Wet Foot/Dry Foot Democrats

The ongoing and apparently not-close-to-ending border crisis allows once again the public discussion of immigration, illegals, amnesty… in other words a bunch of issues that the country is in near permanent deadlock about.  Although some of my friends on the right think  this border rush of streams of children and mothers from Central America is all part of some clever Obama scheme, it seems to me to be the dumbest clever scheme ever. If Obama’s intention was to use this crisis to pass “comprehensive immigration reform;” a code word for amnesty, he’s just screwed the pooch.

Gallup shows that the support for immigration in general has tanked since the beginning of the border crisis.

And Rasmussen shows that “59% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the primary focus of any new immigration legislation passed by Congress should be to send the young illegal immigrants back home as quickly as possible.  Just 27% say it should focus instead on making it easier for these illegal immigrants to remain in the United States.”

That makes me think there is a big gulf between what the American people think about immigration and what its elected officials think.  The problem is, it’s sometimes hard to tell what our political leaders think.  Pelosi’s comments when she visited the border patrol facility in Brownsville, Texas sounded incoherent.

“I wish I could take all those children home with me…” 

“We’re all Americans in this hemisphere, North and South America.”

Eh, what does that mean in terms of policy?  Does she support letting all of the children stay, regardless of the circumstances?  Is she planning to adopt them all?  Or does she mean everyone in the Western Hemisphere should be allowed to enter the United States? It sounds like a jumble of nonsense but the rest of the Democratic leadership is just as bad. Breitbart collected a list of the ramblings.  See if you can pick out a policy here:

“House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) claimed America already has “extensive border security” while Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, said the well-being of the illegal immigrant children “must be our first priority.”

Reps. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) “Yes, we need to match needs of our economy and our country’s values to our visa system.”

Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA) said taxpayers should pay for more lawyers for illegal immigrant children, and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) went further, saying “every” illegal immigrant child should get legal representation.

Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) insisted that amnesty legislation would “raise wages” even though the Congressional Budget Office determined that the influx of more foreign workers would lower the wages of American workers.

If our political leaders are this stupid, one can only imagine how stupid the internet is on this issue.  I decided to collect the biggest reasons given for amnesty by left leaning folks on one of my political forums:

  • Americans are basically illegal aliens too and since we have no right to be here, we’ve no right to keep anyone else out.
  • Immigration laws are basically unenforceable so don’t even bother.
  • Border Control is too expensive. (I was shocked!  It was the first time I’ve heard anyone on the left concerned with how to pay for something.)
  • Opposition to illegal immigration is based on racism.
  • And related, to reduce the percentage of Whites in the United States.
  • The US has destroyed almost every country so people have no choice but to come here.

Compare the positions of these Yo Yos with our actual elected leaders.  There isn’t that big a difference, although the internet nuts are more direct, but it does give you, if you sift long enough, an actual position for Democrats on immigration.

Democrats seem to have an unspoken support for a form of Wet Foot/Dry Foot policy.  That policy, which we apply to Cuba under the Cuban Adjustment Act, allows Cubans who arrive in the United States to stay and apply for permanent residence.  However it doesn’t apply if Cubans are intercepted at sea.  So if a Cuban can get to the US, it’s like touching safe in a game of freeze tag.  They made it.  Democrats in policy and action sound like they want to apply that policy to every country in the world, not just Cuba.  They have not said it, yet, but it’s the most logical conclusion to their mish mash of statements.

 

Dear Senator Rubio

This afternoon the Senate passed its version of Immigration Reform, 68-32.  14 Republicans voted for the bill, including my Senator, Marco Rubio, severely damaging his chances for the Republican nomination in 2016.

English: Former Speaker of the Florida House a...

English: Former Speaker of the Florida House at CPAC in . (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As frequent readers to this blog know, I strongly oppose the current Senate Immigration Bill and the concept of blanket amnesty in general.  I’ve contacted my Congressman on this and am satisfied that we are of like minds on the issue.  However my Senators are another story.  Bill Nelson is Harry Reid’s lapdog so he does whatever he’s told.  Marco Rubio on the other hand, is one of the architects of this immigration proposal.  If there has been a bigger Tea Party disappointment in both the House and Senate, I can’t think who it would be.

I tried calling the Senator’s office this week and got a voicemail to leave my comments after the beep.  Unsurprisingly, the box was full.  Apparently I’m not alone.  So I wrote this letter and emailed it to the Senator.

