Breaking News

First U.S. Ebola case confirmed September 30, 2014

0

KING: Will Georgia's U.S. Senators vote 'YES' on amnesty again?

D.A. King 

D.A. King 

U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson says he is not hearing from many Georgians regarding the Senate amnesty bill.

This sad fact is easily explained. Most GOP voters simply make the assumption that both of Georgia's Republican Senators are automatic "Nay" votes on the now 1000-page monster legalization scam.

Trusting conservatives assume that because New York's Senator Chuck Schumer is the bill's sponsor (then Congressman Schumer was key in the 1986 amnesty debacle) and because it is being pushed by the Alinskyite Community Organizer in Chief, Barack Obama, there is no need for concern about how the two GOP Senators will vote.

This is a very unsafe assumption.

Isakson and Senator Saxby Chambliss had a hand in writing the last amnesty try in 2007. They dropped because of withering negative public pressure. The Wall St. Journal reports that Senator Isakson was receiving 2000 calls a day then but only about 100 calls a day on amnesty so far this year.

From reading past press releases and statements from Isakson and Chambliss, there is good reason for the "of-course-they-will-vote-no" assumptions. And believing they will continue the struggle to protect American workers.

Example? Here is one from a February 2010 joint press release ('Isakson, Chambliss: Improving Immigration Laws Will Help Unemployment') illustrating both senators' recognition of immigration's direct relation to American unemployment. It includes a letter to the President of the Senate urging enforcement of immigration laws. "Isakson and Chambliss believe the millions of workers who are in the United States illegally are only exacerbating the unfair competition American workers currently face as they struggle to find jobs" they wrote in that election year.

A November 2009 missive to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano strongly criticized her comments then that legalizing millions of undocumented individuals would somehow benefit the American economy. The Isakson-Chambliss letter said: "With all due respect, legalizing those who have no legal right to be in the United States will not be a "boon" to American workers. Rather, it would only exacerbate the unfair competition American workers currently face as they struggle to find jobs."

In the spring of 2008, the Democrats tried to include legalization for some illegal aliens in an unrelated bill. Both senators spoke loudly against what they recognized as amnesty with another public statement ('Isakson, Chambliss Praise Senate's Rejection of Amnesty Provision in Emergency War Supplemental Bill' May, 2008): "U.S. Senators Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., today praised the Senate's refusal to include an amnesty provision in the emergency war supplemental bill. Language that would have granted legal status to over 1 million illegal agriculture workers and their families was stripped ... from the spending bill for troops ... Isakson and Chambliss earlier this week had urged the Democratic leader to remove the amnesty provision from the bill."

But earlier this month, Politico described Chambliss and Isakson as Republican senators "who could be swayed" to a yes vote on the Schumer/Rubio amnesty. It quotes both Georgia senators. Chambliss said the bill includes "some good basic principles," and "not deal killers I see, right now." Isakson revealed he was open to the bill. "There's not a red flag but not a green one either," Isakson said.

Are we seeing immigration "evolution?"

"The key is Rubio," said the executive director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles. "Without Rubio, this bill would not get anywhere with Republicans. He gives them the cover."

On his Senate website, Senator Isakson makes clear his official position on amnesty: "As I have stated in the past, when it comes to illegal immigration, it is absolutely critical to our state and to this nation that we first secure the borders, honor those who have come here legally by not offering amnesty, and restore credibility to our broken immigration system."

Despite the hype, the ruse being promoted by Marco Rubio does none of the above.

Georgians who care about the American worker, and value any pretext of ever seeing real border security and immigration enforcement should contact both Georgia's Senators to ask about today's position on Schumer's amnesty legislation.

And, they should remember the broken promises of the 1986 amnesty.

D.A. King is president of the Georgia-based Dustin Inman Society and a nationally recognized authority on illegal immigration. On the Web: www.TheDustinInmanSociety.org. Twitter:@DAKDIS

Comments

Jan 1 year, 3 months ago

From my research into the Dustin Inman Society, I found it to be a group with an extremist viewpoint of no compromise on immigration and has been labeled as a hate group by the SPLC. Examining the web site listed, it becomes obvious that they quote peoples opinions and then represent these stated opinions as factual proof. D. A. King is only a recognized as an authority by others that hold his extremist viewpoints on immigration. I have not read the immigration bill and so cannot give a fair analysis as to its passage but have researched the issue sufficiently to know that our immigration policy and handling of illegal immigration needs a major overhaul. I am also sure, from discussions I have heard, that the current bill has many good points. Some compromise might be necessary to get a workable improvement through Congress. Congressmen should all be working to improve the bill instead of dismissing it as unworkable while using emotional arguments that are not based on facts.

1

JV 1 year, 3 months ago

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is a left-wing legal and activist organization whos first president Julian Bond, would later take control of the NAACP. SPLC supports a wide variety of liberal positions; it is pro-immigration (both legal and illegal), advocates multiculturalism and the homosexual agenda, supports racial preferences and defendants' rights, and advocates against what it considers "hate groups".

The SPLC's op-ed writings have appeared in the Communist Party USA's newspaper People's World. This controversial, liberal organization has been criticized in mainstream press for being extravagant in its spending, and using charges of racism to stifle conservatives.

5

DavidBrown 1 year, 3 months ago

JV, I disagree with you. SPLC is one of my favorite organizations. Their website contains valuable and accurate information, including about D.A. King.

3

Jan 1 year, 3 months ago

Of course it is a left leaning organization. The right wing people do not care about anyone's rights except themselves and others with whom they can identify. This does not make it an extremist organization. Only a liberal organization would attempt to identify hate groups while the Republicans cater to hate groups to get their vote. I am sure you can find some right wing editorials printed in the mainstream press that is critical of the SPLC but editorials are strictly the opinion of the author and inconsequential as to the quality of the organization. Since you imply opposition to homosexuals and non Caucasians having equal rights, you must be a part of the hate group to whom Republicans cater.

