Change is the word at the moment

Every where I read on the Internet or in the newspapers, I keep reading how Obama is going to change the political landscape, bringing with him a renewed sense of hope for the future that Hillary is unable to generate. But I have been wondering if we are dealing with strictly with a wave of emotions or a genuine overwhelming desire for change?

It will be interesting if the Obama people will still stand up for change and the party if Hillary were to win the nomination. Is it just the politically correct thing to say that you are for Obama and change? Or will everyone work for change regardless of who the candidate is?

Pundits have tried to make Hillary the old guard. How can the first woman candidate running for President be old guard? Does it mean she is old guard and defender of the status quo because of her extentsive experience, both in the United States Senate, as well as from the ringside seat of history in the White House?

We hear how Obama is an historical figure running for Presidient, but let's not forget a great woman is also running for President. Gender and race, both are factors in this election. I think the Democratic party can be proud that the standard bearers are diverse and both regardless of their gender or race, are committed to change.

The neoconservative pundits are trying to make race and gender dirty words. "Oh, we shouldn't bring those issues up." "Oh, we shouldn't fall in the trap and start talking about race or gender." "The candidates are just kicking up the dust (or hell) if we talk about race or gender."

Folks, I hate to be the one to tell you, but race and gender are who we are. We should not allow others to demean who we are. We shouldn't be ashamed of who we are and not be angry when someone may accuse us of being negative if we discuss gender or race. We do not have to be apologetic about who we are, or what our leaders represent. Gender and race are positives in the Democratic party as far as I am concerned.

The news media wants to label who we are. They want to set the agenda for this election. While they can claim that talking about race and gender are evil, we know better. We have been talking race and gender all of our lives. It is not new. It is not divisive if we understand the value of diversity.

We should be proud a Black man is actually running for President and has a chance to win. We should be equally proud a woman is running for President and actually has a chance to win as well.

To the supporters of Obama, I encourage you to work hard for his election, but remember there are a lot of people out here who support Hillary, and are working just as hard for Hillary's election.

The true legacy of JFK is not Camelot, but a history far worse than any other president caught sneaking around the back rooms at the White House.

Let's not confuse history with the emotional need to rewrite history. Just because some people may need a quick fix for change does not give them license to rewrite histroy to their liking.

If more people knew the history of the Kennedy legacy, in particular the old patriarch of greed and corruption, it would cause many to pause over the Kennedy legacy. I wouldn't want to associate Obama with that kind of history. If we truly want change....let's not reminisce about a time in history when the mob was literally running around the White House.

Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama was meant to be a big plus, but those of us old enough know old Ted has a lot baggage, and it has nothing to do with change.

What I don't understand is how some pundits think that Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama has some mystical power on the Latino community. Let's not forget that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is endorsing Hillary Clinton. How can we forget that the United Farm Workers have endorsed Hillary? That endorsement carries far more weight than old Ted's attempt to be relevant.

Let us seek change on the attributes and goodness of Hillary and Obama. Not on some mythical need to return to Camelot. I can support who ever wins the nomination...but the way some of the Obama people gossip about Hillary and talk about their undying support for Obama, I wonder if they can support Hillary if she is standard bearer?

Don't demean Hillary to the point that you lose objectivity and hope for the future. The point about all of us wanting change is to get away from the corruption and stench of the Bush years.

We want to get back to the days when we can restore democracy in America. We want our Constitution followed and honored. We want the crooks thrown out of office and held accountable for their crimes. We want habeas corpus restored. We want Democrats in the House and Senate to vote like Democrats not clones of the Grand Old Party.

We want Democrats in Congress to return our liberties, not just promises to do so like they did during the mid-term elections. You know you can't always blame Bush for all of the problems in our county when half of the Democrats are supporting Bush or his policies.

Look at the votes of our Democratic Representatives and Senators and yes, sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between Republicans and Democrats.

We want a leader who will challenge, encourage, or push Democrats if necessary to work for change. Is Obama the best person as President to do that? Or can Hillary do a better job because of her broad experience in government?

Democrats promised us they would end the war, instead they voted to continue to support Bush and his war policies.

We had a chance to push hard for immigration reform, except someone forgot to tell the Democrats they are not supposed to vote like Republicans.

Many of us support some kind of economic stimulus to kick start our economy and clearly we don't need a bunch of Democrats delaying the stimulus package in the Senate because they cannot agree amongst themselves what is the best policy.

