of
an alien described in (i); or

“(II) was, within two years of the date on which [NAME
OF THIS ACT] was introduced, the spouse of an alien
who was subsequently classified as a Z nonimmigrant
under this section, or is eligible for such classification,
if-

“(aa) the termination of the relationship with such
spouse was connected to domestic violence; and

“(bb) the spouse has been battered or subjected to
extreme cruelty by the spouse or parent who is a Z
nonimmigrant.

== Based on the above, it appears that the Z-2 and Z-3 must have been in the US on Jan 1, 2007 and stayed here since then.

==Following was an earlier draft and now appears to be incorrrect.

Z-1 Visa holders can bring in their family on Z-2 and Z-3 visas. This requires no touchback by the Z-1 Visa holder.

When they tout the Z-visa as ending family reunification, they just mean you can’t bring in your adult brother or sister directly. But you can bring in your parent on a Z-2 and they can bring in their children on a Z-3, and your parents children often turn out to be your brothers and sisters.

They say it ends chain migration. But as the above shows, it only makes it a little harder. Under current law, arranged marriage counts as family reunification. Under this law, you can likely have an arranged marriage, usually into Pakistan or Afghanistan, and that will still count. These arranged marriages are where the spouses have never met, but are married, the visas arranged, and they meet under the family reunification program for the very first time.

The Y Visa “temporary guest worker program” is what requires the touchback. The Z-visa does not.

GOP Sellout
A senseless giveaway on immigration.
By Brian Darling

Title VI of a draft copy of the bill breaks down amnesty visas into three categories:

 

  • Z-1 — Illegal aliens present and working in the United States up to Jan. 1, 2007.
  • Z-2 — Parents and spouses of illegal aliens qualifying under the Z-1 category.
  • Z-3 — Children of illegal aliens qualifying under the Z-1 category.These “Z Visa” holders can stay in the “Z” status indefinitely, which means they never have to pursue “a pathway to citizenship.” They also would be able to get Social Security numbers and benefit from some welfare programs. Shockingly, there is no cap on the numbers of amnesty recipients in the draft language. The only thing the Z Visa holder can’t do is vote — until, that is, a liberal judge declares this limitation unconstitutional or until a liberal president can railroad through a “technical corrections” bill.
  • White House disputes above, but not with same level of technical detail and doesn’t mention Z-2 visa, or Z-3 visa, just Z visa.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/immigration/

    FACT: Workers approved for Z visas will be given a temporary legal status, but they will not enjoy the full privileges of citizens or Legal Permanent Residents, such as welfare benefits and the ability to sponsor relatives abroad as immigrants.

    This gives a conflict with the other source above. Below is a reference to info from the White House March 30, 2007 proposal. That also has the language:

    “6- A Z visa holder cannot offer derivative status to family members who are abroad.”

    ImmigrateUSA Written by David Hart Friday, 30 March 200

    The White House may be going by this March 30, 2007 summary instead of what came out of Kennedy’s plan. When the White House Summary was posted, the bill had not been finished. It may be that there are different drafts floating around or that the White House just reverted back to its earlier talking points. Its FAQ type format document may have been written in March or April 2007. Six Senators say wait for the draft to be available on the internet.

    http://www.redstate.com/files/051607Immigration.pdf

    Teddy Kennedy gave La Raza (“The Race”) and other special interest groups veto authority over the Senate compromise with “Republicans” led by Senator John Kyl.

    ==American Immigration Lawyers Association, AILA says there is a Z-2, Z-3

    http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?bc=1019%7C6712%7C8844%7C22365

    Summary of Senate “Grand Bargain”
    Cite as “AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 07051768 (posted May. 17, 2007)”

    Title VI

    This title provides a new visa for most individuals currently living within the U.S. illegally.

    • Creates a new four-year, renewable “Z” nonimmigrant visa to address the undocumented population within the U.S. The visa is split up into three groups:
      • a principal or employed alien (Z-1),
      • the spouse or elderly parent of that alien (Z-2),
      • and the minor children of that alien (Z-3).