2

FordGalaxy 1 year, 3 months ago

Jan - I've always found your comments to be well-thought out and moderately delivered. I'm kind of shocked that you would make such a gross mischaracterization of conservatives. I'm not accustomed to you painting with such a broad brush, labeling all conservatives as catering to hate groups. Surely you're turning a blind eye to the liberals who cater to pro-illegal-immigration groups for their votes. President Obama pandered to a group of Hispanic voters by saying that we would "reward our friends and punish our enemies."


As a conservative (though libertarian and not Republican) I'm hurt by your comments. You act as though only conservatives are capable of "hate." Yet it was liberals "praying" that a hurricane would hit Tampa and wipe out the Republican National Convention. It's liberals who state that the "Tea Party is admittedly racist," when no such admittance has come from the group, and every attempt to label them as racist has failed because there is no evidence. Are there racists within the group? Sure, every group has racists. The NAACP and the Congressional Black Caucus are two prominent liberal groups that are full of racists. The Congressional Black Caucus actually refused membership to a white congressman who served in a majority black district, simply because of the congressman's skin color. Do you qualify that as the same HATE you wrote about?


The real trick is the liberal tactic of using the "hate" or the "race" card in a discussion. By labeling an opponent a racist, liberals attempt to stifle debate. No one wants to be labeled a racist, but liberals have so overused the term that it's lost a lot of its power. Everything is racism, seemingly. Disagree with Barack Obama's policies? You MUST be a racist. Disagree with the NAACP or the ACLU? You are just full of HATE. We've reached a point where liberals and conservative seemingly cannot debate issues because to a liberal, if you disagree with their idea, you just HATE people. If you disagree with government enforced distribution of wealth, it's because you HATE poor people. If you disagree with abortion, it's just because you HATE women.


It's sickening. It's a cowardly tactic employed to avoid debating an issue. Frankly, Jan, I thought you were above it. Your last sentence proves that you apparently are not. If a person's religious beliefs prohibit acceptance of homosexuality, it doesn't automatically mean the person HATES gays. Just like if a person doesn't support drinking, it doesn't mean they HATE alcoholics. You can oppose something and not HATE those involved in it. That is, apparently, unless you are a liberal, in which case opposing something equates to HATRED of those involved.

4

Jan 1 year, 3 months ago

My apologies. I did not mean to imply that all Republicans are racist. My intent was to point out how the Republicans use other peoples prejudices as a means of getting votes, even the ones that would never discriminate against a person because of race, religious beliefs or sexual orientation. As for my last sentence, I know you read what I wrote but did you understand what I meant? Let me clarify by using your example. If a person's religious beliefs prohibit acceptance of homosexuality, then the church has a right to ban homosexuality in their congregation. They do not have a right to force their beliefs onto others. When they attempt to force their religious beliefs onto others, they are no better than the Taliban. Hiding behind religion never justifies hateful activity. I do agree that racist groups are found among liberal as well as conservatives; however, attempting to equate the KKK racist agenda with that of the NAACP is absurd. The NAACP never condoned attacks on people or profiling. I never intended to imply that anyone that disagrees with me must contain some kind of hate, but rather that they do not have a full understanding of the issues. For instance, you mentioned redistribution of the wealth, apparently under the impression that the poor are getting more than their share. If you look at government policies of taxation, including tax credits and allowable deductions and the various give away programs for industry, from research grants to farm subsidies, you will see that redistribution goes more to those in the top tax brackets.

0

FordGalaxy 1 year, 3 months ago

"I never intended to imply that anyone that disagrees with me must contain some kind of hate, but rather that they do not have a full understanding of the issues."


Your elitism is showing, Jan. So if I don't agree with you, it's only because I don't fully understand the issue? In other words, you claim yourself to fully understand the issues, and therefore everyone should agree with you?


So you admit that a church has a right to ban homosexuals (nevermind the obviously wrong conotations with that thought, something that we coulde delve into later), but they do not have a right to force their beliefs on others. I agree. You cannot legislate morality. However, you have a rather vocal contingent of gay and lesbian supporters who cry quite vociferously that everyone should accept them. Are they not forcing their way on others? Why is it tolerance to openly accept those who promote homosexuality, but the same courtesy is not extended to those who do not?


Beyond that...who is forcing their religious beliefs onto others? I've been in church all my life. I've shared my beliefs with others but I've never forced anyone to believe what I believe. And you say it's wrong to hide behind religion to perpetrate hateful activity. Agreed. Yet, atheists hide behind their "beliefs" while hatefully attacking Christianity. Liberals hide behind their beliefs while hatefully attacking conservatives. It's a two-way street. Don't place all the blame on conservatism when you well know that liberalism is just as guilty.


And you're quite right that the NAACP and the KKK cannot be truly equated. The KKK carried out vicious physical assaults and murders in the name of racial purity. They should rightly be shunned. The NAACP, to my knowledge, has never openly assaulted or killed anyone. However, the NAACP regularly engages in character assassinations. Their chair emeritus, Julian Bond, called the Tea Party "admittedly racist." That implies that the Tea Party has called themselves racist. To my knowledge, they have not. There have been plenty of attempts to cast the Tea Party in a racist light, but each has failed. Claims were made that Tea Partiers spit on black congressmen and called them racially insensitive names. Andrew Breitbart offered $100,000 for video evidence of this act, which was claimed in full view of cameras. None came forward.


The NAACP and the Congressional Black Caucus, along with the Black Panthers, engaged in serious character assassination against George Zimmerman after the Trayvon Martin shooting. They did so while lacking enough evidence. The police weren't even done investigating, and the NAACP and CBC had basically convicted Zimmerman of murder.


There is plenty of evidence of liberal "hate." I'm not excusing conservatives. There are plenty of conservative groups filled with "hate" as well. Of course, by your statement, these groups only have hate because they don't fully understand the issue.

2

Jan 1 year, 3 months ago

When a church advocates legislation to block homosexual marriage with equal marriage rights, they are trying to force their religious beliefs onto others. When the a church advocates legislation to stop abortions (or encourage disruptive or violent activity toward women's clinics or organizations which help provide abortion services), they are trying to force their religious beliefs onto others. As I said, a church can condemn a homosexual act as a sin, but church members operating a business do not have a right to refuse employment or service based on sexual orientation, just as they do not have that right for persons of other races. However, It is hypocrisy for a church claiming Christianity to accepting divorce while condemning homosexuality.

