amnesty

Illegal Aliens Escalate Amnesty Demands, Claim Racism

Top Democrats and business allies invited reporters to a Capitol Hill event to watch illegal immigrants demand amnesty and smear Republicans as racist, in Spanish and broken English.

“I’m here representing all the immigrant mothers like myself, will not allow the government to tear down our sons’ and daughters’ dreams while they try to separate our families,” said Lenka Mendoza, an unskilled illegal alien - saying:

The president does not care about our children and our families. Trump and his government supposed priorities are nothing else but an anti-immigrant and white-supremacist agenda that don’t solve anything … need clean act now.”

Mendoza was welcomed to the podium by Todd Schulte, a Democratic political activist who is president of FWD.us, a lobbying group formed by Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg...

In his October 8 letter to Congress, Trump said:

These findings outline reforms that must be included as part of any legislation addressing the status of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients.  Without these reforms, illegal immigration and chain migration, which severely and unfairly burden American workers and taxpayers, will continue without end.

Immigration reform must create more jobs, higher wages, and greater security for Americans — now and for future generations.  The reforms outlined in the enclosure are necessary to ensure prosperity, opportunity, and safety for every member of our national family.

Instead of urging compromise, Schulte’s speakers upped their demands, saying they want an amnesty for young ‘dreamer’ illegals plus an amnesty for their parents...

The escalating demands and aggressive rhetoric from Schulte’s illegals were much sharper than the prior soft-spoken claims...

A second illegal, Ingrid Vaca, said she arrived in the United States from Bolivia in 2000. “I came to this country with dreams to protect my sons and to give them a better future,” she said in heavily accented English, adding: I would not let anything stand in their way.”

Vaca continued:

DACA away was taken away by Trump and his racist advisors, Jeff Sessions and Steven Miller … We will not let racist men negotiate with our kids’ lives … We will not allow our families to be broken up … A mother’s love is stronger than the racists from the White House.

The escalated demands from the illegal aliens are compatible with Schulte’s goals...

The RAISE Act is a problem for Schulte’s investors because it would halve the inflow of new customers and workers, and –worse — it would prevent the investors from pushing Congress to pass the so-called “staple” green card proposal.

The proposed “staple” visa program would allow foreign students at U.S. universities to receive a green card stapled to their graduate degree. It is very popular among business groups because it would create a huge wave of salary-cutting white-collar competition in the skilled job sectors where young Americans hope to earn a good living. The salary-cutting competition would be intensified by the government’s offer of the very valuable prize of citizenship to foreign graduates who take jobs sought by the 800,000 Americans who graduate from college each year with skilled degrees in business and medicine, engineering, architecture and science, technology, math and chemical engineering.

But Schulte’s investors won’t get their staple proposal — or any increase in white-collar H-1B outsourcing — if Trump and the voters pressure Democrats to accept Trump’s popular immigration principles in exchange for a limited amnesty.

The third illegal alien introduced by Schulte was Luis Condorimay, who migrated to the United States from Peru at age 13 and earned a 2016 degree in chemical engineering. 

An amnesty for just younger illegals is unacceptable if it does not also include their parents, he insisted.  “This is just not something I can do. Would you accept a law where you protect yourself … but hurt your father and mother?”

He also spoke against any border and enforcement upgrades, and described the illegal-alien communities as the victims........

Four million Americans turn 18 each year and begin looking for good jobs in the free market.

But business groups have used their political power to tilt the labor market in their favor,  via the federal policy of importing 1 million consumers and workers each year...

That Washington-imposed economic policy of mass-immigration floods the market with foreign laborspikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. It also drives up real estate priceswidens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized Americans and their families, including many who are now struggling with opioid addictions.

The cheap-labor policy has also reduced investment and job creation in many interior states because the coastal cities have a surplus of imported labor...

Americans tell pollsters that they strongly oppose amnesties and cheap-labor immigration, even as most Americans also want to favor legal immigrants, and many sympathize with illegals.

Because of the successful cheap-labor strategy, wages for men have remained flat since 1973, and a growing percentage of the nation’s annual income is shifting to investors and away from employees.

Illegal Aliens Crash Nancy Pelosi’s DACA Press Conference: ‘All of Us or None of Us!’

 A group of illegal aliens calling themselves the “Immigration Liberation Movement” crashed a press conference by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Monday, warning the Democratic Party not to “sell [us] out.”

The group shouted down Rep. Pelosi, who struggled to maintain control of the meeting, and unfurled a large banner calling for all illegal aliens to be legalized.

