02/11/2014
Sorry, that’s actually "Americans for a Conservative Direction" — what a hoot! — but at VDARE.com, we prize clear seeing. And speaking. (Their web page features the famous statue that stands in New York harbor, proving that they're clueless.)
Patrick Cleburne has written about the group’s new ad a couple of times recently (here and here), but he didn’t provide a link so that you could actually listen to the minute-long radio commercial that’s been playing frequently on Rush Limbaugh’s show (and perhaps others?) these last couple of weeks.
So here you go. Warning: May lead to grinding one’s teeth while wide awake.
Patrick did provide the ad’s transcript, but here it is again, so you can read along:
“House Republicans have a conservative solution to fix our broken immigration system. Their plan — Step 1: Secure the Border and require tough employment verification. The Republican plan will put more agents on the border and give them better equipment and technology to fight the problem. And it establishes a reliable e-verify system to ensure that employers only hire people who can legally work here. Step 2: Anyone in America illegally undergoes a criminal background check. If they have a violent criminal past, they should be deported. Step 3: Pay fines, taxes and learn English. No amnesty. But a chance at the American dream for those brought here as children. Step by step, House Republicans want to fix the immigration problem, which will strengthen our economy. Get the facts for yourself.”
Those "lyrics" bring to mind what Mary McCarthy said about Lillian Hellman, that "every word she writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the.'"
So, as Walter Williams would say, "Let’s look at it."
The must-read article on this is Mark Cromer’s classic Documenting Illegals [Washington Times, February 26, 2008]. Key excerpt:
[T]he prospect of actually conducting legitimate background checks on illegal immigrants is, in fact, the absolute pinnacle of the bald-faced lies that typifies the security assurances offered by the proponents of amnesty.
Journalists who have conducted investigative research into the background of individuals know that it is a time and resource intensive enterprise — one that can be incomplete if reliable data is lacking on a person. And these are background checks that are conducted into the lives of people who have legitimate, discernable footprints in our society: credit histories, educational backgrounds, property records, employment references, family history, civil litigation and, sometimes, criminal records.
The vital connective tissue that runs through a real background check is an authentic primary identification. An incorrect spelling of a name, the lack of a middle name, no date of birth or the absence of other corroborating identifiers can render any resulting profile of a person useless.
Even under the best of circumstances, it’s not hard to miss something.
Thus, if researching established citizens can pose significant challenges, then putting together a factual background on people who use multiple aliases that are based on counterfeit documents obtained throughout a highly transitory life while in the United States illegally is all but impossible.
When considered on the scale of a national amnesty, it becomes a cynical joke.
You really need to read Cromer’s whole article, save it, and then keep it in mind for the many occasions when it will prove useful.
Joe Guzzardi’s experience after the 1986 amnesty torpedos that lie:
During the 1980s amnesty, green card applicants were required to complete 40 hours of English instruction. Suddenly, my ESL [English as a Second Language] classes went from less than half full to a point where people were bringing their own folding chairs.
Classes were jammed. As a newcomer to teaching, I was enthusiastic about the turnout. How wonderful, I thought, that all these prospective U.S. citizens were so eager to learn English.
My bubble burst within a week. When students completed 40 hours to the minute, they presented their INS forms for my confirming signature attesting to their attendance.
At first, I balked. In the fine print, the form also said that the student had to demonstrate a mastery of conversational English and a basic understanding of U.S. history and government.
My students couldn’t answer the questions: "When did you arrive in the U.S.?" and "Where is the capital of the U.S.?"
I refused to sign a federal document that made a false statement. I suggested instead that some students remain in class. After all, I reasoned, they were going to live the rest of their lives in the U.S. Why not spend a few hours a week at Adult Ed to learn your new language?
Within another week, I had my second awakening. I received a telephone call from an INS [the old Immigration and Naturalization Service, partial predecessor to today’s Department of Homeland Security] official asking me why I wasn’t signing the forms. When I explained my reasoning, he responded curtly: "Sign them."
My immigrant students, instead of returning for the extra instruction they so badly needed, had complained.
"No amnesty"? Any measure that allows illegal aliens to live here without fearing deportation is amnesty.
Regular readers of VDARE.com know oceans more about immigration facts and policies than most of our fellow citizens. The basic reminders and examples above may help your participation in the current struggle for national survival.
This is a content archive of VDARE.com, which Letitia James forced off of the Internet using lawfare.