Strange how you brought forth the Zimmerman case. All indications are, without the media attention and groups like the NAACP, Zimmerman would have gotten away with murder. They just brought forth the evidence, primarily from the 911 recording which demonstrated Zimmerman's racial prejudice. Since then, Zimmerman's lawyers have attempted to smear the reputation of Martin. Publishing things that would not be admitted in the courts. The question is not if Zimmerman is guilty, but rather what level should he be convicted - minimum involuntary manslaughter - maximum first degree murder.

I do not respond on topics that I have not researched. I am very good at math. Not bragging, just stating a fact. Therefore I am confident that the issues to which I give respond that I will be right. This is not elitism, it is taking the time to research which sometimes requires crunching numbers to verify the accuracy of my statements. It is like calling me an elitist because I am sure that 2+2=4.

0

FordGalaxy 1 year, 3 months ago

On the church issue: By your standard, then, anyone advocating for anything is forcing their beliefs on someone else. You say that church members operating a business cannot refuse service based on sexual orientation. I've been in many businesses in my lifetime that had signs reading "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason." Will you likewise condemn those businesses for their actions, should they refuse service to a homosexual?


As for abortion, that's a tricky topic. Depending on where you live, or who you talk to, abortion can start a fight. I know people who actually refuse to say baby or fetus, but instead refer to it as "uterine contents." I suppose that softens the blow of killing it. Then you have people like Bioethicist Peter Singer, who claims that self-awareness is the keystone of life, and that since self-awareness does not kick in until about 3 months of age, infanticide up to three months should be just as legal as abortion. You also have people who believe life begins at the moment of conception. The arguments range across the entire spectrum. You say opposing it is forcing religion on someone. Yet liberalism often opposes the death penalty. So it's okay to kill an unborn baby, but a mass-rapists-serial killer should be allowed to live on? For as much as liberals condemn conservatives for their "selective moral outrage," liberalism is just as selective about what enrages it.


I have no doubt that you feel you are correct. I also feel I am correct in my supposition, even though we are discussing from opposing sides of a topic. The wonderful thing is, neither of us has to necessarily be right or wrong. I mentioned your elitism because of the way you presented your statement. Saying that someone who disagrees with you simply does not have a full understanding of the issue is, in a way, a very elitist statement. Do you consider me not as equally informed because I disagree with you? I'd like to think that I've backed up my argument with fact whenever possible and engaged in thought-provoking discourse.

2

FordGalaxy 1 year, 3 months ago

Part 2 of my response (I got a little lengthy):


On the Zimmerman case: Have you heard the entire 911 recording? Or just the edited version MSNBC ran? In the edited version, you hear Zimmerman say something to the effect of "he's wearing a hoody and walking around like he one drugs, he looks black." Yet, in the unedited version, you hear the 911 dispatcher ask Zimmerman for an account of Martin's race "Is he white, black or hispanic?" Zimmerman says "He looks black." Doesn't exactly teem with racism. Zimmerman's face was scrathed and bloodied and the back of his head was bloodied. Eyewitnesses say that they saw Martin on top of Zimmerman and punching him "mma-style." Yet the NAACP and Congressional Black Causcus would have you believe that Zimmerman tracked down Martin and beat him to the ground, then paused long enough to put on KKK gear and light a cross on fire before shooting Martin execution style. Note, also, that the news-media went to great lengths to describe Zimmerman as a "white hispanic." Zimmerman's father is white and his mother is Peruvian. Yet another high-profile mixed-race person in our nation, President Barack Obama, is never refered to as a "white African-American." It would be easy to construe such media reporting as an attempt to inject race into an issue which was not overtly racists from the start. And you accuse Zimmerman's lawyers of trying to smear Martin's reputation. Yet the media has also gone to great lengths to hide the pictures of Martin flashing gang signs, and blowing out pot smoke, and holding guns. Instead, the media used pictures of a 12-year-old Martin to represent his 17-year-old self. That's fair and unbiased reporting.

2

Jan 1 year, 3 months ago

No time now, just a quick question, Are you implying that Martin did not have the right to defend himself against someone that threatened him with a gun? Of course I do not know exactly what happened in the confrontation, but I do know that the 911 operate specifically told Zimmerman not to approach Martin. Further, the attitude portrayed by Martin was to confront Martin. If I was minding my own business and someone armed approached me threatening, I would consider the need to utilize self defense to prevent being shot.

0

FordGalaxy 1 year, 3 months ago

Absolutely, Trayvon Martin would've had the right to defend himself. Of course, that presupposes that Martin was not the aggressor. Zimmerman was told to not follow him. He chose instead to follow Martin. All the statements and reports I've read (including Zimmerman's (of course, and also eyewitnesses) tend to point to Zimmerman only getting his gun out once Martin had him on the ground. There is a decently written article about this case on American Thinker. (I know, AT is a conservative site. The author of the article, for however you feel about his political leaning, does a fairly good job of pointing out the particulars of the case.) In the article, it points out that Zimmerman mentions Martin as having "run off." Zimmerman was on the phone with the Sanford police department for about four minutes. Martin "ran off" about two minutes into the conversation. From where Zimmerman saw him to the townhouse he lived in was only about 500 feet or so. A reasonably athletic person like Martin could conceivably run that distance in no time. Instead, Zimmerman, who was 50 pounds heavier and many years older than Martin, was somehow able to catch up to Martin (or, as the article questions, Martin turned back and confronted Zimmerman). Martin obviously overpowered Zimmerman, given the injuries Zimmerman sustained, and that led to Martin being shot. I'm neither condoning nor condemning anyone. I brought up the case to point out media hypocrisy and the "hatefulness" with which the CBC and the NAACP targeted Zimmerman. At no point during the 911 call did Zimmerman display any racist tendencies. So to spice up the story, NBC edited the phone call to make him appear racist.

2

R 1 year, 3 months ago

Yet he almost got away with murder ??

Cause you don't know what happened ...

Very interesting carry on ...