Others held up signs, including: “Fight 4 All 11 Million,” referring to the estimated total of all illegal aliens in the U.S.

In the “mic check” call-and-response style popularized by the Occupy Wall Street protests in 2011, the activists declared:

We remember all too well how for eight years the Democrats laid siege to our communities, raiding and deporting nearly three million people, of our family members and loved ones. Where was your resistance then? Ms. Pelosi, did you think we would forget? We send a clear message to our fellow undocumented youth and community: We are the resistance to Trump! Not the Democrats!

The activists also chanted “Brown power!” In a show of “intersectionality” — solidarity among left-wing groups — they also chanted “Trans lives matter!” and other slogans, while Pelosi stood silently behind the throng.

“You met with Trump, and you call that resistance?” they shouted in unison.

Earlier, Pelosi had spoken at the podium with community leaders and fellow members of Congress from the Bay Area in support of her legislative push for a bill that would legalize the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

President Donald Trump canceled DACA earlier this month, but left Congress a six-month window in which to find a legislative solution for the roughly 800,000 DACA beneficiaries. Pelosi said that she wanted the “DREAM Act,” a long-dormant Democratic Party bill that goes much further than DACA, “to be the basis of how we go forward.”

“We’re not giving up our fight to protect America’s dreamers,” she said.

However, she could not speak over the protests. “It’s clear you don’t want any answers,” she said.

As if to support her point, activists chanted: “All of us — or none of us,” meaning that they would only accept full amnesty for all illegal aliens, not just DACA beneficiaries.

A concise comparison of Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump on eight key issues

Here are the big election cycle political issues and Donald Trump’s and Hillary Clinton’s positions on what each wants to see and make happen, according to political analysts John Porter, James Kouri,...

  1. OPEN OR CLOSED BORDERS: National Security

Hillary Clinton is for an entire Western Hemisphere of open borders, free travel with no restrictions as to identity or the numbers of people entering these countries, including the U.S. She wants a mirror image of the European Common Market. It is estimated up to 600 million people could freely migrate here.

Donald Trump is for completely closed borders with strict limitations and extreme vetting on who and how many people are allowed to enter the U.S. He is soundly opposed to the European Common Market concept.

  1. AMERICA’S MILITARY STRENGTH:

Hillary Clinton is opposed to substantially increasing the size and strength of the U. S. Military forces. This in its self means a weaker military presence in the world. She, like Obama, doesn’t believe we should be a dominant military power.
 

Donald Trump is in favor of substantially increasing both the size and strength of the U.S. Military forces. This would be restoring us to the strongest military presence in the world. He, like Ronald Reagan, believes we should be a dominant military power. The Military is in the worse possible position since WWI.

  1. FEDERAL INCOME TAXES:

Hillary Clinton plans to substantially increase Federal Income Taxes on both individuals and all businesses, large and small, and increase the inheritance tax rate to 65% of what someone, upon their death, leaves to their children or family. Increase the number of brackets to eight.

Donald Trump plans to substantially lower taxes on all individuals and all businesses, large and small, and totally eliminate the inheritance tax all together on what someone, upon their death, leaves to their children or family. Decrease the number of brackets to three.

  1. AMERICA’S ECONOMY: Trade with foreign countries

Hillary Clinton has stated she has no desire to open any of our trade agreements with foreign nations to renegotiation. She is satisfied with NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) in spite of an $800 Billion dollar trade deficit with our trading countries, and is in favor of the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership). She believes NAFTA has boosted the American economy, in spite of a terribly slow and sluggish economy with over 95 million American workers having left the work force because there are no jobs available to them. She wants to continue the same policies.

Donald Trump has stated he wants to open our current trade agreements and renegotiate the terms of those agreements and make them more fair for the U.S. He is very unsatisfied with NAFTA and will not sign on to the TPP without further negotiations. He believes NAFTA has destroyed American manufacturing jobs and greatly weakened our economy. He sites the huge trade deficit and so many leaving the work force as evidence of it. He wants to put plans into motion that will halt American Companies from leaving this country and bring those back which have left.

  1. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT:

Hillary Clinton wants to appoint judges who will make rulings that will be more in line with modern day Liberal and Progressive ways of thinking, possibly infringing on the right to bear arms, the right to free speech, and religion (especially Catholics and Evangelicals) being targets of change.

Donald Trump wants to appoint judges who will follow the Constitution strictly. The right of citizens to own guns, speak freely in all matters, and freedom of worship will not be infringed.
(This issue alone could effect our nation for generations to come.)