Dear Senator Rubio,

As your constituent, I have to say that you’ve profoundly disappointed me.  But what really bothers me is that you’ve managed to fool me.   I remember your debate with Charlie Crist in which you took the risky position (in Florida) that Social Security may have to be trimmed in order to save the program.  You took a difficult and courageous political position while Crist looked like a weasel in comparison.  “That’s a guy I can get behind.”  I thought to myself.

And I did.  I voted for you and was proud to do it.  I had heard you speak enough times that I felt sure of your Tea Party bonafides.  You sir, were the real deal.

Or at least that’s what I thought.  I knew you had a special interest in immigration, but you had spoken out against amnesty enough in the campaign that I didn’t think that you were secretly harboring that as a legislative goal.  I was sympathetic to your Dream Act proposal.  Those kids didn’t commit crimes.  They were brought into this country when they were too young to have any moral responsibility for what their parents did.  Some sort of accommodation should be made for them.

After the border was secure of course.

But instead you rolled me.  Me, and many others who had voted for you.  After the experience of Obamacare, I wouldn’t have thought a Republican, let alone a Tea Party “darling” would support any bill that is billed as “comprehensive.”  The purpose of comprehensive bills is to smuggle in what you really want by covering it with tons of other things.  That’s certainly what your comprehensive immigration bill does.  Every day I’m reading of new revelations of Easter eggs buried in your bill.  You know them of course, since you helped put them there.

I’m not opposed to cooperating with Democrats; that’s politics after all.  I’m upset that you are not representing a Republican or conservative position in immigration reform.  This wasn’t a compromise; this is a Democratic / liberal bill.  You’ve merely provided cover for a liberal bill.  I can’t tell where you begin and Chuck Schumer ends.  Do you have any differences on this issue?

Frankly, I can’t see that I’ve gotten anything different from you than if Charlie Crist had won the senatorial nomination.  Oh one thing; Crist was honest about his support for amnesty.  He didn’t lie about it like you did.  You may argue that technically you weren’t lying, “go back and check the transcript!”  But if you were parsing your words from the beginning, then what other conclusion can I draw but that you intended to deceive?

Virtually everything you’ve promised has already been promised in the Simpson-Mazzoli bill.  Since we didn’t get any of the border security promises then, why should I think we would get them now?

I can see both the political and policy benefits for the Democrats.  It will over the long run provide millions of Democratic voters, effectively neutering the Republicans as a national party.  Policy-wise it creates an ever expanding underclass that will need the entitlement services that the Democrats will be peddling.  The Democrats have been at their strongest when, as FDR said, “one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, and ill-fed.”

That’s what you are importing.

Your position doesn’t even make sense on its own merits.  It goes without saying its bad politics.  It’s a slow motion suicide of the Republican Party as a national contender, but I could forgive that if it was good policy.  But it’s not.  It’s bad policy too.  It lowers the wage rates of the native working poor, it increases income inequality, it increases by millions the numbers of American poor, it inflicts long term financial stress on our entitlement programs, and creates a massive new underclass.

Your bill is unfair.  It grants sweeping immunity for crimes that would throw a citizen in jail.  And no, I’m not talking about merely crossing the border illegally or overstaying a visa.  Using,  false identification and Social Security numbers aren’t minor misdemeanors, they are felonies.  How can that possibly be justified?

Since you seem committed to this dangerous course of action, you’ve left me and many others no choice but to support your primary opponent for your re-election, whoever that may be.  And there will be a primary opponent.  Don’t think that your former supporters will shrug and figure better you than a Republican who can’t will the general election or a Democrat.  If your bill becomes law, in the long run there won’t be a real future for Republicans anyway.  So if you are going to burn down the house, I want to at least make sure you don’t get re-elected to collect the insurance money.

Of all the political issues I’ve researched, I’ve never understood how someone on the right could support blanket amnesty.  If there is an intelligent argument to be made on its behalf, I’m still waiting to hear it.  Instead, I hear insults to my intelligence like the kind your fellow gang member, Senator Graham offers.

You really had a promising political future and I’m flummoxed at why you decided to throw it away in order to help Democratic political ambitions.

Sincerely,

A Republican Primary Voter

If I get anything more than an automated response to this, I’ll be sure and post it, but won’t expect any sort of response.  Rubio, even if ever read this, which is unlikely, won’t have an answer for it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Republicans Cannot Be Trusted On Immigration

English: Ted Cruz at the Republican Leadership...