    Probationary, the Permanent Z Status: Once an applicant submits a completed application, fingerprints, and is cleared by one-day background checks he will receive probationary benefits which can eventually be converted to a Z nonimmigrant status after all background checks are clear and the triggers set forth in Title I are achieved.

    It may be the White House meant the above step had to be completed? That doesn’t seem to get them out, since they are saying those approved for the Z-visa can’t bring in relatives, in conflict with these other sources.

    =Wait in line only for Green card, not Z-visa

    FACT: To apply for a green card at a date years into the future, Z visa workers must wait in line behind those who applied lawfully, pay an additional $4,000 fine, complete accelerated English requirements, leave the U.S. and file their application in their home country, and demonstrate merit based on the skills and attributes they will bring to the United States.

    ==They will empty the green card holder line.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070517-7.html

    Family Members Who Have Applied Legally, And Lawfully Waited Their Turn In Line, Will Receive Their Green Card Within The Next Eight Years. Today, millions of family members of U.S. citizens wait years in line for a green card, with some waits estimated at as long as 30 years.

    ==

    GunnyRet03 (link here) at Military.com points out the unfairness of the Z-2 and Z-3 visa concept, i.e. that an illegal can bring in their parents and their children ahead of others who have waited. Y visa holders can’t bring in parents or children, so Z-visa holders get better treatment than Y-visa. Z’s came in illegally on or before Jan 1, 2007, while Y’s come in legally after the legislation is passed.

    GunnyRet03 links to Redstate on the Z-2 visa ,Z-3 visa issue.

    “I have called and emailed, both Senators, my Congressman the WH and the RNC and DNC.

    And will continue to do so.”

    ==S 2611 from 2006 had a 5 year before enactment requirement for amnesty.

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110gPhkS8:e541345:

    SEC. 245B. ACCESS TO EARNED ADJUSTMENT.

      `(a) Adjustment of Status-
      • `(1) PRINCIPAL ALIENS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 244(h) of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall adjust to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, an alien who satisfies the following requirements:
        • `(A) APPLICATION- The alien shall file an application establishing eligibility for adjustment of status and pay the fine required under subsection (m) and any additional amounts owed under that subsection.
        • `(B) CONTINUOUS PHYSICAL PRESENCE-
          • `(i) IN GENERAL- The alien shall establish that the alien–
            • `(I) was physically present in the United States on or before the date that is 5 years before April 5, 2006;
            • `(II) was not legally present in the United States on April 5, 2006, under any classification set forth in section 101(a)(15); and
            • `(III) did not depart from the United States during the 5-year period ending on April 5, 2006, except for brief, casual, and innocent departures.
          • `(ii) LEGALLY PRESENT- For purposes of this subparagraph, an alien who has violated any conditions of his or her visa shall be considered not to be legally present in the United States.
        • `(C) ADMISSIBLE UNDER IMMIGRATION LAWS- The alien shall establish that the alien is not inadmissible under section 212(a) except for any provision of that section that is waived under subsection (b) of this section.
        • `(D) EMPLOYMENT IN UNITED STATES-
          • `(i) IN GENERAL- The alien shall have been employed in the United States, in the aggregate, for–
            • `(I) at least 3 years during the 5-year period ending on April 5, 2006; and
            • `(II) at least 6 years after the date of enactment of the Immigrant Accountability Act of 2007.

    ==Now its just on or before Jan 1, 2007. This is quite different and rewards those who came illegally after Kennedy put his bill out.

    FACT: To be eligible to apply for a Z visa, illegal immigrants must prove they were in the country prior to January 1, 2007.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/immigration/

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.01348:

    == S 2611 Requirements on documentation:

    (iv) EVIDENCE OF EMPLOYMENT-

            • `(I) CONCLUSIVE DOCUMENTS- For purposes of satisfying the requirements in clause (i), the alien shall submit at least 2 of the following documents for each period of employment, which shall be considered conclusive evidence of such employment:

    `(aa) Records maintained by the Social Security Administration.

    `(bb) Records maintained by an employer, such as pay stubs, time sheets, or employment work verification.