  1. PUBLIC EDUCATION:

Hillary Clinton wants to leave Common Core in tact and is opposed to school choice. She wants local school boards to teach what they are directed to teach by Common Core Standards, and parents send their children to the schools they are directed to, eliminating school competition.

Donald Trump wants to eliminate Common Core and is in favor of school choice. He wants to return all school subject content selection to the states and local school boards, and parents can send their children to the school of their choice, creating school competition.

  1. MEDICAL CARE:

Hillary Clinton wants to keep, as is, what is referred to as Obamacare, expand upon it and finally morph it into a national government paid and managed medical system with no competition, much like Canada.

Donald Trump wants to completely repeal Obamacare and have it replaced with a free market medical system, eliminating the regulation restricting insurance companies to certain states, allowing them to sell nationwide, creating fierce competition.

  1. RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM, THE THREAT OF ISIS:

Hillary Clinton does not believe we are at war with Radical Islamic Terrorists, will not recognize them by name. She recently said, “I am not worried about terrorism in America.”

Donald Trump believes we are at war with Radical Islamic Terrorists, does recognize them by that name. He recently said, “We are at war with Radical Islamic Terrorism.” “They declared war on us and we need to declare war on them and fight to win.”

Remember Ronald Reagan’s words. You are the driver. Which of the roads above do you wish to travel and how fast do you want to drive? You are leaving the driveway and MUST turn right or left. Your decision can’t be delayed any longer, a choice has to be made.

 

Deadlocked Supreme Court blocks Obama on immigration

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court blocked President Obama's effort to protect more than 4 million undocumented immigrants from the threat of deportation Thursday, deadlocking 4-4 over a plan that had divided the nation as well as the justices.

The tie vote leaves intact lower federal court rulings that stopped the program in its tracks more than a year ago...

It was a sudden, crushing defeat for millions of parents who came to the country illegally and have lived in the shadows, often for decades. The administration had hoped that at least one of the more conservative justices -- possibly Chief Justice John Roberts -- would rule that the plan posed no financial threat to the states and therefore could not be challenged in court.

...the one-sentence opinion simply announced that the court was "equally divided" and unable to muster a majority for either side.

That's all opponents needed to block the "deferred action" program, which would have offered qualifying parents of children who were born in the United States or are legal residents the right to remain in the country...

The immigration battle was waged on two fronts before the court: The administration fought with the states as well as with the House of Representatives, which previously blocked the president's effort to confer legal status to some of the nation's more than 11 million illegal immigrants...

Obama announced the "Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents," or DAPA program, in November 2014. It would extend protections to more than 4 million parents who meet the criteria, just as a 2012 program did for immigrants brought to the United States as children. More than 700,000 have qualified for that earlier program.

Once qualified, parents also could apply for work authorization, pay taxes and receive some government benefits, such as Social Security. Those with criminal backgrounds or who have arrived since 2010 would not qualify.

Texas challenged Obama's authority to implement the policy by executive action, rather than going through Congress. Federal district court Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville, Texas, upheld the challenge in February 2015 and blocked the program from being implemented nationwide. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld that ruling last November in a 2-1 decision.

The Supreme Court agreed in January to hear the case, expanding its scope to include whether Obama's action violated the Constitution's "Take Care Clause" by failing to faithfully execute the nation's immigration laws.

In written briefs and oral arguments, the Justice Department contended that the policy only would make official what was happening anyway — undocumented immigrants who do not have criminal records and are not priorities for deportation are generally left alone. The government only has enough funds to deport about 400,000 a year, they said.

Lawyers for Texas and the House of Representatives countered that while the president can decide not to deport individual immigrants, only Congress can defer action on a class-wide basis.

The state's injury claim focused on what it said would have been the need to spend money issuing driver's licenses to hundreds of thousands of immigrants. Federal officials said that was Texas' choice, and not a ground for a lawsuit.

Not certain how your candidate stacks up on immigration issues?

Alert date: 
2016-05-07
Alert body: 

On the radio the other day, I heard Michael Medved touting to his audience that only a tiny portion of the American public is actually concerned about illegal immigration.  I disagree with him!  Often, if given a choice about concerns that voters have, illegal immigration will not be the first words out of their mouths.

But, voters will say they are concerned about terrorism, national security, JOBS, stagnant wages, over-crowded schools, high taxes, drugs, gangs, crime, the culture of corruption, the environmental impact on our environment of increased population and on and on.  Every one of their concerns is directly impacted by - hold on to your hat - illegal immigration and excessive legal immigration.