0

John_Smith 1 year, 3 months ago

"The right wing people do not care about anyone's rights except themselves and others with whom they can identify"

Jan, please tell me what rights ILLEGAL ALIENS have.

2

R 1 year, 3 months ago

@Jan I can name a few hundred or so conservatives that served our country in Europe and died defending your rights, one of which is to hold that unreasonable and unsupported position about conservatives.

4

DavidBrown 1 year, 3 months ago

Well said, Jan. I agree with your perspectives on the Dustin Inman Society, D.A. King and the immigration bill. God bless.

2

R 1 year, 3 months ago

Sad really, you appear to dislike what you do not know...

3

JV 1 year, 3 months ago

Using your usual common tactic - and a very dishonest one.

If someone expresses an opinion that a liberal disagrees with - they will invariably post something along the lines that the holder of that opinion "hates" something.

Since hatred is universally held as an ugly and negative emotion - the only motive for the use of this word could be to shut down debate - instead of arguing something based on its merits.

The tactic is dishonest, mean-spirited, pathetic, and almost exclusively used by liberals.

Why do liberals seem so afraid to engage in a discussion and instead use hyperbole and mischaracterization to frame the argument?

4

FordGalaxy 1 year, 3 months ago

Agreed, JV. I just wrote a sort of rant post in response to Jan discussing the very same thing.

5

DB 1 year, 3 months ago

This bill will never pass.

4

kevin 1 year, 3 months ago

Whoever votes for another amnesty will not be re-elected. Period. Enforce our laws you idiots, not make more. Illegal is illegal, period. are you going to vote yes and punish those that went through the process legally? Citizens get benefits, not illegals. What did our forefathers and soldiers fight for? I guess for nothing in your eyes. I can understand that those that hate our military would vote for amnesty., but what about American citizens? Do anymore of you have the guts to stand up for our principals? ( I guess not)

4

R 1 year, 3 months ago

@Jan Your read is off a bit (IMO) on the group you chastise, but there’s no doubt in this, DEATH has a habit of making things crystal clear.

I suggest everyone here read the links related to what this group has rallied around. http://www.thedustininmansociety.org/info/who_was_dustin_inman.html

Please realize that hundreds of thousands of your neighbors both here and nationwide have suffered varying degrees of impact needlessly, ranging from physical long-term issues to the death of family members. Our FEDERAL government has failed in its most basic function with regard to our border policy since 1908 or there abouts – it’s the one consistent bi-partisan policy of BOTH parties.

Ross Perot heard the famous “Sucking Sound” at the border, but it really wasn’t Nafta. This new 1000+ page Senate Bill will not change one single issue that resulted in the increase of conservatively estimated 3 million IILEGAL aliens in 1986 to a VERY conservative estimate today of 11 million ILLEGAL aliens.

This is simply because we have offered NOTHING to improve the tracking of legal VISA holders.

We have offered nothing that once and for all would make ILLEGAL entry by any mode or VISA overstays a FELONY. How in the world can triggers be developed, much less met, if this simple baby step is missing. All this bill does in its current form is codify the ability of an appointee to determine what law may or may not be enforced by developing a “plan(s)”.

For those who lean left, would you seriously grant that power if Dick Cheney were the DHS director? For those who lean right, would you grant that legal power to Janet Napolitano? For those in the ever growing middle territory - do either of choices raise YOUR concerns? Doesn’t the DHS have enough power now or do we now wish to make them the one thing even the IRS fears?

Once we make it so at least a common criminal sentence can be imposed for illegal entry, then discussions about an extremely compassionate position of extending a legal resident status - along the lines of those granted to residents of America Samoa right now in today’s border policy - can be debated.

Guest workers? 2 visa types H2A for AG and H1B1 for EVERYBODY else. Streamlined requirements of H2A concerning wages, housing, medical services and transportation apply to ALL business classes. Business requestors are responsible to pick up visa parties at a DHS port of Entry and to then transport them BACK to a DHS point of exit at the end of the visa period. Violation of these terms result in fiscal penalties and 7 year ineligibility for additional temporary workers.

Does our border policy need fixing? Absolutely.

Is the problem related to any specific race? Absolutely NOT.

Is passing a bill just because a fix is needed better than nothing? Not on OUR lives.

Time for a real solution for our future to address the next 100 years, not the poorly perceived “needs” of the next election cycle.

3

R 1 year, 3 months ago

As to calls to Johnny, what better blind luck than the IRS issue front and center in the news right now.

3

Sthrnldy 1 year, 3 months ago

I am very good at math. Not bragging, just stating a fact ... an elitist because I am sure that 2+2=4.

Bless Your Heart Jan --- we had NO IDEA that you were capable of such complex mathematical equations! So, have you crunched the numbers to find out if Illegal Aliens are more important to your Obama God, than say someone like you? Lets be honest --- how many more years will you be relevant to the socialist regime as an aging money pit that can no longer vote? All these future Undocumented Democrats are supposed to be creating wealth and paying taxes doing lucrative jobs that Americans simply won't do. Right?

Oh Jan, I do believe it's time you head back to that chalk board and do some reading and ciphering unlike the good ole days. Let us know how that new math works out for you!

4

RedDawn 1 year, 3 months ago

On August 15, 2012 Floyd Lee Corking II, posing as a prospective intern, entered the Family Research Council building with nearly 100 rounds of ammunition with the purpose of “killing as many people as possible.” He told investigators he considered making a bomb but did not have the patience to learn how. If not for building manager Leo Johnson, who was shot trying to subdue him, Corking may have murdered dozens of innocent people. His reasoning for this is that the Southern Poverty Law Center classifies the Family Research Council as a “hate group.” He has confessed to one count of committing an act of terrorism with the intent to kill, one count of intent to kill while armed, and one federal count of crossing state lines with guns and ammunition. The government dropped seven additional charges. The only people the Southern Poverty Law Center is concerned about are themselves and their ability to fundraise. This SPLC that is tied to domestic terrorism is a tax exempt organization. So according to the IRS, groups promoting domestic terrorism are good while prolife and other conservative groups are bad.

3

Stu 1 year, 3 months ago

I have to give Mr. King credit for his perseverance, if nothing else. I have no doubt that he will continue to proudly beat his drum long after the state of Georgia has followed Gwinnett County’s lead in becoming majority-minority.

