Why Are We Admitting Foreign Workers When Americans Are Out of Work?

By Ian de Silva
02/02/2010

The fact that the State Department had issued a visa to the Nigerian “underwear bomber” may indicate how careless our visa process is, but to see how utterly oblivious to reality our immigration policy is, you need only to look at the numbers of visas issued to foreign workers just last year.

We are in the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Over 15 million Americans are out of work. You would think any sensible government would put a moratorium on all work visas until the crisis was over. But our government thinks that foreigners have a right to come here no matter what. Why else would our government issue over 450,000 visas to foreign workers in 2009?

Yes, over 450,000 foreigners were issued work visas last year — while over 15 million Americans were looking for work. Millions of Americans are taking any job they can find — if they can find anything at all. But our immigration policy would rather appease foreign interests than appeal to the needs of Americans.

Lest I am perceived as a nativist or xenophobe, I must point out that I am a naturalized American. But it would be dishonest of me to think, merely because I am an immigrant, that I should refrain from pointing out the truth about our immigration policy.

Let us take a closer look at the numbers. The first work visa category of interest is the H visa, generally used by foreign engineers, computer programmers, technical managers, etc. It is supposed to be a temporary visa, but it actually allows the bearer to work here for as long as six years. In 2009, over 278,000 people were admitted on that visa, 60,000 of whom were spouses and children of the workers.

How Dare Arizonans Try To Protect Themselves?

by  David Limbaugh

05/08/2010

Isn’t it interesting that the people yelling the loudest about the imminent racial profiling that will occur under the new Arizona law are the very ones who are profiling the tea party protestors as domestic terrorists?

These egghead elitists stereotyping the protestors don’t have a clue what makes people tick or, apparently, what infuriates increasing numbers of Americans about a federal government that is at war with their freedoms and their pocketbooks.

Instead of examining their actual bigotry, let’s examine their false claims about the alleged bigotry of Arizonans and the state’s lawmakers. On this issue, thanks to the administration and its leftist media propaganda machine, too much misinformation is passing as fact on this issue.

Arizonans didn’t just gratuitously pass a bill to harass illegal immigrants. They are tired of the hundreds of violent crimes being committed by illegal aliens, with Phoenix being North America’s kidnapping capital and primary location of human smuggling. An Arizonan rancher was recently murdered on his own property by an alleged illegal alien, and three Phoenix police officers have been shot by illegal aliens since 1999.

But Arizonans didn’t go out and form lynching parties. They consulted with legal experts and crafted a sophisticated, thoughtful piece of legislation designed to crack down on illegal immigration in their state. I know the idea of states’ rights is a bit passe today, but some still take it seriously, as they do the right to defend themselves and their properties.

An Immigrant Defends Arizona’s New Law

By Bob L.

I applaud Mr.de Silva for his honest comment to the truth about this Country, and how the laws of this Country are not enforced and how special interest protest any thing they can to run this Country to benefit them selves and not the people.
___________________________________________________________
By Ian de Silva
05/09/2010

Legal immigrants have no reason to fear the new law — but the illegal ones do.

In the hue and cry over Arizona’s tough new immigration law, there is a noticeable paucity of voices from people who are the exact opposite of illegal aliens. That is, legal immigrants—people who respected America’s laws in coming here. Therefore, as a legal immigrant and naturalized American, I must point out the fallacies promoted by opponents of the law.

Predictably, liberals charge that this law is racist and that it legalizes profiling. Yet the law says nothing of the sort. In fact, it clearly specifies that a law enforcement official “may not consider race, color or national origin.”

In today’s political discourse, you are not deemed qualified to speak about issues such as profiling unless you are a racial minority. Therefore, as much as it violates my conservative instinct for a colorblind argument, I reluctantly mention that I happen to be a brown-skinned immigrant with an accent. In other words, if profiling was a phenomenon that is as rabidly rampant in America as liberals allege, then I would be among those who are routinely profiled and regularly questioned by police.

I have lived in America for nearly 30 years and have driven in at least 25 states—and have never had a cop stop me for a frivolous reason. The few times that I have been stopped, I was at fault—mostly for (unwittingly) exceeding the speed limit.

Barack Obama’s Money Trail

If this don’t beat all, say what you want, say what you will. this could not be any better put. This shows where the greed is.
___________________________________________________________
By Bill O’Reilly
05/09/2010

Just when we thought the socialism accusations against the Obama administration were subsiding, the president himself reignited the debate. Speaking in Illinois about his vision to reform Wall Street excess, Obama put forth: “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money. But part of the American way is you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or … service.”

The tone of the “enough money” comment is interesting because it reflects a core liberal belief: Affluence should be controlled by the federal government primarily through high taxation of the wealthy. Certainly, Barack Obama has embraced that philosophy. He freely admits he supports the redistribution of income in America — that is, taking assets from the rich and recycling them to the not-so-rich through entitlements, such as subsidized health care.