The leader we want as President has to believe in change. But we also need a leader who can shake up the old guard Democrats in the Congress and if they refuse to budge, let them know that all hell will break out, and that our President will not put up with whiney Democrats. I suppose we can throw them out as well if we are as serious as we say about wanting change.

Progressive change is what we are working for. It is what we want to accomplish in the next election. Those old Democrats who are just stradling the fence on issues important to our communities better get ready to rock and roll, or maybe better said, lock and load.

Whoever gets elected president must be responsible to appoint a cabinet that reflects the true diversity of America. The cabinet must be "nicer" to immigrants and join the President to fight for comprehensive immigration reform. The cabinet must work along with the President to change our image around the world. The cabinet needs to help our nation continue to be a leader in the world. We are tired of being treated like second class citizens and fearful of the Department of Homeland Security which abuses our laws and citizens.

If you can't support Hillary if Obama were to lose the nomination, the question that remains to be answered is will you run away and sulk because your candidate didn't win? If we can't unite together, then I believe we are not sincere in our efforts to fight for change. Is your desire for change just centered around Obama, or something worth fighting for regardless of what Democratic candidate is nominated?

We have the greatest opportunity to elect a Democratic President if we work together regardless of who the candidate is from our Party. If we don't work togethr and unite around our candidate, then don't complain when the next Republican President is sworn in.

Forbidden Editorial: Supporting Immigration

A few days after the New Hampshire primary, I was reading through the reaction blogs and editorials trying to figure out what the results really meant.

Of course, some bloggers never change; they just change the name of the new state. After awhile you can almost figure out what perspective a newspaper or blogger are going to come up with.

I happened to catch an editorial a friend of mine sent me from the Colorado Springs Gazette. The title caught my eye immediately as I read, “Forbidden topic: How immigration could save us.”

I was surprised as I read the Gazette editorial. The editorial took the position that the voters were rewarding the candidates for ignoring the immigration issue. “And that’s too bad, because immigration may be the most important issue pertaining to our country’s economic plight.” Wow, was this the Gazette?

“Anti-immigrant tough talk has failed, once again, as it did in the 2006 election. The toughest of the tough-on-immigration candidates — Colorado’s Tom Tancredo — didn’t get to New Hampshire before his campaign fizzled. John McCain and Hillary Clinton, two of the weakest tough-on-immigration candidates, stole the show in New Hampshire, where immigration never became an issue.”

Now as most of you know, Colorado Springs is practically the home of every far right wing Evangelical organization. For one, Dobson’s strictly by the Bible, “Focus on the Family” is located here. This was the home base of National Evangelical Association leader Ted Haggard before he was booted out of his New Life Church after he allegedly had been caught paying for sex and drugs with a male prostitute.

Needless to say, the news about one of their own Evangelical right wing icons falling from grace was hard to take, and it left followers stunned.

So with this backdrop, the traditionalist Gazette had never wandered away from the strict values of its conservative base, much less taken a position that most Colorado Springs Evangelical leaders simply couldn’t do – support immigration.

The Gazette had just interviewed a prominent financial planner, James Lonny, author of “Surviving the Storm; Investment Strategies that Help You Maximize Profit and Control Risk during the Coming Economic Winter.”

Lonny says the coming economic winter is coming. He points to a weakened Wall Street, mortgage lenders on the brink of financial ruin, and the drop in value of the dollar against the euro or the yen among other warning signs.

The Gazette editorial went on to say. “Massive immigration, legal or not, is nothing other than a demand of our economy — a force powered by the wants and needs of some 300 million consumers who vote with their dollars every day.”

“Politicians such as Tancredo mistake the immigration influx as exploitation of America by a poorer class, believing that our country has tolerated the influx as a favor to Latin Americans. They fail to grasp the American economy as a self-serving, self-correcting entity so powerful and sophisticated that market forces of correction mimic gravity, or the suction of a vacuous void, regardless of political whim.”

The economy pulls immigrants in to give us a working class, and a base of consumers to help support the businesses and fill the homes that resulted from a large class of baby boomers, most of whom are moving past their most consumptive and productive years.”

The editorial stated that most Americans are confused about the immigration issue. Tancredo did his best to whip it up in an emotional message of fear and anxiety before his campaign went belly up. He was scaring the American voter with his one issue campaign.