This election cycle, it's more important than ever before, to fully understand your candidate's position on the issue of illegal immigration and excessive legal immigration.  If you aren't asking, you may be surprised - and disappointed.

OFIR encourages our members to visit a candidate's website and discover if a detailed statement is posted about immigration,  If there is not, please contact that candidate and ask them to make a public statement on their website.  If, after a few pokes and reminders, there is still nothing posted, that might give you a clue as to their commitment to solving the problem.

OFIR has prepared, and now updated, information about Presidential candidates that may be useful to you. Information about candidates in state-wide races  may be helpful to you in approaching those candidates at upcoming events.  If you have more, credible information that can be substantiated, please share with OFIR.  As always, OFIR strives to be as accurate as possible in any information that we provide.

Another source of information is the Abigail Adams Candidate Comparison Guide

OFIR encourages you to learn more about the candidates from many sources.  OFIR invites candidates to let us know if there is anything they would like to add in our postings.

Townhall meetings coming your way

Alert date: 
2016-02-08
Alert body: 

Next week, Representative Kurt Schrader will be hosting town hall meetings around the district  These meetings are a chance for you to visit, talk about what's been going on in Washington, and find out ways that his office can be of service to you.

Oregon City Town Hall - Tuesday, February 16th, 6:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.
Providence Willamette Falls Community Center Auditorium
519 15th Street
Oregon City, OR 97045

Salem Town Hall - Wednesday, February 17th, 6:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.
Salem Library - Loucks Auditorium
585 Liberty Street SE
Salem, OR 97301

Military Academy Day Open House - Saturday, March 5th, 10 a.m. - noon*
West Linn High School
5464 W A Street
West Linn, OR 97068
*Presentation begins at 11 a.m.
 

EXCLUSIVE — ANN COULTER WARNS ‘END OF AMERICA’ IF MARCO RUBIO IS NOMINEE

In an exclusive statement to Breitbart News ahead of the New Hampshire primary, conservative columnist and eleven-time New York Times bestselling author Ann Coulter warned that if the donor-class gets its way and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is the Republican nominee, it will be the “end of America.”

“THE END OF AMERICA,” Coulter wrote when asked what she thought a Rubio nominee would mean for the future of the open borders movement.

“Rubio is [John] McCain is sheep’s clothing,” Coulter explained. “He’s the Manchurian candidate. At least with McCain, conservatives knew we were getting an open borders zealot and just made the calculation that he could win. Rubio has half the conservative movement thinking he’s Reagan. I’ve never seen anything like it. He’s McCain without the war record or experience.”

In a 15-page memo documenting Rubio’s “betrayal” of conservatives, living legend and grassroots heroine Phyllis Schlafly seemed to echo Coulter’s assertion. Schlafly’s memo states:

There is no single major distinguishing policy difference between Marco Rubio, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) or Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) . They have the same trade policy, immigration policy and foreign policy. But on immigration most especially — the issue in which all four have invested the most — there is no daylight separating them. The difference, then, is one of persona, not policy. And in the arena of immigration, this translates into a vital difference. The biggest change from McCain-Kennedy, which could not get out of the Senate, and the Gang of Eight — which was nursed along by conservative pundits despite being to the left of Kennedy’s bill — was the presence of Rubio. Rubio created the conditions necessary to produce a considerably more open borders bill: conservatives who were invested in the Rubio Brand provided no early pushback but accepted Kennedy’s old talking points, and Rubio gave red state Democrats the political space necessary to support it. This is how it got 68 votes in the Senate. The stakes of course are raised considerably if Rubio is President or Vice President. Rubio would have a much, much better chance than Obama of getting an open borders bill through Congress… there is likely no person in the United States of America in a better position to enact mass immigration legislation than a President Rubio… Rubio is the candidate of open borders, Obamatrade and mass immigration, making one last attempt to pull off one big con.

In her memo, Schlafly documented Rubio’s history of successfully deceiving conservatives. Schlalfy notes that Rubio, without any seeming compunction, “repeatedly lied” to conservative media and opinion makers who trusted him: “His deceptions about his immigration bill rivaled and exceeded Obama’s claims about disastrous Obamacare.”

Schlafly’s memo continues:

The seminal moment of the media tour occurred early, on Rush Limbaugh’s show. He [Rubio] declared: “If there is not language in this bill that guarantees that nothing else will happen unless these enforcement mechanisms are in place, I won’t support it.” Of course, we know there wasn’t any such language but he voted for it anyway. But this promise — and many others — and the calculated neutralization of conservative media, helped Schumer get 68 votes. But conservatives trusted Rubio. Limbaugh declared: ‘you are meeting everybody honestly.’