    `(cc) Records maintained by the Internal Revenue Service.

    `(dd) Records maintained by a union or day labor center.

    `(ee) Records maintained by any other government agency, such as worker compensation records, disability records, or business licensing records.

            • `(II) OTHER DOCUMENTS- An alien who is unable to submit a document described in subclause (I) may satisfy the requirement in clause (i) by submitting to the Secretary at least 2 other types of reliable documents that provide evidence of employment for each required period of employment, including–

    `(aa) bank records;

    `(bb) business records;

    `(cc) sworn affidavits from non-relatives who have direct knowledge of the alien’s work, including the name, address, and phone number of the affiant, the nature and duration of the relationship between the affiant and the alien, and other verification information; or

    `(dd) remittance records.

          • `(v) BURDEN OF PROOF- An alien applying for adjustment of status under this subsection has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the alien has satisfied the employment requirements in clause (i). Once the burden is met, the burden shall shift to the Secretary of Homeland Security to disprove the alien’s evidence with a showing which negates the reasonableness of the inference to be drawn from the evidence.

    ==What is the documentation requirement now?

    FACT: To be eligible to apply for a Z visa, illegal immigrants must prove they were in the country prior to January 1, 2007.
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/immigration/

    ==

    Earlier info on the Visa categories

    The following by Hart should be read in full despite being from March 2007. The current version is just a slight reworking of this.

    ImmigrateUSA Written by David Hart Friday, 30 March 200

    ==Quotation from Hart, (read full piece in full)

    1- Provides a channel for temporary workers (TWP) known as the “Y” visa
    2- Provides for a “Z” visa for those present in the U.S. without lawful status

    The Temporary Worker (Y VISA)

    1- First year cap not yet determined. (400,000 now)
    2- Every two years thereafter the cap can be altered if the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretaries of Labor and Commerce, certifies a “demonstrable need” for higher or lower numbers. (Cap can be adjusted up or down at will according to White House.)
    3- Employers seeking a temporary worker must demonstrate that U.S. workers are not available. An offered position must be listed in a publicly accessible computer database. Certain private companies will be able to pair applicants with jobs.
    4- This program will include two sorts of temporary workers: A seasonal worker who will be able to work 9 months in the U.S. and then 3 months abroad, which can be renewed indefinitely, and the main program that will permit the worker to remain in the U.S. for 2 years with 6 months abroad, and which can be renewed twice for a total of 6 years. Worker may NOT bring hir or her family, but can travel freely to see them.The Currently Undocumented (Z Visa)

    1- A penalty of $2,000 will be imposed for every three-year Z visa period. The rationale is that the penalty is necessary to “fine” the person who entered the U.S. in violation of the law or who remained in the U.S. in violation of the law.
    2- The Z visa applicant will need to pay the same processing fee of $1,500 for each period, the premise being that the process would be self-funding.
    3- Z visa holders will be eligible for emergency social services and for primary and secondary education (public schools).
    4- The Z visa will be valid for three years and can be renewed indefinitely.
    5- Must pass at the first renewal (after three years) and the same English, and civics test that is required for citizenship (exceptions for elderly)
    6- A Z visa holder cannot offer derivative status to family members who are abroad.

    Clean Up Extended Family Backlogs and New Merit-Based System

    1- Redirect 50,000 annual visas to merit-based and national-need categories.
    2- Eliminate preferences for siblings and adult children.
    3- Eliminate diversity visa program.
    4- Require that current applicants on wait list file new application with $500 filing fee in order to consolidate and determine exact number on wait list.
    5- Offer anyone refused the opportunity to apply for merit-based visas, with points awarded for having U.S. relatives.
    6- Convert all diversity visas and some parent preference visas to merit-based selection (this would create 100,000 openings immediately).
    7- New visa system that prioritizes according to national needs and individual merits by emphasizing education.
    8- Make it easier for the best foreign students earning STEM (science, technology, engineering and medical degrees) at U.S. universities to remain in the U.S. as workers.
    9- After the initial period, implement a point-based system for up to 700,000 applicants per year based on i) educated and skilled workers critical to national competitiveness and ii) unskilled workers with high employer valuations and other equity and roots in the U.S. The merit system can be tuned at various points to keep the level and mix of permanent residency approvals focused on the national interest.