Unfortunately, Mr. King’s line of reasoning too often calls to mind the statement of his namesake Martin Luther King, Jr. that “Nothing pains some people more than having to think.”

Let’s take a rational look at the immigration issue for a change, examining it from the perspective of our Senators’ professed priorities and principles.

Senators Chambliss and Isakson profess to be committed to fostering economic growth. Study after study has shown that Hispanic immigrants contribute far more to our state and national economy than they take from it, in large part for the simple reason that they work extremely hard and pay taxes for many services that they are not eligible to receive.

Our Senators profess to believe in the American dream. The young Hispanics I know have a sense of patriotism, a work ethic, and an entrepreneurial spirit that put most of the rest of us to shame.

Senators Chambliss and Isakson profess to believe in prudent use of taxpayers’ hard-earned money. Yet the current crackdown on immigrants transfers millions in government funding from taxpayers’ pockets to private prison corporations.

Our Senators profess to believe in freedom. I can’t think of a more outrageous example of tyranny than a law enforcement regime under which Hispanics are pulled over at random traffic stops, whisked off to a privately operated detention center in the middle of nowhere with no recourse to an attorney and no practical way for family members to visit them, and then deported to a country that in many cases is completely foreign to them. This abuse of government power would make the Redcoats who occupied Boston blush, and would make Sam Adams and Thomas Paine turn over in their graves.

Our Senators profess their strong Christian faith and their commitment to family values. Yet our current immigration enforcement approach systematically separates husbands from wives and children from parents, while violating the moral precepts of the Bible and every other major religious text. The southern hospitality we are meting out to our Hispanic brothers and stands in stark contrast to the reception I have routinely received when traveling in Mexico, where the poorest campesino will give a traveler the shirt of their back and go out of their way to help a gringo out of a jam.

Finally, our Senators profess to believe in a diverse, tolerant Georgia that has confronted and overcome its legacy of racial injustice. Yet our cottage industry of immigrant-bashing belies this claim by continuing to demonize the latest target of convenience – perhaps the one remaining group that it is still politically correct to scapegoat, dehumanize, and bully – the dreaded, faceless “illegals.”

2

notblind 1 year, 3 months ago

Yes, the dreaded, faceless illegals. People that have no legal or moral justification for being inside our borders.

1

R 1 year, 3 months ago

@ Stu

One should give Mr. King credit, probably because he’s earned it. If you have listened to the numerous interviews he’s been involved with or the county meetings has spoken at – you’ll find his case work compelling – even if you don’t personally agree with ALL of his positions, that’s the endearing quality that makes him so frustrating to some.

A rational “look” can only proceed after a few simple terms are agreed to in advance of the discussion.

1) There is a legal way and an illegal way to almost everything in life.
This is true in everything from taxes to driving a motor vehicle.

2) One can know the right or legal way something is done and still make a dynamic,
personal and independent choice at any time to select how they will proceed that won’t comply.

Without acknowledgement of these simple concepts – no real progress can be made.

Our senators do indeed look to foster growth, as well as a large percentage of the voting population at large are committed to economic growth based on laws – even Occupy Wall-Streeters publicly embraced this concept. Study after study does indeed indicate that legal immigration has a net positive for our economy.

All legal immigrants, including those of Latino heritage, are indeed hard working and are able to take part in the services that they contribute taxes to pay for.

Legal immigrants for the large part are indeed patriotic and coming from areas where the freedoms some of us are so accustomed to that we take for granted ,they don’t - they cherish it and fight to keep us from falling into the same policies they left behind…

Yes the senators are concerned about the hard-earned dollars that are transferred to prisons. These expenditures are an unfortunate result of a growing subset of the population that appear to be incapable of following any laws – even those so mundane as traffic light, speed limits or even avoiding driving southbound in a northbound lanes of traffic. The offenses escalate from there, running the gambit to drugs, rape, robbery and murders.

Yes it’s an unfortunate outcome of some ignoring laws designed to keep the masses safe.

Freedom …

Freedom NOT to operate motor vehicles without proper license tags, valid pollution certificates, mandated insurance coverage or even basic vehicle ownership.
Freedom - To personally CHOOSE not to do that which breaks the law resulting in involvement with the law officers. Freedom requires personal restraint.

(Cont)

1

R 1 year, 3 months ago

(Cont)

What would really make our great leaders in history turn over in their graves, not to mention the veterans (starting with the minute men right up to present day) that came from all heritages - including Latino - who died defending the borders of this nation, is the apparent lack of appreciation or even a basic respect of their and their families commitment and sacrifice.

Senators that profess Christian faith, supporting family values somehow should be at odds with laws that incarcerate law violators. Those who are knowingly making independent, personal decisions to break laws know consequences are possible, yet they proceed anyway and are caught. These occurrences include detention – it happens every single day. As a result of violations, families of violators are separated much like our county’s own Shirley Lassitter. Our laws don’t violate the bible tenants, as a matter of routine study of those texts, believers are ADMONISHED to support* and follow government decrees because it is there protect us from wrong doers.

(*Unless those decrees go directly against GODS commands- we are getting ever closer to that line but luckily, we are NOT there just yet)

Even the most innocent of all was challenged by a ruler with the following statement: “Do you KNOW that I have the power to set you free or crucify you?”

The response – You would have no power over me unless it was granted from above.

Why in the world would senators such as ours work to demand entry into our country at specified ports so that carriers of new super resistant diseases are intercepted and treated in medical environments before they enter into contact with our general population?

Why would they be willing to work to reduce repeat incidents of TB in our classrooms where our CHILDREN and the School staff are exposed? TB was once a decease we had eradicated here – why should we be exposed to something we already defeated before?

Our country is at war and we still have terrorists plotting carnage, so to apprehend them government agencies are using cell phone metadata from ALL of us in research. So under these circumstances, why wouldn’t caring senators work to increase the security of our borders – it’s the most “shovel ready” infrastructure project we could EVER have.