Rubio told [Sean] Hannity, on his media tour that: “I don’t think any of that [amnesty] begins until we certify that the border security progress has been real. That a workplace enforcement mechanism is in place. That we are tracking visitors to our country, especially when they exit.” This prompted Hannity to reply: “It’s probably the most thoughtful bill that I have heard heretofore.” At this point, it looked like the biggest mass immigration plan in history would breeze through Congress — all without Rubio saying a word about what was really in the heart of the bill: the largest immigration expansion in American history. To this day, Rubio will not answer if asked about how many green cards his bill gave out.”

Like Coulter, Schlafly has previously warned that if immigration is not stopped: We’re not going to be America anymore.”

If we don’t stop immigration—this torrent of immigrants coming in—we’re not going to be America anymore because most of the people coming in have no experience with limited government. They don’t know what that is. They look to the government to solve all of their problems, and as soon as we have a high majority of people who think that, it’s going to be a different country.

To this day, Rubio continues to support giving citizenship to illegal immigrants, substantially expanding visa issuances for foreign guest workers, increasing refugee resettlement, and surging immigration beyond all known historical precedent.

Senator Merkley to hold Town Halls - plan to attend

Senator Merkley has announced a series of town halls in January.  Please check the list and plan to attend one of the town halls near you.  Invite your neighbors and friends to come along, as well.  You can raise many questions about the Senator’s positions on immigration issues.  You can view and print out a copy of his voting record to give to him, here:

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/my/congress/1341/reportcard/CONGRESS/

In his announcement, he says:  “Senator Merkley will update constituents on his work in Washington, D.C. and answer their questions and invite their suggestions about how to tackle the challenges facing Oregon and America.”

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

January 5, 2016 @ 11:00 AM

Jefferson County Town Hall

Central Oregon Community College Open Campus - Community Room

1170 E Ashwood Road, Madras, OR 97741

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

January 5, 2016 @ 3:00 PM

Crook County Town Hall

Crook County High School - Auditorium

1100 SE Lynn Blvd, Prineville, OR 97754

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

January 5, 2016 @ 6:30 PM

Deschutes County Town Hall

Central Oregon Community College - Wille Hall

2600 NW College Way, Bend, OR 97701

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

January 6, 2016 @ 10:30 AM

Lake County Town Hall

Memorial Hall - Lake County Courthouse

513 Center Street, Lakeview, OR 97630

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

January 6, 2016 @ 3:30 PM

Klamath County Town Hall

Oregon Institute of Technology - Mazama Room, Student Union

3201 Campus Drive, Klamath Falls, OR 97601

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

January 7, 2016 @ 9:00 AM

Jackson County Town Hall

Hanby Middle School - Cafeteria

806 6th Avenue, Gold Hill, OR 97525

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

January 7, 2016 @ 12:00 PM

Josephine County Town Hall

Grants Pass High School - Library

830 NE 9th Street, Grants Pass, OR 97526

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

January 7, 2016 @ 5:00 PM

Curry County Town Hall

Southwest Oregon Community College - Community Meeting Room

96082 Lone Ranch Parkway, Brookings, OR 97415

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

January 8, 2016 @ 9:00 AM

Coos County Town Hall

Myrtle Point High School - Cafeteria

717 4th Street, Myrtle Point, OR 97458

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

January 8, 2016 @ 12:30 PM

Douglas County Town Hall

Douglas High School – Cafeteria

1381 NW Douglas Blvd, Winston, OR 97496

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

January 9, 2016 @ 10:00 AM

Benton County Town Hall

Monroe Community Library - Large Conference Room

380 N Fifth Street, Monroe, OR 97456

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

January 9, 2016 @ 1:30 PM

Linn County Town Hall

Brownsville City Hall - City Council Chambers

255 N Main Street, Brownsville, OR 97327

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

January 9, 2016 @ 4:00 PM

Lane County Town Hall

Coburg City Hall - City Council Chambers

91136 N Willamette Street, Coburg, OR 97408

Remember - the good Senator works for us.  Attend the meeting, ask questions, get answers.  Share your experience with OFIR.
 

Debating immigration in sound bites

 
The GOP presidential candidates’ debate in Milwaukee highlighted the difficulty in dealing with sensitive immigration issues in sound bites. The moderators phrased questions aiming at getting ‘yes” or “no” responses. But, only someone who does not understand the issue would be comfortable with a sound bite response.
 