The editorial ends with this poignant warning and plea for a better understanding of how immigrants are a positive economic force, by adding value to our economy, not simply taking advantage of the good life.

“Presidential candidates will probably continue ignoring the debate, viewed as a proven campaign failure. As a result, the country will continue with inane immigration laws that mischaracterize a legitimate reaction to economic demand as a dark and unlawful attack on our country.”

“Open, honest political dialogue about the causes and benefits of immigrant consumers and workers — and ways to curtail the liabilities associated with them — could be the first step in saving us from recession, or worse. Unfortunately, such conversations don’t conform to the emotional and expedient nature of presidential politics. Neither, however, does tough-guy anti-immigrant talk.”

And yes folks, it was the Colorado Springs Gazette that I had just finished reading.


http://www.gazette.com/opinion/immigration_31796___article.html/economy_americans.html

Who Will March Against Racism and Bigotry??

Dr. David Maldonado sent me a copy of an "open letter" from MARCHA urging the United Methodist Church "to challenge and oppose the current wave of anti-Latino demagoguery, treatment, and public ordinances intended to suppress a people." MARCHA - "Methodists Associated Representing the Cause of Hispanic Americans" is one of the very first Latino Church organizations to openly condemn the anti Latino wave of hate and racism.

For this fact alone, the letter represents a courageous stand by the Godly men and women of MARCHA and should serve as a model and challenge for other church organizations to stand up and voice their strong displeasure and condemnation against the racism and bigotry being hammered against Latinos by bigots and evil people.

Notice I said, "other church organizations" and not just "other Latino Church organizations." It is way past due for the Evangelical Church to at least take a stand on Biblical principles alone and condemn the racism and violence against Latinos in this nation.

The leadership of Dr. David Maldonado, Jr., and Elias Galvan, on behalf of MARCHA, represents a significant demonstration of courage and one that other spiritual leaders in the Evangelical Church should take. It is unGodly for good people to stand silently and refuse to condemn the climate of fear, hate, and intimidation facing immigrants and Latinos alike.

MARCHA's open letter against the wave of hate, fear, and suspicion will be perceived as an historic and courageous document in the Latino Church's battle against racism and bigotry in the 21st century.

When the extremist and racist message of hate and discrimination against Latinos is accepted by the public as a mainstream message, without any public embarrassment or concern, we must sound the alarm that as a country we are entering a new and dangerous phase in our democracy's history.

I call upon other church Movements to join with MARCHA in condemning the hateful climate and hostile actions which millions of Latino/as must endure everyday.

The dangerous political and social silence which we in the USA find ourselves today, is only allowing the voice of the extremists, whose message is filled with hate and fear, to be considered and given credence in the mainstream media as everyday language. The language of intimidation and hate must be condemned and called for what it is, nothing but evil bigotry and racism.

I pray that other Godly leaders across the country may feel the urgency and need to join with MARCHA in condemning the harsh treatment and racial profiling taking place aginst not only undocumented immigrants, but in many cases, American citizens whose only crime is being the color BROWN..

AN OPEN LETTER FROM MARCHA
(Methodists Associated Representing the Cause of Hispanic Americans)

TO ALL UNITED METHODISTS

Dear Sisters and Brothers,

We greet you in the name of our Savior, the Resurrected Christ.

We write to you on behalf of millions of Latinos and Latinas living in fear, threat, and intimidation due to the hostile climate generated by the political and social attitudes towards immigrants and Latinos in particular. Latinos face daily suspicion of their citizenship and rights as residents of our communities. They are subjected to racial profiling and suspicion as they seek employment, housing, or simply driving down the street. Latinos are forced to prove their citizenship and proved that they have a right to live in their communities like any other citizen or resident.

Communities and states across the country are enacting laws and practices that are having a severe impact on the daily lives of our families and neighbors. Children born in this country are increasingly treated as persons without rights. Latino families have to prove their citizenship in order to rent a house, to be employed, or enroll their children in school. These are harsh practices that are not applied to the general population. Because of our color, culture, and language Latinos are singled out for suspicion and unfair treatment. This is legalized racism.