English: Ted Cruz at the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, Louisiana. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As Senator Ted Cruz said last week, “I don’t trust Republicans.”

I agree.  Although Cruz was talking about budget negotiations, to me it applies to the issue of immigration more than any other issue.  That’s because so many Republicans are not only prepared to vote for amnesty, they are actively campaigning for it, even though it is not only damaging public policy, but damaging to those same Republican’s political futures.

At least with the Democrats, I perfectly understand their motivations for wanting amnesty, and frankly, from their perspective they seem totally logical to me.  It’s bad public policy for the nation, but its great political policy.  For the Democrats, out of a possible 11 million new voters 10 to 15 years from now, 9 million will vote for Democrats.  That’s enough to turn the rest of the Southwest, including Texas, deep blue.  Without Texas, the Republicans are no longer viable as a national party.

And from a policy perspective, that adds 11 million more citizens in which ¾ of them don’t even have a high school diploma and virtually none of them have the high tech skills required for the 21st century workplace.  That means most of them will live and die below the mean income level, and will be major consumers of social programs.  That’s voting gold for the Democrats.  The Democratic Party was never stronger as when FDR saw “one third of a nation, ill housed, ill clad, ill nourished.”  Importing millions to fill that gap helps create the very conditions of income inequality and widespread poverty that is the fertile ground for Democratic power.

But what do the Republicans get out of it?

That is the real head scratcher.  Of course there are some aspects of big business that do use unskilled and semi skilled labor that really like the downward push on working class wage rates that increased numbers of unskilled workers provide.  Certainly the Wall Street Journal Opinion page is filled with pro illegal immigration editorials.  But for most businesses interested in immigration, the demand isn’t for millions of unskilled workers but for hundreds of thousands of skilled workers, which current immigration law limits to a mere trickle.

Politically, it seems to make even less sense.  There isn’t any evidence that pro illegal immigration positions help Republican candidates.  A recent CIS study showed that Latinos in pro-immigration Republican Districts were no more likely to vote for Republicans than Latinos living in anti-illegal immigration Republican Districts.  Certainly it didn’t help Senator John McCain in his 2008 Presidential bid.  And of course, what is the political advantage of ensuring that your political party remains a minority party for the foreseeable future?

And yet…  Republicans, including conservatives, are falling all over each other to support the Gang of 8 bill.  Fox talker Sean Hannity even hosted a one hour special for Marco Rubio last Friday that did little more than pimp the bill with friendly “questions” and a generally pro bill agenda.  Hard as I try, I can’t see a rational reason to support this.  Bad public policy, bad political strategy… what am I missing?

My suspicion is that I’m not missing much, and that the real problem with Republicans is that they think they can buy Latino votes with the bribery that has proven so successful for the Democratic Party for decades. But the Democrats can’t be outbid.  There is no line that Republicans can draw that Democrats won’t cross to buy more votes.  Republicans were just as delusional in 1986 when they accepted a “one time’ amnesty with the promise that this would be the last one and that Latinos would now love Republicans.

Instead we lost California permanently.  Well, if Republicans regard Texas as an embarrassment they can’t wait to be rid of, they are well on their way.  The Democrats won’t be embarrassed by Texas at all once they own it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why Is Rubio in the Gang of 8?

Contrary to popular opinion, both in the national press and in the Republican Party, the conservative movement is split on the amnesty issue.  Just cast your mind all the way back to…last year.  During the Republican Primary battles, all of the conservative candidates were in favor of some version of amnesty.  The single hold out?  Mitt Romney, the “moderate.”

English: Former Speaker of the Florida House a...

English: Former Speaker of the Florida House at CPAC in . (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So it’s a confusing battle space that has anti tax activist Grover Norquist on the same side as liberal Senator Chuck Schumer, and moderate, establishment Republican columnist David Frum on the anti amnesty side while traditional conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer is pro amnesty.  On the talk radio side the views are more what you would expect, Rush Limbaugh  and Mark Levin are reliably anti-amnesty, however Sean Hannity switched sides after the election and now supports amnesty (although he is still cagey about it).  Otherwise, things are more what you would expect from a conservative split on immigration.  The neo-cons are pro amnesty (think William Kristol) and the paleo-cons are anti (think Pat Buchanan).