(Cont)

1

R 1 year, 3 months ago

(Cont)

The SELF inflicted hospitably to which you refer is a DIRECT result of PERSONAL, independently made CHOICES and in true southern fashion is offered EQUALY to ALL violators, whether they are indeed of Latino heritage or not.

Funny that the charity of Mexicans is discussed in such a manner, especially since it would be offered to a LEGAL immigrant one would surmise. It goes to prove that charity is indeed a personal choice; just like the countless offers legal visitors to our country get every single day - why you can even see it on display at at Hartsfield if not in your own neighborhood…

But the better comparison here is the HOSPITALITY of the MEXICAN government to those that cross its borders illegally or er undocumented.

Illegal is NOT a race, it’s a state of legal existence FREELY, independently CHOSEN. It requires extended active effort to continue. It’s a choice that can be corrected at any time. Immigrants are NOT being bashed; ILLEGAL, law breaking, LYING behavior is being rejected by a society that just may be demanding better.

“If people can’t trust not only the executive branch but also don’t trust Congress and don’t trust federal judges to make sure that we’re abiding by the Constitution, due process and rule of law, then we’re going to have some problems here,” Obama said. WSJ 6-7-13

1

SuxBeanU 1 year, 3 months ago

Isakson & Chambliss will both vote yes because those that support them need cheap labor to succeed. Plus both are to old to run again, so it matters not a whit to either of them. Hey, they got there's, now you figure out how to get your's. They are both the type of republicans that are seeking the cover of others to cast their vote.

0

Stu 1 year, 3 months ago

It's alll very well to talk about freely taken choices when one is living in comfort and safety. When one's family is starving or in danger, that choice doesn't seem quite so free.

Many immigrants are driven by horrendous conditions, some of which our government has been complicit in causing. Many Mexican immigrants are former farmers whose livelihoods were wiped about by NAFTA, which flooded their market with cheap American crops.

Many Guatemalan immigrants are refugees from a genocidal war waged by a right-wing general against that country's indigenous (Indian) population. That general, who President Reagan famously said got "a bad rap" for human rights abuses, was just convicted of these abuses.

Many refugees from El Salvador fled from a brutal civil war in which religious leaders, union organizers, and ordinary citizens were routinely kidnapped by U.S.-armed and -trained soldiers and death squads, tortured, and left beheaded in the streets. Our government kept supporting El Salvador's military even after it killed four U.S. nuns and a Catholic Archbishop. I used to wonder why a Salvadoran friend always wore a turtleneck. I eventually found out that he had had his throat slashed by the military and been left for dead.

If you and your family faced such conditions, would your first concern be the intricacies of U.S. immigration law? Or would the reasonable reaction be to do whatever it takes to get your family to safety, and then make amends later?

And would the humane reaction on our part not be to thank God that we have not confronted such a situation, and to judge not lest we be judged?

Ask yourself -- why are there no illegal immigrants from Cuba? Because they are given favored immigration status on ideological grounds. They deserve it. But refugees from right-wing regimes that our government is buddies with should receive the same treatment.

Should Harriett Tubman and others who established the underground railroad to help runaway slaves escape north before the Civil War be condemned for violating the law? They were undoubtedly breaking the law. But sometimes the imperatives of compassion and common decency take precedence over unfair, discriminatory laws.

If you want immigrants to follow the laws, give them a rational, fair system of immigration law that gives them a fighting chance to become U.S. citizens within their lifetimes if they work hard and contribute to our society, instead of making them play a lottery that is stacked against them. That's precisely why we need comprehensive immigration reform. The current immigration laws are unenforceable because they are broken -- they fly in the face of economic forces, refugee flows, and basic fairness. No matter how high we build the border wall, no matter how many immigrants we support, no matter how many families we separate, they won't solve the problem.

3

R 1 year, 3 months ago

GIVE? Who are we giving to? Mexicans? Guatemalans? Russians? Iranians? the latest country De-jour?

Why should we race to become the very lawlessness in some cases these folks claim to have left behind? No sir - its obvious you choose not to understand or really couldn't care less about the fact that there ARE choices.

I for one am thankful I live here in the USA so work to keep her from being dragged at warp speed down a path that very well may render her insignificant in the future.

Cheap American crops? Is this this an attempt by parties not familiar with US agriculture to pull virtual wool over the readers eyes? Poor form

I will offer this observation, you APPEAR to assume far too much with regard to the ease of others lives, perhaps somehow rooted in a self hatred or guilt of your own. But I do know this, if I need help I don't walk into my neighbors house, open his/her fridge, consume the food and then demand to drive his or her car. I ASK for assistance first out of respect and humbly graciously accept what is offered - I DON'T dare DEMAND all things. If the welfare of my children is involved - I plead I don't drive cars without licenses or even the ability to read traffic signs...

It would seem some believe if we bend " just a little more" all will be fine - until the next time the make something "special just for me" request is made...

Appeasement is NOT a policy for a nation that looks to thrive. Charity can't be offered if its DEMANDED first.

It's a real "reach" to equate this topic somehow to slavery - its bogus on its face, disrespects and insults the very history to which it makes reference. Where are the slave ships? This very small percentage CROSSED on their own, against the laws - at times paying other criminals big bucks for assistance to do so.

This narrow focus overlooks the MILLIONS of legal immigrants working towards legal citizenship and doesn't even count the millions more here as legal resident aliens or nonresident aliens.

Our broken system could be fixed far faster if we would simply enforce all laws on the books right now - TODAY. Acknowledge the rules in play since 1908 were poorly written and FOCUS on security first - then once the wide open barn doors are closed, we can begin the debate on the merits of POSSIBLY extending the equivalent of American Samoa residents to those in the claimed "shadows".

This should be received with great jubilation and humble appreciation, if it is all really about and for the children...

Because this relatively small subset have proven by their actions laws that are deemed inconvenient will fall by the wayside.

1

Stu 1 year, 3 months ago

It's hard to say what's sadder to see -- such closed minds or such hardened hearts.

Feel lucky that you can be ignorant of the history of US policy towards our neighbors to the south and its impact. The folks who live there, and who have to live with its consequences, don't have that luxury.

We'd all be better off if we spent a little less time obsessing about the lawfulness of others' behavior and a little more time reflecting on the morality of our own behavior and our government's policies.