Latino immigrants are receiving the harshest treatment in recent history in the long procession of ethnic immigration. The issue of undocumentation has released a flood of racial negativity, harsh treatment, and, more alarming, a marked increase of hate crimes against Hispanic/ Latino people. Undocumented immigrants are treated as criminals and public enemies. They are defined as a threat to our nation when, in fact, they simply come with an urgent desire to work in order for their families to survive. They are the vulnerable sojourners in our midst. Yet, for political benefit and other agendas, Latino immigrants are denied their humanity.

The United Methodist Church has a proud and faithful history of standing with those who are oppressed and subject to such racist practices and attitudes. MARCHA calls upon the United Methodist Church to challenge and oppose the current wave of anti-Latino demagoguery, treatment, and public ordinances intended to suppress a people. We invite you to stand with those who are subjected to such senseless and unjust treatment. The United Methodist Church needs to oppose city ordinances and state laws that are grounded on anti immigrant and anti Latino attitudes intended to frighten and intimidate Latinos and force them to live in fear or leave these communities.

During this Christmas season when we remember the Christ child born to parents journeying in a foreign land for the sake of their survival, we invite the United Methodist Church to join MARCHA in standing against the negative and anti- Latino forces and voices around us. Let us be truly the United Methodist Church.

Elias Galvan David Maldonado, Jr.
Executive Director President




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Immigration Debate does Cause Heartburn

Here is a very significant report from the Pew Hispanic Center. It highlights some new impressions and feelings of Hispanics as the immigration debate continues on the path of hate and fear. The report also dispels some urban myths about Hispanic perspectives regarding immigration. Here is quick summary of the report:

• This report puts into perspective the feelings Hispanics have about raids & deportations.
  
• The national survey also explores how the issue of immigration has affected Latinos from a personal stand point, and how the heightened attention to immigration issues has had a specific negative effect on them personally. "These effects include more difficulty finding work or housing; less likelihood of using government services or traveling abroad; and more likelihood of being asked to produce documents to prove their immigration status."
  
• While generally the report says the current immigration debate has made life much more difficult, Latinos are upbeat about the long-term prospects for Latino children, expecting them to have better jobs and more money in the future.

Interestingly enough, it should not come as a great surprise to some, but the report verifies the fact and feeling that many of us have regarding raids, deportations, local and state legislation, and current Homeland Security policy.

• "Federal, state and local governments have pressed forward with hundreds of new enforcement bills, regulations and procedures--including stepped up deportations, more workplace raids, and restrictions on access to driver's licenses and other government services and benefits."
  
• "They oppose--often by lopsided margins--many of the new enforcement measures being pursued by federal and state authorities. Three quarters (75%) disapprove of workplace raids; some 79% prefer that local police not take an active role in identifying illegal immigrants; and some 55% disapprove of states checking for immigration status before issuing driver's licenses.
• By contrast, non-Hispanics are much more supportive of all these policies, with a slight majority favoring workplace raids and a heavy majority favoring driver's license checks. "

Another urban myth that the Pew Hispanic Center reports clears up is the fact that "Hispanics generally see illegal immigrants as a plus – both for the Latino community itself and for the U.S. economy in general.

Here, too, there are differences by nativity – with the foreign born significantly more positive than the native born in their views about the effects of illegal immigration. But even the native born are more positive than negative. And, as they assess the impact of illegal immigrants on the economy, native-born Latinos are more inclined to see a positive impact now (64%) than they were five years ago, when just 54% said the impact was positive."

I believe it is urgent that our elected leaders and the faith based leadership continue to work for comprehensive immigrant reform. The piece meal approach is so much more enforcement oriented and it seems that immigration proponents are giving up much more in terms of compromise than we are receiving in laws and legislation that are just and reform oriented.

The Pew Hispanic Center report is clear.....life under the current hate and fear filled immigration debate is being felt in a negative manner by Hispanics regardless of their legal or unauthorized status.

The report is available at the Pew Hispanic Center's website, www.pewhispanic.org.

Who Does the SAVE Act really SAVE???

Some misguided politicians think the SAVE Act (HR 4088) is the answer to our lack of immigration reform. The proponents are even calling the SAVE Act as “the end to the illegal immigration problem in the USA.” Actually it is the worst legislation being proposed since HR 4437 – “the Sensenbrenner bill.”

In light of some serious questions regarding the E-verify system and problems associated with the databases that have been raised in the debate, but the darlings of SAVE refuse to acknowledge those problems or even propose solutions to the concerns raised.

