Immigration Reform

Issues ››› Immigration Reform
  • Buchanan: "Arizona acted because" the federal government failed to "protect the states from invasion" of "illegal aliens"

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    From Pat Buchanan's April 26 WorldNetDaily column, titled "Whose country is this?":

    With the support of 70 percent of its citizens, Arizona has ordered sheriffs and police to secure the border and remove illegal aliens, half a million of whom now reside there.

    Arizona acted because the U.S. government has abdicated its constitutional duty to protect the states from invasion and refuses to enforce America's immigration laws.

    "We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act," said Gov. Jan Brewer. "But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created an unacceptable situation."

    We have a crisis in Arizona because we have a failed state in Washington.

    What is the response of Barack Obama, who took an oath to see to it that federal laws are faithfully executed?

    He is siding with the law-breakers. He is pandering to the ethnic lobbies. He is not berating a Mexican regime that aids and abets this invasion of the country of which he is commander in chief. Instead, he attacks the government of Arizona for trying to fill a gaping hole in law enforcement left by his own dereliction of duty.


    If Arizona does not get control of the border and stop the invasion, U.S. citizens will stop coming to Arizona and will begin to depart, as they are already fleeing California.

    What we are talking about here is the Balkanization and breakup of a nation into ethnic enclaves. A country that cannot control its borders isn't really a country anymore, Ronald Reagan reminded us.

  • Numerous Fox Newsers embrace and defend racial profiling aspect of AZ immigration law

    ››› ››› ERIC HANANOKI

    In recent days, numerous Fox News personalities have voiced support for Arizona's new controversial immigration law that requires law enforcement to demand immigration papers of those they suspect to be in the country illegally, which many argue will lead to racial profiling. In doing so, these Fox News figures have embraced and defended the law, including the potential for racial profiling, by arguing, among other things, that "people may have to endure some inconvenience."

  • After "so what" to racial profiling, Cafferty highlights and justifies racially charged rhetoric

    Blog ››› ››› JEREMY HOLDEN

    After responding to concerns about racial profiling in an Arizona immigration law with a "so what," CNN's Jack Cafferty asked viewers to weigh in on a question: "[W]hat should be done about border security if almost 20 percent of illegal immigrants entering Arizona from Mexico have criminal records?" He then chose to highlight five responses out of "several thousand" he received, including the sentiments that only "far left Latino whiners" opposed the policy -- which he permissively characterized as "racial profiling" -- and that "illegals" had turned "beautiful" and "prosperous" neighborhoods into "horrendous" "bordertown slums." He then proceded to defend and justify the emails he read.

  • CNN immigration reform poll misses the mark

    Blog ››› ››› JOCELYN FONG

    In a recent poll, CNN/Opinion Research asked, "Do you think the United States should or should not make it easier for illegal immigrants to become citizens of the United States?" Sixty-six percent of respondents said the U.S. should not make it easier, while 33 percent said it should.

    Inevitably, anti-immigration activists will use these results to claim that Congress shouldn't attempt to pass a comprehensive immigration reform package that includes a path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants currently in the country. Indeed, NumbersUSA is already touting it. The only problem is, nobody has proposed making it "easier for illegal immigrants to become citizens," which implies that unauthorized immigrants in the country currently have access to citizenship and reform would "make it easier."

    In fact, the proposal outlined by Sens. Graham and Schumer would make it possible for some unauthorized immigrants "to earn the opportunity to work toward lawful permanent residence." Only after performing community service, paying fines, paying back taxes, passing a background check and demonstrating English proficiency could unauthorized immigrants gain access to "the back of the line" for permanent residence. And only after being a permanent resident for at least 5 years and meeting other eligibility requirements could they apply for naturalization, which requires that they pay a large fee, pass English and civics tests, and are judged to possess "good moral character."

    By contrast, polls that describe proposals that have actually been considered found broad support. For instance, the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found in 2009 that "most Americans (63%) say they favor providing a way for illegal immigrants currently in the country to gain legal citizenship if they pass background checks, pay fines and have jobs." An April 2009 Washington Post/ABC News poll also found that 61 percent of respondents support "a program giving illegal immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and meet other requirements."

  • Nonexistent threat of voting rights for "illegals" enrages Ralph Peters

    Blog ››› ››› TERRY KREPEL

    Sure, Ralph Peters has said a lot of mean and hateful things over the years, but they may not have prepared you for the barking-mad insanity of his April 2 column at David Horowitz's FrontPageMag.

    It could technically be described as criticism of comprehensive immigration reform, but it's really just one long screed against giving undocumented immigrants voting rights -- something no one has proposed doing:

    President Barack Obama's greatest crime against our flag and the republic for which it stands isn't his administration's health-care theft bill. That's mere shoplifting compared to what's coming next.

    Obama and the leftwing of the Democratic Party intend to turn ten to eleven million illegal immigrants into voters as expeditiously as possible, giving them a permanent national electoral majority based upon a beholden Lumpenproletariat. If they succeed, our country will face mob rule.

    No individual who broke the law to enter this country should ever be allowed to decide who becomes our president, governor, senator -- or town council member. If there is one message patriotic Americans must act upon during the remainder of Obama's reign, it's this: No voting rights for illegals.

    No other issue of our time matters remotely as much -- not our lukewarm struggle with Islamist terror or even our metastasizing deficits. This isn't about tax increases or where to hold terror trials. It's about preserving our democratic institutions for law-abiding citizens.

    Again: Nobody, let alone Obama, is proposing to allow undocumented immigrants to vote. Peters barely attempts to make the argument that creating a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, who would then be allowed to vote, is a bad thing. But Peters is on a roll: No voting rights for illegals! Mob rule! Never mind that President Reagan's granting amnesty to millions of undocumented immigrants didn't exactly result in "mob rule."

    (Keep in mind that Peters is also a Fox News strategic analyst whom the network hosts to discuss terrorism on a regular basis.)