It's also interesting that this obsession with lawlessness focuses on the most vulnerable group in our society, instead of the big corporate interests and banks that are profiting at the expense of U.S. citizens and immigrants alike. But I guess that standing up to them would actually take some guts. It's easier to once again scapegoat the immigrant.

As with many other prejudices, the calcified views of the immigrant bashers can only be sustained by a complete lack of actual contact with immigrants, curiosity about their lives, and knowledge about the conditions that brought them here. Such ignorance, smugness, and heartlessness make for a pretty toxic -- and un-Christian -- mix.

2

R 1 year, 3 months ago

“and to judge not lest we be judged?”

So Stu, why do you judge so many so harshly in your closing comment here?
Can you not recall your own text from above or does that tolerance you claim only apply to those that think as you do?

What’s sadder still is seeing one refer to an alternate view that looks at a much larger set of circumstances surrounding an issue as hate – it’s not.

Simply calling out inconsistencies on a position with real world information isn’t an example of a hard heart.

How anyone who still believes that racism is an issue that needs to be eradicated in the USA now, can at the same time, embrace a new immigration policy for the next 50 years or so based on what they believe to be racial set-asides is simply astounding.

There’s nothing prejudiced looking at something holistically.

However, it sure is painfully inconvenient for some who can’t carry their case in the light of reality. The discussion is pretty much lost when all that remains are the use of disproved urban legends and one is reduced even further back to the old worn standards of Hate and Ignorance in a pitiful attempt to discredit the alternate point of view.

1

Jan 1 year, 3 months ago

R, though this is one of your more intelligent writings, you still seem to miss the point which Stu made so eloquently, that many of the problems that illegals out of their home land and into the USA was caused by interference by our government in the affairs of their country. We have propped up dictators and supported governments operating death squads. The only thing that seemed to be expected from these despotic governments was a condemnation of communism. Our current policy towards illegals is very inconsistent. If you are an illegal from Cuba, you get refugee status automatically, but from South American countries or island nations, such status is very difficult to acquire, regardless of the hazards that awaits them upon return to their home land. From our Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident,that all men are created equal," Notice no mention of nationality or citizenship requirements. None to be found in the Constitution either. I am not saying that we should allow anyone to enter our country; however, we should examine each case and make some humane judgements prior to deportation. The immigration reform that is currently being debated is only suggesting this review be applied to a relatively small number of the aliens here without appropriate visas. One of my problems with the Obama administration is the fact that INS enforcement has been stepped up and reviews of cases is not ample to insure justice for these people. The Bush administration arguably, may have been to lax on enforcement of immigration laws. While I agree that assuming all that oppose progressive immigration reform are racist, a large number of those in opposition are racist which is clear from the statements that make in comments and on signs when demonstrating with organizations like the Tea Party. To imply that racism should not be a part of the discussion is very naive.

0

LilburnsFuture 1 year, 3 months ago

If you are an illegal from Cuba, you get refugee status automatically You forgot Elian. He was tossed back into the country like a too small fish to fry into a pond. Even though his parents wished him to be free. So now the policy of wet feet, dry feet.

Your assessment regarding the Tea Party is false. It has more to do with paying for illegals when we already cannot afford those already legal immigrants or non-immigrants!

As far as the south of the border... I've spoken with plenty of those who have arrived from the south. I do not care of their status either way. Most come here because they want a better life and are treated poorly due to their race (yep, some are related to American Indians - north, central and south american Indian). Some even flee due to fear of the powerful drug lords who have killed family members. Why are so many drug lords nearby? They are close to their customers, yep our hungry for drugs united states citizenry. To deny that the drug world and sex trafficing world has no influence on immigration is far more naive than your perception of racism. I'd suggest you research it, but many are in denial of such a world exists and do not want to research it. They are content taking sides and simply blaming conservatives or liberls.

0

notblind 1 year, 3 months ago

Lets see if I have this straight. Unknown millions of people who are not citizens of this country break our laws and the consensus of the left is that the laws are the problem, not the law breakers. .

Have I got it straight ???. . . That's like saying get rid of prisons and we will have no more criminals.

1

LilburnsFuture 1 year, 3 months ago

If you are going to use prisons as a metaphor, the crimes most illegals are committing are more like traffic violations. I do not know of many traffic violators that are in prisons (though some just very well may be for DUI or vehicular manslaughter).

My point is, the rhetoric is that they are somehow as bad a murderers simply because they are in this country illegally. It should be more like traffic court. Yes, you are caught illegal. Pay a huge fine and be on your way. If you want to avoid another huge fine, become a citizen. Does that sound like a driver's licence? Driving without one (or insurance) is subject to a fine.

0

R 1 year, 3 months ago

Which underlines the fact they are making choices right up to being caught.

You need air to breathe but driving a car is not a requirement, it only compounds the argument that laws don't matter - including the one that will give citizenship to those who could care less about it demonstrated by their actions.

Treating this issue like a traffic citation is ridiculous.

As a matter fact, treating repeat drunk driving and driving on suspended licenses this way are also ludicrous on its face but that's another column topic all by itself.

1

LilburnsFuture 1 year, 3 months ago

It's not 'ridiculous' when most are caught when they are violating traffic citations in the first place.

What most people are truely upset based on what's mentioned over and over is that they do not pay enough into the system. Pay a fine, pay into the system. That's it.

Using drunk driving to relate to illegal immigration is like comparing apples with oranges. They are not endangering themselves property or someone else by 'breathing' in the united states.

0

R 1 year, 3 months ago

Well oops there goes another urban legend in the fodder cannon…

(But to be fair at least it’s a recent one)

I’ll just settle for some photos of the alleged racist signs on display at TEA Party gatherings - that should be a “snap”.

Moving on.org, as it were…

We have indeed heard the position that America has unclean hands, regardless of the party in the WH, so we must not act too harshly. This seems to overlook the sheer number of visas we have cut (Above and beyond the regularly yearly quotas for everything else) for those requesting asylum / refugees from all countries in the world.

Jacking up the border policy further is simply not regarded as the best path to make restitution, if one may be so inclined to take or champion that path.