The Immigration Policy Center issued an analysis of the proposed legislation and basically condemned the E-verify database as unreliable. "The Social Security Administration (SSA) estimates that 17.8 million of it records contain errors related to name, date of birth, or citizenship status, and 12.7 million of those records relate to U. S. citizens."

While proponents love to use the term "that only a full 2% of citizens" would be affected, they refuse to acknowledge that the 2% figure represents millions of workers. That is only one issue which denies the magnitude of the problem.

Also, I think it is important to point out, the SAVE Act contains no assurances whatsoever that the current government databases will be accurate and updated.

The bill offers no privacy protections for the millions of files of personal information that will be handled by employers who are skeptical of the system anyway.

More importantly, the SAVE Act offers no recourse for workers who will be declared illegible and wrongfully denied employment.

Also, If the SAVE Act were in place now, "the errors in the SSA database alone could result in 2.5 million people a year being misidentified as unauthorized for employment. Workers, including U. S. citizens, will get caught in this faulty system and lose their jobs."

Another critical point which proponents refuse to accept is that all Department of Homeland Security databases are just as unreliable and filled with high error rates.

I think the fact that federal databases are totally unreliable highlights the problem and points to the prospect of millions of people losing jobs, and then facing a federal bureaucracy that we know does not care about people or their problems.

We have all experienced the bureaucracy of the motor vehicle departments and know from personal experience how policies and procedures do not always reflect reality.

Imagine having to contest your lost employment with SSA, DHS, and the E-verify system....and with employers who do not have the time to appeal wrongful employment termination of their employees. They will simply go out and hire new employees.....and no doubt, racial profiling will play a role in this whole process.

I would hate to think that we have to accept the E-verify system because as one staff member in a USA Representative’s office told me, “it is the best thing we have right now."

Most would be willing to accept the system if it were credible and error free. When dealing with families and workers, it is imperative that this system be free from errors and wrong information.

We have already seen the results of heads of families being arrested in ICE raids....leaving families with no financial support. Separated families - a national disgrace and legacy of the Bush Administration.

I am concerned that 112 Congresspeople thus far who have agreed to co sponsor the SAVE Act, when the facts show it does not address unreliable database issues that are filled with errors and will only lead to more misery for not just "unauthorized workers", but for U. S. citizens.

I would encourage you to investigate the magnitude of the problems associated with the SAVE Act and write your elected Representatives and ask them to vote no or to remove their name as a co-sponsor.

Particularly in light of the fact that a Federal judge ruled against the SSA and their no match letters. The judge ruled the system could not be trusted because of its unreliability.

While the SAVE Act says the system has four years to correct the problems, what kind of misery is the system going to spread among American and undocumented workers whose information may be recorded erroneously during those four years?

This prompts the real question....why are we presently using an identity and employment verification system that does not work properly? Why hasn't it been fixed by now?

What happens to those workers whose only "crime" is information that was incorrectly entered into the databases? We all know that anytime a human being is entering the information into a data record, there is always the danger of mistakes....even as minor as the wrong month of your birthday, or wrong address.

If at all possible.....even for political reasons if they can’t come to the realization that for moral reasons they should not support HR 4088, please ask your elected representatives to withdraw their names as co sponsors of this bill until database credibility issues can be verified, that the SAVE Act clearly outlines a process to appeal employment decisions, and questions answered as to how a 800 mile security fence protects a 2000 mile border?

WE all want a secure border, but I am at a loss to explain to my 5th grade grandson how 800 equals 2000. And that is not even counting the northern border - where the real problems related to terrorism has been proven to be the border we should be more concerned about.

Environmental questions regarding wildlife, migration of animals, plant life, historic areas, and water rights issues have not been resolved and pushed aside, yet we continue to push for a "secure border wall" without regard to the real environmental issues.

Let me make it clear, I want secure borders, but not secured by racial profiling, discrimination, lack of adequate Border Patrol officer training, and lack of respect toward fellow human beings.

As the former manager of safety for the City and County of Denver, I understand the need to ensure every officer is trained properly.

There must also be assurances in the SAVE Act that the hiring of the LARGE number of Border Patrol officers proposed means we are hiring the best available and that the training is not rushed and that it be the very best we can offer law enforcement officers.