So where does that leave Tea Party darling Marco Rubio?  Square in the middle.

Rubio is a real conservative.  I’ve listened to enough politicians talk to know when they are the real deal and when they are just using the conservative movement to advance their own careers  *cough* Newt Gingrich* cough.

Rubio has long been a supporter of some variation of the Dream Act, which are a series of proposals to legalize illegal aliens brought over as children.  Given that as children they didn’t really have a choice about crossing the border illegally; it’s fairly easy to make the moral case to anti-amnesty conservatives for creating some mechanism for them to stay, after border security.  But it was a shock when he joined in with a group of liberal Senators and pro-amnesty Republicans, the Gang of 8, to craft a comprehensive immigration bill.

First, it was a shock that after the disaster of Obamacare, any Republican Senator would try to make common cause on a bill that intends to be “comprehensive.”  For conservatives, comprehensive is code word for cramming as much crap as possible into a massive bill and hope no one notices what’s in it.  The purpose of comprehensive bills is to slide revolting items through the process that would never pass on their own.  Of course, in the case of the immigration bill, the sole purpose is to get amnesty through.  Everything else in the bill is a sweetener to buy votes for amnesty, even though there are plenty of real, needed issues that need to be worked on.  Instead, nothing is more important than amnesty.  Steve Jobs found this out while trying to convince President Obama to loosen up on the H1-B Visa program.  From the Wall Street Journal:

According to Mr. Isaacson, Jobs “stressed the need for more trained engineers and suggested that any foreign students who earned an engineering degree in the U.S. should be given a visa to stay in the country.” The president reportedly replied that this would have to await broader immigration reform, which he said he was unable to accomplish.

“Jobs found this an annoying example of how politics can lead to paralysis,” Mr. Isaacson writes. “The president is very smart, but he kept explaining to us reasons why things can’t get done,” Jobs said. “It infuriates me.”

A simple bill to allow graduates of US schools to get a Visa would enjoy large bipartisan support and would pass easily.   So therefore we can’t allow it until we make sure we drag 11 million other people along with them!

So now Rubio is stuck riding this tiger all the way to completion.  Meanwhile, his reputation will be marred by every little crazy line item that is stuck in the bill, such as the one creating a biometric data base of all US adults.  So why would he join in with the Gang of 8?  How could this benefit him?

Just a couple of ideas and I don’t know if any of them are close to the mark:

+             He knows it won’t pass and just wants to build up some “moderate cred” for 2016.

+             He’s inexperienced and doesn’t realize  that Schumer and his gang are taking him for a ride.

+             He’s extremely experienced (a former Speaker of the House in the Florida legislature) and he’s playing the Gang of 8 by trying to “cooperate” up to the point that he can exploit the weaknesses of the bill and then blame the Senate Democrats and the Obama administration for sabotaging the bill with poison pills to keep the bill from passing and keep it as a political issue.

I’m sure there are probably many more possible reasons, but I don’t see any way for this to end well for Rubio’s political future other than at some point he disowns the bill.  If he doesn’t and ends up voting for whatever monstrosity slithers out of the Senate, than Rubio’s reputation will be damaged.  To conservatives, he will be a traitor, and to liberals he’ll be a gullible fool.

Which pill will he choose?  The red or the blue one?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Holder’s Comment Gets No Coverage

English: Eric Holder, Attorney General Nominee

English: Eric Holder, Attorney General Nominee (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Since immigration has once again reared its ugly head as an imminent issue, complete with a “comprehensive” bill designed to keep the pesky details hidden from the great unwashed, I’ve been discussing it online in political web forums.  It’s an interesting issue since its almost invisible until some legislation brings it from the back to front burner, and I have to wonder how an issue that causes such explosive passion and interest can then shut itself off and go dark until… well until the next time.  I’m guilty of it myself.  Unless there is some legislation, like the current bill, the Arizona legislation, or the 2007 immigration reform attempt, I don’t think about it much either.

But back to the online political forums.  One thing I’ve noticed that’s different now from previous occasions when immigration has been a hot issue is that the proponents are now so cagey about their amnesty support.  They’re not demure about supporting amnesty, but they have become much shyer about the why.

Now of course partisan Democrats want the new voters and new customers for social services and some Republicans want a steady flow of cheap labor, but the philosophical underpinnings seem to be a bit hazier.  Generally I’ve discovered on forums, at the least from the left, is that when you chase them down, eventually you find out that many believe that immigration to the United States is a civil right.