One of the most heated exchanges in that debate occurred over the question whether the candidate, if elected president – would deport the 11-12 million illegal aliens. The thrust of the questioning was to provoke a split between those who would support some legalization program, i.e., amnesty, for the illegal alien population and those who refuse to accept another general amnesty like that enacted in 1986.
 
Attempting to provoke a “yes” or “no” response plays into the hands of the supporters of amnesty because it allows them to characterize their opponent as cold-hearted and unrealistic. Those who rejected amnesty were derided as unrealistic as well as uncaring by establishment candidates who apparently believe they can win more Latino votes by embracing some form of amnesty.
 
This debate format makes it difficult for a candidate to take a nuanced position that demonstrates that he or she understands the human impact of deportation and has weighed the negative impact of deportation on the aliens as well as their families which may include U.S.-born children against the negative impact that illegal immigration has on the U.S. public.
 
A more nuanced discussion is one that amnesty supporters try to avoid because they do not want to concede that there are negative impacts on society in general and individual Americans from illegal immigration.
 
So, how could a presidential candidate answer the amnesty “yes” or “no” question?
 
“Our immigration law is designed to protect Americans from unwanted immigration, and if we continue to accept illegal immigration through amnesties like the one in 1986, we will perpetuate the harm to Americans that has come from the job competition, crowding of schools, criminality and demands on scarce social service resources that should be available for our neediest citizens.”
 
Q. “So you support rounding them up and sending them home?
 
A. “When our law enforcement officers at all levels find persons in the country illegally they should get those aliens into deportation proceedings. And efforts to deny competition for jobs from illegal workers need to be made more effective so that future illegal immigration is discouraged and current illegal residents realize that their future lies in returning to their home country.”
 
Q. “So you support breaking up families by deporting the parents of U.S. citizen kids?
 
A. “The ‘mixed-status’ families issue is a false dilemma. It is based on a misreading of the 14th Amendment. The children born to illegal aliens in the U.S. should not have ever been considered U.S. citizens. In any case, they have the parents’ nationality and can accompany the parents when they leave voluntarily or are deported.

Facebook founder promotes illegal immigration

 
Facebook, the social media program, is wildly popular, but how many users know that the billionaire head of the company that runs Facebook is a leading promoter and cheerleader for illegal immigration?  Maybe there are other programs that could be used instead of Facebook?
 
Mark Zuckerberg, like some other illegal alien cheerleaders, depends on the stability and honesty of U.S. institutions to protect his business and his wealth, while undermining these institutions with his campaign on behalf of illegal aliens.
 
Here, Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, discusses the illogic of Zuckerberg’s actions and the damage Zuckerberg is doing to this country.
 
-------------
Zuckerberg Continues To Promote, Encourage And Reward Illegal Immigration
 
June 18, 2015, By Dan Stein, President, Federation for American Immigration Reform
 
Mark Zuckerberg and his wife are giving $5 million to something called “TheDREAM.US” scholarship fund. This is pocket change to Zuckerberg, but his decision to give to a fund that gives only to illegal aliens underscores everything that’s wrong with Zuckerberg’s approach.
 
To get the money, you must have broken the law and be here in violation of federal law. To quality you must be a citizen of a country other than the United States. To qualify, your parents must have evaded detection and deportation over several years. To qualify, you cannot be someone patiently waiting outside the U.S. and respecting our borders and law.  You must be a line-jumper and law breaker whose parents are scamming the system and taxpayer.
 
The Facebook founder says “We ought to welcome smart and hardworking young people from every nation, and to help everyone in our society achieve their (sic) full potential.”
 
Isn’t it possible someone could reach their full potential in their home country – the country where the person is regarded as a citizen? What is accomplished by explicitly discriminating against American citizens?
 
Zuckerberg himself relies upon respect for law in his own personal and commercial affairs. He benefits by living within a civil society in which the rule of law prevails. All his property relies upon civil protections that ensure title to his land, stock and vast wealth is protected from theft.
 
Yet Zuckerberg thumbs his nose at the borders, and chooses to encourage and reward lawbreaking at the expense of our common understandings of fair play and justice in order to curry favor with a political constituency and make his “cheap labor” grab appear high-minded. What gives him the right to pick and choose and make those moral judgments for the rest of us.
 
For disadvantaged Americans who can trace through their ancestry generations of sacrifice and suffering to build this nation, this kind of arrogance is a bitter pill to swallow.
 
 
 

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - amnesty