In addition to our brothers and sisters not being illegal, equally as important, they are not animals to be penned up and treated with disrespect.

Stop HR 4088 now while we can. It is not the end of illegal immigration, it is merely the continuation of the hate and fear climate perpetuated by Tom Tancredo.

So Does Giuliani Know the Law?

It seems it is too easy for Christians to forget that we are instructed in the Holy Bible to care for the alien living with us in our land. There seems to be a lot of fear about breaking the law among some spiritual leaders who hesitate to open the doors to their churches to the immigrant who only seek justice and not deportation.

Imagine if they will not open the doors to their church, how can even expect these Christians to open their hearts and extend charity and love to "the stranger who lives with us in our land??"

This apprehension seems opposed to Biblical teaching holding the Church responsible for caring for the unauthorized immigrant. We hear from these followers of Christ that we must support our governing authorities and not associate with these law breakers. And how they love to quote Romans 13. On the other hand, does showing charity and love to the undocumented immigrant really break the law?"

In the first place, let us make it clear it is not a federal crime to cross the border without the proper papers. If it were a crime, the Congress wouldn't have tried to make it one in the last session of Congress with HR 4437.

It is a civil violation - much like running a red light or stop sign. Running a stop sign does not make a person an "illegal driver," or criminal. Yet that is exactly what we are doing when we claim that immigrants crossing the border without the proper documents are criminals. How often have we heard...."what part of illegal don't you understand?" All from people who apparently don't understand what illegal means.

What is interesting and factual about undocumented immigrants living in the USA, is that most arrived with proper visas and have merely overstayed their visa. So contrary to public opinion or perspection, there are not hordes of people crossing the border illegally. They are crossing the border with ICE approval and proper papers in hand.

I found an interview on the issue of immigration that Gleen Beck did with Rudy Giuliani...former U.S. Attorney in New York City....former mayor of New York City....and now presidential candidate.

Here is the transcript of the interview Beck did with Giuliani on the issue of whether illegal immigration is a crime. It is one of the better explanations on the issue that many Americans do not understand.

So before we start making Pastor Coleman of the Methodist Church in Chicago a criminal for providing sanctuary to a mother and her son, maybe we should make an effort to understand more about what Giuliani is trying to explain about the law.

GLENN: "Right. But isn't illegal immigration a crime in and of itself?

GIULIANI: No. GLENN: Aren't you saying --

GIULIANI: Glenn -- GLENN: You're protecting criminals by saying that being treated as a criminal is unfair.

GIULIANI: Glenn, it's not a crime. I know that's very hard for people to understand, but it's not a federal crime.

GLENN: It's a misdemeanor but if you've been nailed, it is a crime. If you've been nailed, ship back and come back, it is a crime.

GIULIANI: Glenn, being an illegal immigrant, the 400,000 were not prosecuted for crimes by the federal government, nor could they be. I was U.S. attorney in the southern district of New York. So believe me, I know this. In fact, when you throw an immigrant out of the country, it's not a criminal proceeding. It's a civil proceeding.

GLENN: Is it --

GIULIANI: One of the things that congress wanted to do a year ago is to make it a crime, which indicates that it isn't.

GLENN: Should it be?

GIULIANI: Should it be? No, it shouldn't be because the government wouldn't be able to prosecute it. We couldn't prosecute 12 million people. We have only 2 million people in jail right now for all the crimes that are committed in the country, 2.5 million. If you were to make it a crime, you would have to take the resources of the criminal justice system and increase it by about 6. In other words, you'd have to take all the 800,000 police, and who knows how many police we would have to have.

GLENN: So what's your solution?

GIULIANI: My solution is close the border to illegal immigration.

GLENN: How do you do that?

GIULIANI: You do that by building a fence, a physical fence and a technological fence, and the technological fence is more important than the physical fence. The technological fence would alert you to illegals approaching the border well in advance so the border patrol can get there and stop them. You deploy the border patrol every 50 miles along the border. I've already outlined this on a map. I did this in detail about two weeks ago. And then you have the border patrol stop people from coming in, literally stop them from coming in. If you did that for a year or two, you would end it. You also have a tamperproof ID card that every person from a foreign country should have that comes into the United States. The goal has to be, yes, you're allowed to come to the United States but you have to identify yourself before we let you in, and we have to be sure you're a safe person. And then if you come in, you'll be in the computer base, you'll be able to work, you will have to pay your fair share, you'll have to pay taxes but we have to end it right at the border by having the resources to stop people from just walking into this country and not identifying themselves. Only the federal government can do this. If the federal government doesn't do this, there is no way that the local governments in this country can handle it other than in a practical way. If you make people that are just going to be here for the next 20 years, if you put them in a situation of danger and risk, you're going to have more crime in your communities."