That’s an idea that’s even crazier than it sounds once you break down what that actually means.  Does anyone in the world have a right to come to the US to live and work?   Yes.  Even if 2 or 3 billion people want to come here?  Yes.

That’s a political position which seems insane, but our Attorney General, Eric Holder, just subscribed to that very position.  Last week, during a speech to the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, he gave a speech, in which he made that very point, stating, that he believed a path to citizenship was a matter of civil and human rights.  Since that is such an off the wall position for the Attorney General to have, since it has no basis in US law, you would think that would have been a well reported on speech, consuming newspaper headlines and hours of cable news gabbing.

You would be wrong.

Oh it’s been well covered in the conservative blogosphere.  I’ve seen articles in the National Review Online and the Powerline blog, as well as many others, but as far as news goes, I’ve searched and I’ve not seen the speech reported in an actual news site except as an opinion piece. So if you’re the average person who only catches the news from a network news show or the occasional newspaper headline, you’ll never know that the chief law enforcement officer in the United States thinks that a brand new, just made up civil right, is the reward for breaking actual US law.  The left really seems to believe this.  I recall reading decades ago an article in a leftist magazine that recommended a wet foot-dry foot immigration policy.  Actually we’ve more or less had that for decades.  But I doubt that’s what the American people would want, nor would they agree with Holder if they knew his immigration views.

But they’re not going to know.  It won’t be reported, and reporters are not going to question Holder on it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Associated Press will no longer use the term ‘Illegal Immigrant’

I just wondered what took so long:

The Associated Press will no longer use the term “illegal immigrant,” its executive editor said Tuesday, a decision that comes as negotiations over a deal on comprehensive immigration reform are continuing.

The AP – which has about 1,400 daily U.S. newspaper members – made the change to reflect labeling of behavior, not people, executive editor Kathleen Carroll wrote.

“The Stylebook no longer sanctions the term ‘illegal immigrant’ or the use of ‘illegal’ to describe a person,” she wrote. “Instead, it tells users that ‘illegal’ should describe only an action, such as living in or immigrating to a country illegally.”

Carroll acknowledges that the new guidance will “perhaps just a bit at first” make writers’ jobs more difficult. “But while labels may be more facile, they are not accurate,” she writes.

Under the heading “illegal immigration,” the AP’s Stylebook will list acceptable variations including “living in or entering a country illegally or without legal permission.”

The article doesn’t say what they will replace it with; probably undocumented immigrant or some variation.  But I’ve noticed the gradual push on news shows when illegal immigration is the topic, invariably the pro illegal representative will either not use that term or will state he doesn’t accept the legitimacy of that term.  You know, along the vein of “no human being is illegal.”  The goal of course, is to make the term un-PC so as to delegitimize the political opposition by delegitimizing the term.

Really, I’m surprised this didn’t happen during the 2007 immigration battles.  But now that the AP has made this move, I expect the New York Times, Gannett, and basically everyone else in the main stream media to follow suit.  Eventually, even ICE will have to scrub its website of the soon-to-be racist epitaph

In a way, they have a point.  The term illegal immigrant isn’t really descriptive of who these people are.  They are not immigrants since they don’t even have a right to be in the country, let alone settle down here.  So I’ll do my part and refer to these border crossers and visa over-stayers as illegal aliens.

Enhanced by Zemanta

It Starts with Deportation…

English: United States Senate candidate , at a...

English: United States Senate candidate , at a town hall meeting in Louisville, . (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

When it comes to immigration, I’m hearing this phrase echoed more and more by Republicans, Let’s start that conversation by acknowledging we aren’t going to deport” the millions of illegal immigrants presently in the country.“

However I was really disappointed to hear that from Rand Paul.

Rand, as the most libertarian member of the Senate, may have come to his open borders ideas honestly.  Open labor markets are fundamental to libertarian thought, but the rote, we are not going to deport 12 million people (or 11 million, fill in your own number) is the first line in virtually any conversation with an establishment Republican about immigration.  In other words, we are going to have amnesty no matter what, so deal with it.

It’s clear that we are never going to have an equivalent of Operation Wetback.  That Eisenhower era program forcibly repatriated illegal aliens from California to Texas back to Mexico.  Although the estimates of the success of the program vary wildly, from 50,000 to 1.3 million, the estimates are much higher for the numbers of illegals who voluntarily left to avoid being detained and sent back by Operation Wetback.