    == above quotation from Hart ==

    Also here by David Hart.

    Search z-visa y-visa

    The following on May 17, 2007 indicates the Kennedy scheme of Z and Y visas is a slight reworking of the earlier Bush scheme.

    http://www.firesociety.com/article/12134

    Washtimes blog.

    ==

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070517-7.html

    “Sets a cap of 400,000 on the temporary worker program, which can be adjusted up or down in the future depending on demand.”

    This means no cap.

    ==White House Statement

    Fact Sheet: Border Security and Immigration Reform
    Administration And Bipartisan Group Of Senators Reach Bipartisan Agreement On Comprehensive Immigration Reform

    RSS Feed White House News

    Fact sheet President Bush Discusses Comprehensive Immigration Bill
    Fact sheet In Focus: Immigration
    Today, Administration Officials And A Bipartisan Group Of Senators Reached Agreement On Comprehensive Immigration Reform Legislation. The proposal includes:

    • Putting Border Security And Enforcement First: Border security and worksite-enforcement benchmarks must be met before other elements of the proposal are implemented.
    • Providing Tools For Employers To Verify The Eligibility Of The Workers They Hire: Employers will be required to verify the work eligibility of all employees using an employment eligibility verification system, while all workers will be required to present stronger and more verifiable identification documents. Tough new anti-fraud measures will be implemented and stiff penalties imposed on employers who break the law.
    • Creating A Temporary Worker Program: To relieve pressure on the border and provide a lawful way to meet the needs of our economy, the proposal creates a temporary worker program to fill jobs Americans are not doing. To ensure this program is truly “temporary,” workers will be limited to three two-year terms, with at least a year spent outside the United States between each term. Temporary workers will be allowed to bring immediate family members only if they have the financial ability to support them and they are covered by health insurance.
    • No Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants: Illegal immigrants who come out of the shadows will be given probationary status. Once the border security and enforcement benchmarks are met, they must pass a background check, remain employed, maintain a clean criminal record, pay a $1,000 fine, and receive a counterfeit-proof biometric card to apply for a work visa or “Z visa.” Some years later, these Z visa holders will be eligible to apply for a green card, but only after paying an additional $4,000 fine; completing accelerated English requirements; getting in line while the current backlog clears; returning to their home country to file their green card application; and demonstrating merit under the merit-based system.
    • Strengthening The Assimilation Of New Immigrants: The proposal declares that English is the language of the United States and calls on the United States Government to preserve and enhance it, as well as enacting accelerated English requirements for many immigrants. In addition, the DHS Office of Citizenship will be expanded to include coordinating assimilation efforts in its mission, and the Education Secretary will make an English instruction program freely available over the Internet.
    • Establishing A Merit System For Future Immigration: The proposal establishes a new merit-based system to select future immigrants based on the skills and attributes they will bring to the United States. Under the merit-based system, future immigrants applying for permanent residency in the U.S. will be assigned points for skills, education, and other attributes that further our national interest including: ability to speak English; level of schooling, including added points for training in science, math, and technology; job offer in a specialty or high-demand field; employer endorsement; and family ties to the U.S.
    • Ending Chain Migration: The immigration system would be reformed to better balance the importance of family connections with the economic needs of our country by replacing the current system, where nearly two-thirds of green cards are awarded to relatives of U.S. citizens, with a system in which future family immigration will focus on the nuclear family and parents.
    • Clearing The Family Backlog In Eight Years: Millions of family members of U.S. citizens now wait years in line for a green card, with some waits estimated at as long as 30 years. Family members who have applied legally and have lawfully waited their turn in line will receive their green card within eight years.