Agreement - our current border policy is confusing - of that there is absolutely no argument.

It was designed over the years by lawyers, amended by lawyers, apparently as some form of indirect jobs program FOR lawyers. Its foolishness has not been addressed by either the greatness of Eisenhower or the lofty dynamic referred to as Camelot under JFK administrations. (Gets us past Bush/Clinton /Bush/Obama rock throwing sessions – those are ongoing elsewhere)

So I will quote you, quoting the constitution

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,”.

You’ll notice there are NO references to that some are created more equal than others, based on the person’s country of origin. So I guess I am naïve, right along with at least some of finest minds we’ve known.

So the Constitution doesn’t mention citizenship? U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 1 “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” Kinda deflates that position a tad…

The problem really rests in the fact that a major player in WW2 can’t muster the gumption required to simply make illegal entry a felony.

That so much time and resources are about to be consumed hand wringing over an issue that as long as it remains completely a Federally controlled item - just like 1986 - there will be no enforcement, because the trigger(s) is/are not really connected to anything! The text may exist, but so does the Executive order - waiving it all with the flash of a robo-pen. Who said that “selective service” died in the 1970s?

1

Jan 1 year, 3 months ago

I have discovered that people learn better by doing their own research so I no longer give links. I did take 5 minutes to see how easy it is to find some racist tea party signs and found half a dozen that everyone would understand are racist. A couple so vulgar I would never consider providing a direct link to them. You really should do the research before trying to be condescending. It only demonstrates how little research you actually do.

0

LilburnsFuture 1 year, 3 months ago

I would challenge you to do more research than just press releases from research papers and opinion articles. Why not interview those in the trenches. Yes, interview illegals themselves, interview ice enforcers, interview those who went through legal channels, interview those who have been released from their pimp who had promised citizenship after they have 'earned it'.

0

Jan 1 year, 3 months ago

I can tell the difference between research data, facts and opinion pieces. I never base my conclusions on opinion pieces which typically, both right and left, include things to get the reader emotionally involved with the conclusions drawn by the author. I also understand the anecdotal quality of an interview with a single ICE enforcer or a single alien not here through legal channels. One thing that everyone (including myself) seem to have failed to mention in the immigration reform debate above is the fact that many of these "illegals" did not voluntarily violate the law. They were brought here by their parents as babies or small children. The choice to violate the law was not theirs. Many don't have any memory of the country or the language from which they came. You mentioned those "released from their pimp" implying that these came voluntarily while we know that many women are kidnapped from one country and smuggled into another while forced into prostitution. While they are in violation of immigration and prostitution laws, they are the victims and the humane approach would be to treat them as victims. Go after the pimps and their clients.

0

LilburnsFuture 1 year, 3 months ago

I believe that for the most part, the reason that one portion of the debate is often omitted is because it is something both sides could agree on. If the children are here due to their parents, what fault is it of their own. None.

*You mentioned those "released from their pimp" implying that these came voluntarily * that is not exactly what I was implying. However, the goal behind the message was to use other sources than what would otherwise be considered typical avenues for research.

0

R 1 year, 3 months ago

So if they were kidnapped, by family why not require the perpetrators of the crime be revealed at some point - the logic here simply escapes me.

The pimped should be covered under asylum procedures, so flexibility exists for compassion to be applied on a case by case basis.

0

JV 1 year, 3 months ago

On Wednesday June 12, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) blocked a vote on the border security amendment to the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill offered by Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA).

And illegal crossings are up 9 Percent. So I have to ask, who is obstructing now?

1

SuwaneeResident 1 year, 3 months ago

What strikes me is that, similar to their allies in Congress (Ghomert, Westmoreland, Woodall, Bachmann, et al) the people on this thread, arguing against the immigration legislation, offer no solution for the issue at hand. There are approximately 11 million illegal residents in the United States. How would you people deal with this issue? It's similar to Obamacare. The house will likely vote, for the 38th time, to repeal Obamacare but has yet to entertain a single bill that provides an alternative. The previous post claims illegal crossings are up 9 percent. Compared to when? One, undisputed fact, is that the United States has captured and returned more illegal aliens, under the Obama presidency, than any previous administration. Deportations are also up over any previous administration. Soon the house will pass H.R. 2278, the Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement Act (commonly referred to as the "SAFE Act"). This will be a license to create a police state where any law enforcement can stop any person and require them to produce "papers." My guess is that most of those, who have opposed the immigration bill are Anglo and, as a result, will be unlikely to be asked to produce papers on demand for no other reason other than the law enforcement has suspicions that the may not be a legal resident.

0

SuwaneeResident 1 year, 3 months ago

By the way, it's pretty clear where the Gwinnett Daily Post stands as Mr. King is one of the many conservative voices that dominate the opinion pages of this paper. What's scary is how many of them, like Mr. King, represent organizations that are not just conservative but so extremely right wing that their opinions are not even shared by many in the conservative movement and republican party (of course people, like Mr. King, will likely label those individuals as RINOS). Of course these same people bleat incessantly about the "mainstream media" (or as that clever quipster Sarah Palin would say the "lamestream media"). Of course that would be because their opinions are NOT in the mainstream of American political thought they are extremists and that's why with the exception of the south and pockets of the southwest and mountain west the republican part is becoming irrelevant. Mainstream thought represents what the majority of people, regardless of party, consider reasonable. The extremes, whether they be left or right, are out of the mainstream and here in Georgia thanks to people like Phil Gingrey, Paul Broun, Lynn Westmoreland and others our political leadership largely falls outside of the mainstream. Recent example is Governor Deal's decision to have Georgia continue its quixotic assault on Obamacare. He has decided that Georgia will not participate in the expansion of Medicaid despite the fact that fellow travelers like Rick Scott in Florida and Jan Brewer in Arizona have done so recognizing that the rejection of these federal dollars will only result in their distribution to other states rather than coming back to the taxpayers of Georgia from whom they were generated in the first place. So go ahead Georgia keep fighting the War Between the States and, despite being the ninth largest state in the union, become increasingly irrelevant from a national perspective.

0

Sign in to comment