However we don’t really have to go to such extremes.  Normal enforcement would take care of the illegal problem in a few years after we successfully sealed the border.  Don’t believe me?

According to ICE:

400,000 aliens were deported in 2011

392,862 aliens were deported in 2010.

390,000 aliens were deported in 2009.

So if the borders were sealed, using normal enforcement measures, illegal aliens would be largely gone in a little over 25 years.  However they would cease to be a major concern long before that. And that assumes there would be no self deportation, which has been occurring since the start of the financial crisis.  That’s certainly a quicker pace than the one we were promised after the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli Act of 1986.  We are still waiting for the borders to be closed as promised with that bill.

So yes, we can deport millions.  We already deport hundreds of thousands every single year.  With an open border however, it’s just bailing out the ocean.  If we ever got serious about closing the border the numbers of illegal aliens in this country would start to reduce immediately.

So as soon as I hear, “well we are not going to deport millions of people…” I know the speaker is not interested in actually dealing with the problem of illegal immigration.  They are only interested in getting those illegals amnestied; the quicker the better.  That tells me who in Washington is serious about the problem and who isn’t.  Right now, it seems that virtually no one is interested in doing anything other than amnesty.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Jeb Bush and the Path to Citizenship

Jeb Bush started his book tour this week to promote his new book, Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution, with Clint Bolick, and immediately ran into a brick wall.  On Morning Joe, Jeb almost immediately walked back on one of the central premises of the book; that illegal immigrants would be allowed to become legal residents, but not US citizens.

“So going forward — we wrote this last year — going forward, if there is a difference, you can craft that in law where you can have a path to citizenship where there isn’t an incentive for people to come illegally, I’m for it… I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t see how you do it, but I’m not smart enough to figure out every aspect of a really complex law.”

In other words, Bush pulled the legs out from under his own book.  That was the quickest retreat from a book since former Bush Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neill did a 60 Minutes interview promoting his book, which criticized the Bush administration; then went on the Today Show the very next day and backtracked on every single point from his book.

Jeb Bush has always been one of those open borders-let-every-illegal-in guys like his brother and most of the Republican establishment. So he’s always been in favor of a path to citizenship. So it was very odd that he came up with this book in which he supports merely legalization (like Newt Gingrich), rather than full citizenship.

Of course, the book was written last year, and what was the news about immigration last year?  It was the Republican primaries, and the guy with the toughest immigration policy, Mitt Romney, won the Republican primaries.  So it seems pretty obvious to me that Jeb was writing a book to appeal to Republican Primary voters.  My suspicion is that he never really switched positions, and that the purpose of the book was to present him as being in favor of a position to the right of what he actually expected to happen. By the time we get to the 2016 race, Immigration will more than likely be a done deal, and probably along the lines that Obama wants. No border security (to keep the illegal’s coming) and a path to citizenship. So Bush could claim to have opposed (using the book as proof) Obama’s plan, but hey, it’s already passed, Whatcha gonna do?

Jeb was the former governor of my State of Florida, so the man is no stranger, and as a governor, he was a very good governor; one of the better ones that Florida has had.  But as governor he had no control over Federal immigration policy.  As President (and this book seems to be step one for the 2016 race), no matter what he has written in his book, he would be as open borders / full citizenship on the issue as President Obama is.

In other words, he is totally untrustworthy on the issue of immigration.  No matter what he says, if he gets the chance, he’ll knock the fences down and shoot green cards over the border with T-Shirt cannon.

Immigration Policy for the Average Guy

Given the items in the Senate Immigration plan, as well as the President’s proposal, it’s no surprise that I oppose just about everything they want.

I can’t stop them from wrecking the country, but while they’re doing it, maybe there is something useful they could slip into their immigration bill that a regular guy could get behind.

To that end, I give you the HB-10 Visa Program.   Formulated by me, the HB-10 seeks to attract the type of immigrants that guys would like to bring into our country, namely, really hot women.

Tens.