    Putting Border Security And Enforcement First

    Border Security And Worksite Enforcement Benchmarks Must Be Met Before A Temporary Worker Program Is Implemented. These benchmarks include:

    • Miles of fence constructed.
    • Number of Border Patrol Agents hired.
    • “Catch and Return” continues at the border.
    • Employment Eligibility Verification System ready to process all new hires.

    The Proposal Establishes New Penalties For Border Crimes And Gives The Border Patrol Additional Tools To Stop Illegal Border Crossings. Through the deployment of additional Border Patrol agents with supporting equipment, the construction of additional fencing and vehicle barriers in targeted areas, and the development of a proper mix of sensors, radar, and cameras, the proposal establishes a true commitment to securing our borders.

    Providing Tools For Employers To Verify The Eligibility Of The Workers They Hire

    Employers Will Be Required To Verify The Work Eligibility Of All Employees, While All Workers Will Be Required To Present Stronger And More Verifiable Identification Documents. Tough new anti-fraud measures will be implemented and stiff penalties imposed on employers who break the law.

    • The Employment Eligibility Verification System will allow for real-time verification of employee photos and documents.
    • The Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration will be able to share “no-match” information to ensure that illegal immigrants cannot use the Social Security information of Americans to pose as legal workers.
    • Employer audits will serve as an additional check on employer compliance with the system.

    Creating A Temporary Worker Program

    To Relieve Pressure On The Border And Provide A Lawful Channel To Meet The Needs Of Our Economy, The Proposal Creates A Temporary Worker Program. The program allows workers to enter the country to fill jobs that Americans are not doing. The temporary worker program:

    • Protects American workers by requiring U.S. employers to advertise the job in the United States at a competitive wage before hiring a temporary worker.
    • Provides additional labor protections for temporary worker program participants.
    • Allows temporary workers to enter the United States to work for three two-year terms, with at least a year spent outside the United States between each term.
    • Sets a cap of 400,000 on the temporary worker program, which can be adjusted up or down in the future depending on demand.
    • Requires temporary workers who want to bring their immediate family to show that they have the financial means to support them and that they are covered by health insurance.
    • Recognizes the unique needs of agriculture by establishing a separate seasonal agriculture component under the temporary worker program.

    No Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants

    Illegal Immigrants Who Come Out Of The Shadows Will Be Given Probationary Status. To maintain their probationary status, they must pass a background check, remain employed, and maintain a clean criminal record.

    Illegal Immigrants Who Fulfill Their Probationary Requirements Can Apply For A Z Card, Which Will Enable Them To Live, Work, And Travel Freely. Z card holders will be required to pay a $1,000 fine, meet accelerated English and civics requirements, remain employed, and renew their visa every four years.

    Z Card Holders Will Have An Opportunity To Apply For A Green Card, But Only After:

    • Paying an additional $4,000 fine,
    • Applying at the back of the line and waiting until the current backlog is cleared,
    • Returning to their home country to file their green card application, and
    • Demonstrating merit under the merit-based system.

    Strengthening The Assimilation Of New Immigrants

    The Proposal Declares That English Is The Language Of The United States And Calls On The United States Government To Preserve And Enhance It, As Well As Enacting Accelerated English Requirements For Some Immigrants. The success of our country depends upon helping newcomers assimilate into our society and embrace our common identity as Americans – our shared ideals, an appreciation of our history, and an ability to speak and write the English language. Therefore, the Secretary of Education is directed to make an English instruction program freely available over the Internet. The DHS Office of Citizenship is expanded to include coordinating assimilation efforts in its mission, and additional funding is authorized for the Office.

    Establishing A Merit System For Future Immigration

    The Proposal Establishes A New Merit-Based System To Select Future Immigrants Based On The Skills And Attributes They Will Bring To The United States. A merit system is used by many other countries.

    • Under The Merit System, Future Immigrants Applying For Permanent Residency In The United States Will Be Assigned Points For Skills, Education, Employment Background And Other Attributes That Further Our National Interest. These skills include:
      • Ability to speak English.
      • Level of schooling, including added points for training in science, math, and technology.
      • Job offer in a high-demand field.
      • Work experience in the United States.
      • Employer endorsement.
      • Family ties to the United States.