So before we keep calling someone "illegal," maybe we should look within our own hearts and speedometer. If only we could help Christians understand they don't have a choice about loving the stranger living in our land....and if they refuse, just maybe we might have to refer to them as "illegal Christians." Afterall, "what part of illegal don't they understand??"

And now the food we eat is going to cost more

This is for all of those who send emails to all of their anti immigrant and hate mongering friends....tell them to get ready to get their big fat wallets out to pay more for food and milk.

Even the farmers and ranchers are now complaining....about the need for undocumented workers....so they can keep their prices DOWN. They now want "their immigrants" to do the work for them.


Who would have thought America would be brought to her knees by hate, racism, and emotionalism of fear and chaos.

It is happening....thanks to all of the people who seem so high and morally right.

Tell them to continue sending in petitions, emails, faxes, and phone calls....and tell their Congress people to get these "illegals out of our country....like most did when the legislation in Congress was being considered....." Ask them to do it for their hate fix.

Now with high gasoline prices hitting everyone in the checkbook....add food and milk products....and may we all have a happy day! We are going to pay for it.

Oh by the way, we better get all those lazy Americans who said they wanted to work out of bed....because there is going to be plenty of it around.

Let's send this around the world and make sure everyone knows....just add it to your friend's email lists that they use to send anti immigrant emails. The more who know, the better.

And continue to live your life in denial.



Fresno Bee

Ag industry blasts crackdown
'Disaster' predicted from rules targeting illegal workers.
By Bethany Clough / The Fresno Bee
08/14/07 05:35:26

Thousands of dead milk cows and crops rotting in the fields could be the result of new U.S. Department of Homeland Security rules, farmers said Monday.

More than 70 farmers, labor contractors and food processors angrily detailed what could happen under new rules announced Friday that crack down on employers who hire illegal workers.

An estimated 70% of workers in the state's $32 billion agriculture industry are in the country illegally.

"It's going to be disaster," said Ralph Pistoresi, who farms more than 5,000 acres of grapes, olives and pistachios from Merced to Kern counties. "If there's no one to do the work, it's not going to get done."

Starting next month, the federal government will send letters to employers whose workers submit Social Security numbers that don't match their names. If employers don't prove the worker is legal within the allotted time -- 90 days -- they must fire the employee.

Employers can be fined up to $10,000 per worker.

The construction, janitorial, landscaping, hotel and restaurant industries also are expected to be affected.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said they were forced to enact such penalties after Congress did not pass an immigration-reform bill.

"We had hoped that immigration reform on a comprehensive basis would give us a much wider set of tools; we don't have that," Chertoff said during a news conference last week. "But until the laws change, we are enforcing the laws as they are to the utmost of our ability, using every tool that we have in the toolbox."

But Monday afternoon, farmers gathered at the Fresno County Farm Bureau office in Fresno and vented about the worst-case scenarios of firing a large percentage of their workers. Among the effects mentioned:

Fruits and vegetables will go unpicked.

Thousands of dairy cows will die.

Legal workers in packinghouses will be laid off because packinghouses close down due to lack of product to process.

Foreign competitors' products will take over American grocery shelves and hurt American farmers as buyers look for other sources of produce.

Other businesses across the central San Joaquin Valley will suffer as out-of-work farmworkers stop spending money.

Manuel Cunha Jr., president of Nisei Farmers League, encouraged farmers to flood their federal, state and local representatives with phone calls, faxes and e-mails. He called for farmers to support a failed Senate immigration bill, which included a way for illegal immigrants to become citizens.

"You flat out tell them you want Ag Jobs done now," he said. The bill was defeated, with opponents saying it would reward lawbreakers.

Representatives from the offices of Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., also attended the meeting and encouraged farmers to contact their elected representatives.

Barry Bedwell, president of the California Grape & Tree Fruit League, said farmers don't want to be on the wrong side of the law.

"We've always wanted a legal work force but haven't had the tools to do that," he said.