In spite of the current economic carnage being inflicted on our country, it still beats most other places so people from all over the world still want to come here.  We should take advantage of that by opening up a visa program that seeks out the most beautiful women in the world to come to the United States.  Here is how I envision it would work:

The basic requirements should be women between 18-26 years old who think they are hot enough to make the cut.  Applicants should submit a visa application plus a small portfolio.  For government purposes no more than ten photos, with at least three being head shots.  ICE could set up a committee whose job it would be to go through the applicant packets to determine if they are in fact tens.  As an aside, I volunteer to serve my country by being part of this committee.

If the committee decides that the applicant is in fact a 10, they are offered a visa.  Easy right?  And I think this type of visa program offers several advantages over the government’s current schemes.

Opportunities for the uneducated:  Since the current trend in immigration is for accepting those with no job skills other than domestic or manual labor, and in fact is downright hostile to those with technical skills that would actually benefit the economy like the tiny amount allowed under the H-1B program, then if you can’t beat them, join them.  The HB-10 program would have no educational or English language requirements.  No one is interested in what they are saying anyway.

Economic Benefit:  Genuine 10’s are an economic benefit to any country that snags them.  Because they are tens, they won’t have to work so they won’t be stealing jobs from hard working Americans.  However since they will be probably be snagged by some rich guy as soon as they get off the plane at JKF, they will be high income consumers, as they spend their days walking around using their boyfriends credit cards to buy shoes, clothes, and jewelry.   And of course, they won’t be a burden on our social services.  They are tens after all, so there will always be a guy to take care of them.  It’s the ultimate stimulus plan!

Beautification:  Frankly, the country would just look better with more hot women in it.  Since America has been taking in ugly people for centuries, maybe the sights of our cities and towns could be improved with better looking women in them.

Foreign Competition:  There are countries all over the world, particularly in population giants like China and India, which face adverse sex ratios in their populations.  There are not enough marriageable women for the marriageable men.  With MRI’s and sex selection abortions becoming more common throughout the third world, the sex ratio imbalance is likely to continue.  Therefore, we need to get in on the ground floor in this chick race by trying to snag as many of the cream of the crop as we can.  I would like to bring in so many 10’s that eventually  they are reduced to dating nerds.

You want to make America great again?  I can’t think of an easier way to do it.

Interesting Post Election Reads

The post election whining has begun!  Here are a couple of coulda-woulda-shoulda articles that caught my eye.

First, the Wall Street Journal continues its never ending crusade for open ended amnesty.  Amnesty now, amnesty tomorrow, and Amnesty forever!      ¡Estimados Republicanos!

But wait!  National Review has a rebuttal.  Polling shows that only 7% of Hispanics were turned off by the immigration position of Republicans.  Instead, they mostly hated everything else the party stands for:  Why Hispanics Don’t Vote for Republicans

Here is another NR article that doubles down on Heather MacDonald’s article, only with more polling data:  Now What?  Immigration Edition

Some People didn’t take the election news so well:  Obama has the “same goals” as Al-Qaida

Why Obama won:  Obama’s Edge: The Ground Game That Could Put Him Over the Top

Why Romney lost:  The Unmitigated Disaster Known As Project ORCA

This article posits that since the number of white voters fell from 2008 to 2012, that white voters stayed home.  I think it’s more likely that they just got old and died.   The Case of the Missing White Voters

In the “Heh” Department:

Blue States voted heavily for Obama…

Vote was astronomical for Obama in some Philadelphia wards

Castro and Saddam Hussein should be so lucky to get vote totals like these!

Even as the blue model of governance collapses all around them…

Philadelphia’s school commission borrows $300 million to pay its bills

And the Chicago way continues to show it’s a model for the nation… for politicians!

Jesse Jackson Jr. Wins Reelection From Mayo Clinic

Jesse Jackson Jr. wins even though he has been out of sight since June bouncing from addiction treatment centers to the Mayo Clinic.  Now that’s a politician!

But he does have time to make a plea deal with the Feds:  Jesse Jackson Jr.in Plea Deal Talks With Feds

I would say that’s a Congressional district that’s lost the ability to complain about the political system without the rest of us smirking!

I commented on another bloggers website why the Republicans were such sore losers.

One of my favorite columnists, The wittiest doomsayer in the Anglosphere, Mark Steyn, explains that we’re screwed, but at least he does it well:  Reality doesn’t need to win Electoral College

Looking for an escape plan from Obama tax hikes?  ‘Super-Earth’ Alien Planet May Be Habitable for Life

Although I imagine the trip will take many election cycles.

Anyway, this twitter message sums up how I feel about the election!