    Ending Chain Migration

    In Place Of The Current System Where Nearly Two-Thirds Of Green Cards Are Awarded To Relatives Of U.S. Citizens, Our Immigration System Will Be Reformed To Better Balance The Importance Of Family Connections With The Economic Needs Of Our Country.

    • Visas for parents of U.S. citizens are capped, while green cards for the siblings and adult children of U.S. citizens and green card holders are eliminated.
    • A new Parents Visitor visa is created to ensure that parents are allowed to visit their children in the United States regularly and for extended periods of time.
    • The Diversity Lottery Program, which grants 50,000 green cards per year through random chance, is ended.
    • These rebalanced green cards are used to clear the Family Backlog in eight years and then applied to the new Merit System for future immigration once the backlog is cleared.

    Clearing The Family Backlog Within Eight Years

    Family Members Who Have Applied Legally, And Lawfully Waited Their Turn In Line, Will Receive Their Green Card Within The Next Eight Years. Today, millions of family members of U.S. citizens wait years in line for a green card, with some waits estimated at as long as 30 years.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070517-7.html

    ==Comments

    The 30 year of family reunification backlog is still going to be worked through in 8 years. Z-visa holders still get family reunification. There is still close family reunification, its only extended family reunification. There is still chain close family-reunification.

    McCain Kennedy and the other proposals live on through this.

    ==American Immigration Lawyers Association.
    Summary of Senate “Grand Bargain”
    Cite as “AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 07051768 (posted May. 17, 2007)”

    Numerical Limitation: The Y-1 visa program has an initial cap of 400,000 with yearly adjustments based on market fluctuations.

    There are no numerical limitations for Y-2A while the Y-2B visas are initially capped at 100,000 with yearly adjustment based on market fluctuations.
    The market-based fluctuation is adjusted every 6 months during the fiscal year.

    ==

    What about legal visitors? If you lied on your previous visa and had intent to stay, you could claim the Z-1 Visa on the basis that you had committed fraud?

    ==History of all US amnesties on immigration (the first was in 1986)

    http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/amnesty.html

    Call Senators Weekend: No amnesty Leave Message

    May 19, 2007

    You can call your Senators and leave a message.  You can call and leave a message at their district office.  Also you can fax them.  If you use NumbersUSA to Fax or other ones, also send a fax from home if you have a home fax.

    May 18, 2007

    Let’s Pull A Harriet Miers On The Senate Amnesty Bill

    John Hawkins at Right Wing News

    #2) Call the National Republican Senatorial Committee at (202) 675-6000 and let them know that you will not support the reelection of any Senator in 2008 who votes for the amnesty bill in the Senate.

    #3) Call the Republican National Committee at 202.863.8500 (option 1) and let them know you will not support any candidate in 2008 who votes for the amnesty bill in the Senate (Incidentally, a lot of you must be doing this already because when I called about 10 minutes ago, the mailbox was full.)

    Amnesty Update—Grim Outlook … Need Your Help 

    Senators are admitting privately that the bill will increase the number of greencards (for permanent settlement) by 20 million over the next 13 years. Added to the number that will be given out based on current law, that means 30-35 million greencards in just the next 13 years!

    To give you an idea of how radically these Senators want to change our nation and communities, consider that there are around 25 million foreign-born now living in this country who have been given green cards over the last 75 years. That number already has overwhelmed and changed thousands of communities.

    But the Senate negotiators and Pres. Bush want to raise that number of greencard holders in our communities from 25 million to 60 million in just the next 13 years!

    Roy Beck from NumbersUSA

    http://www.numbersusa.com/actionbuffet

    MAKE A PHONE CALL TO YOUR TWO SENATORS AT:

    202-224-3121

    http://www.senate.gov/

    Type in Senator John McCain or your Senator’s name into google and it will often give their phone numbers.  Also try adding their district office.  You can also start calling or faxing your House rep against the bill and then call again later when it gets to the House.

    blog search: senate amnesty fax

    search: senate amnesty fax

    %d bloggers like this: