Why Somos (We Are) Republicans Aren’t

An acquaintance of mine sent me a link to an article titled “Somos Republicans” will not be endorsing Gabriela Mercer in which Somos Republicans expressed that they would not support Gabriela Mercer in a race against Raul Grijalva.  I have read about Ms. Mercer’s announcement to run in Arizona’s 7^th Congressional District, but I was curious as to why “Somos Republicans” won’t endorse her candidacy.  I didn’t understand why any Republican organization would immediately rule out an endorsement without even waiting to see how many candidates there are and which one best aligns with its values.  I didn’t know much about “Somos Republicans” so I went to their website and started to analyze it.  The more I dug in the more I believe that this group should not be called “Somos Republicans” (We are Republicans) rather “Apenas Republicans” (Barely Republicans).   How did I come to this conclusion? Well… 

First let’s discuss Somos Republicans’ Principles.  Let me just say that I also believe in the Right to Life; free market capitalism, low taxes, small government, the Second Amendment, and traditional marriage.  It isn’t until you get to the last “principle” that you begin to understand Somos Republicans’ real raise d’être; Amnesty!  Below is the final principle for “Somos Republicans”:
Humane Viable Immigration Solution. Tough immigration is not a conservative “value” but rather an issue.  This issue needs to be dealt with in a manner that directly affects the well-being of our community. We believe this issue has been largely ignored, and it has placed Republicans and our community in a predicament which is inconsistent with the economic realities of our Free Market Capitalism, labor demands, and humanitarian tradition. Therefore, it is imperative that we promote a viable solution to this dilemma that is in concert with our economic demands. Such humane and viable solutions ought to resonate with ideals of President Reagan, Bush, and Conservative Think Tanks–such as the Goldwater Institute, the Hoover Institution, and CATO–that, too, have argued that a solution to this predicament is long overdue.

I tried to ignore the incoherence of the statement and try to dissect what “Somos Republicans” is trying to say.  But this is tough, because as far as I am aware, Immigration is solved.  A person that wants to immigrate into the United States goes to their local consulate or embassy, gets in line and submits an application for entry into the United States, they wait for a visa and when they get it they are free to enter the country and proceed to apply to become a permanent resident and ultimately a US citizen.   I believe what they probably wanted to address in the “principle” is “a humane and viable solution to the illegal immigration issues facing our nation.”  So why don’t they say that?
“Somos Republicans” then states that “tough immigration” is not a “conservative ‘value’” but an issue; “tough immigration” isn’t an issue either, it is an adjectival phrase absent a noun to modify, but I digress.  I assume they are talking about tough immigration policy or laws or legislation or proposals.  Anyway, it isn’t tough immigration they are talking about; it’s really “tough anti-illegal immigration policy” that they are addressing.  And again “Somos Republicans” fails to use the word illegal.   Their “principle” then goes into some rambling about putting “our community” into a predicament. 

The bottom line is: There is nothing inconsistent with people wanting the law to be adhered to and enforced.  The fact that “Somos Republicans” addresses labor demands and economic demands in the statement proves the shortsightedness of the group; with the national unemployment rate over 9% there is no “labor demand.”  I know, I know, illegal immigrants do jobs that Americans won’t do, but if that was the case before it sure isn’t now.  “Somos Republicans” also talks a lot about being “humane,” and a “humanitarian tradition.”  Has anyone at “Somos Republicans” done some research on the Chinese when they came over to build the railroads or the Irish or the Italians to compare the “humane” treatment they received?  The only tradition that I know of is one of working.  People worked and they either found some measure of success or they didn’t.   And the most important part is that the great majority of immigrants prior to the 1960’s all came to the United States legally.  Illegal immigration as a policy issue is a rather recent phenomena.
Finally “Somos Republicans” throws around names like Presidents Reagan and Bush, sprinkle in the Cato and Goldwater Institutes, and the Hoover Institution and Presto! “Somos Republicans” has established its bona fides as a Republican entity. 

But let’s get back to why “Somos Republicans” won’t endorse Gabriela Mercer.  Well they NEVER TELL YOU!!  They mention Ms. Mercer twice in the article; once in the Headline and once in the first sentence when they mention that the Republican Party needs to find a better candidate.  This is a bloggers version of a drive-by shooting.  
“Somos Republicans” leaves the reader contemplating Ms. Mercer’s candidacy while they continue on with statistics from a Pew Hispanic Center survey trying to convince the Arizona Republican Party, and anyone else unfortunate enough to be reading the article, that 80% of Hispanics are against “SB1070 type of laws”.  (An assertion that is specious at best and dishonest at worst.) And, that no one should support any candidate that favors SB1070.

There is only one problem.  The Pew study that “Somos Republicans” diligently cites over and over again was conducted in 2008.  As a refresher, SB1070 was passed and signed by Governor Brewer in 2010.  So whatever questions were asked by the Pew Hispanic Center, they were not in regards to SB1070. 

In addition to this small, seemingly insignificant fact; is the fact that in the same Pew Study, only 44% of the over 2000 people that were interviewed, were US citizens and registered to vote. 
“Somos Republicans” then let’s their target audience, the Arizona Republican Party, know that any Hispanic who supports SB1070 is a “token” “yes-man” and that these Hispanics don’t know how Latinos really feel.  This is the tired old meme taken right out of the leftist book of tactics and is nothing more than an attempt to marginalize and silence anyone who disagrees with “Somos Republicans” view on illegal immigration: if you can convince everyone that pro-SB1070 Hispanics are “tokens” then they aren’t worth listening too because they are a super small minority. To discredit the people who disagree with you by calling them names is something worthy of a 4^th grade playground; How truly juvenile. 

Then… the coup de grâce!!  “Somos Republicans” tells the Republican Party that it must “prove to the increasing number of Hispanic voters that all Republicans are not a bunch of bigots who want to empty a clip on “illegals.” So, the burden of proof is on Republicans to prove they are NOT a bunch of bigots.  This can be accomplished by denouncing those that “Somos Republicans” says should be denounced. (For the Record: I do believe that Virgil Peck should be held to account for what he said.)  And then mention Russell Pearce, J.D. Hayworth, Tom Tancredo, and Steve King, so no one gets confused about who “Somos Republicans” considers extremists.  And finally…. the digestif to wash the whole thing down, “Somos Republicans” reminds everyone that they are Ronald Reagan Republicans and want to restore the Party of Abe Lincoln. 

First, to the Republican Party:  Be aware of what this group stands for: AMNESTY! If you are pro amnesty then you have found the right Latino group for you. If you chose to affiliate yourself with “Somos Republicans” be aware that you are taking the side of illegal aliens over law abiding immigrants and citizens (Somos is anti-SB1070 and Pro-Sanctuary City), you are taking the side of illegal students from foreign countries over US Citizens from out of state (Somos is Pro-DREAM Act), and you will be affiliated with the pro-amnesty movement. I am a Hispanic that believes in the rule of law and supports efforts such as Arizona SB1070 to control the illegal immigration crisis in the United States. I am one of the tokens of whom “Somos Republicans” speaks, but I am not alone. Ignore me at your peril. 

To Gabriela Saucedo Mercer:  I do not know you personally but, as they say; you can tell a lot about a person by who his/her “enemies” are.  And if Somos Republicans is your “enemy” then I support you in your efforts to unseat Raul Grijalva in Arizona Congressional District 7 as should every republican in the state.

The Nightmare that is the Dream Act

**This blog entry was written previously and is being reposted here.  I will post all of my previous articles here as a method to consolidate all articles in one location**
Keep this article in mind when you hear this Act is again before Congress for passage. RRB

The DREAM Act is a complete and utter disaster. The DREAM Act as it is currently proposed is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to pass amnesty to a vast number of illegal aliens.  This act does nothing to solve the current illegal alien crisis and should be opposed by all Americans who believe in the rule of law.  I went online and read the proposed act to see what all the hubbub is about.  First of all let me just say that I am not a lawyer, but fortunately you don’t need to be to understand what the DREAM Act is trying to do nor how it is trying to do it.  The surprise here is how overt liberals have become in telling the American public exactly what they plan.  The only catch is that the American public has to read the act and engage as necessary.  I am not writing this as an opinion commentary, this is a column to inform you of what is in the act.  If you don’t agree you need to get off you duff and start calling your senator and congressman.  You have no idea what this act allows for and the politicians advocating its passage don’t want you to know, because if you knew there would be a national uprising of indignation and disgust.  Here’s hoping for a little of that.

Before we get too far, there are parts of this act that might require a lawyer but I will only address those portions which I both think are egregious and are straightforward. There is no way that a congressman should be able to argue that he/she didn’t understand the language or that he/she wasn’t aware of the consequences, etc…   I have excerpted the part of the bill in question so you can see the language yourself.  So here we go!!!

SEC. 3. RESTORATION OF STATE OPTION TO DETERMINE RESIDENCY FOR PURPOSES OF HIGHER EDUCATION BENEFITS.

(a)   In General- Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1623) is repealed.
The federal law mentioned above prohibits illegal aliens from getting instate tuition. I would like to take the time to point out the irony that any state that allows illegal immigrants to get instate tuition is violating federal law, this would be the perfect example of Preemption, unfortunately the federal government won’t stop this practice.

SEC. 4. CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF CERTAIN LONG-TERM RESIDENTS WHO ENTERED THE UNITED STATES AS CHILDREN.

(a) Special Rule for Certain Long-Term Residents Who Entered the United States as Children
(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law and except as otherwise provided in this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security may cancel removal of, and adjust to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, subject to the conditional basis described in section 5, an alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United States, if the alien demonstrates that–
(A) the alien has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding the date of enactment of this Act, and had not yet reached the age of 16 years at the time of initial entry;
This act would allow anyone who is 5 years plus one day who was brought into this country as a newborn to be eligible.  Later in the act it stipulates that the “alien” can be not older than 35 years old to apply.  Has anyone thought about how many people we are talking about?  And once all these people are rewarded with citizenship they can proceed to legalize all of their relatives.
(B) the alien has been a person of good moral character since the time of application;
This essentially forgives anything the alien has done up to the point of application.  So, technically an alien could apply and there would be no consideration of any previous criminality, this might also include DUI, and any other previous arrests and/or convictions.
(2)   WAIVER- Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Secretary of Homeland Security may waive the ground of ineligibility under section 212(a)(6)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the ground of deportability under paragraph (1)(E) of section 237(a) of that Act for humanitarian purposes or family unity or when it is otherwise in the public interest.
DHS can waiver anyone and stop them from being deported.  Under the guise of family unity that would essentially include every single illegal “alien” that applies for the program. But in case that isn’t enough DHS can waive deportation if they can find some public interest as determined by DHS.
(d) Exemption From Numerical Limitations- Nothing in this section may be construed to apply a numerical limitation on the number of aliens who may be eligible for cancellation of removal or adjustment of status under this section.
There is no limit to how many people can qualify under this act.  If there are 13 million, so be it. People will wait for years to get approved and, as you will see later; once they apply they cannot be deported if they have pending application.
(f) Removal of Alien- The Secretary of Homeland Security may not remove any alien who has a pending application for conditional status under this Act.
ONCE AN ILLEGAL ALIEN APPLIES HE/SHE CANNOT BE DEPORTED!!!!

SEC. 5. CONDITIONAL PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS.

(2) HARDSHIP EXCEPTION-
(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of Homeland Security may, in the Secretary’s discretion, remove the conditional status of an alien if the alien–
(i) satisfies the requirements of subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (1);
(ii) demonstrates compelling circumstances for the inability to complete the requirements described in paragraph (1)(D); and
(iii) demonstrates that the alien’s removal from the United States would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien or the alien’s spouse, parent, or child who is a citizen or a lawful permanent resident of the United States.
The DHS can determine a hardship and remove the conditional status of the alien, without the alien having either completed a degree or serving in the armed forces.  Notice that the hardship can affect anyone in his immediate family who is a US citizen.  This paragraph will essentially allow anyone who entered illegally as a child and subsequently had children to stay in the US.

SEC. 7. EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.

(c) Employment- An alien whose removal is stayed pursuant to subsection (b) may be engaged in employment in the United States consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) and State and local laws governing minimum age for employment.
Once the alien applies he/she is legally allowed to work. Fancy that! Who needs a guest worker program when all you have to do is go to school or join the army?

SEC. 9. CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.

(b)    Penalty- Whoever knowingly uses, publishes, or permits information to be examined in violation of this section shall be fined not more than $10,000.
I’m not completely sure but I think this is a clause that will prohibit the oversight of this program by anyone outside of DHS and the DOJ.  That means there is no way to see what is happening behind the scenes. Who is getting a waiver, who is a hardship, how many are in the program, how many actually completed the requirements.  It is unconscionable that the federal government would legislate that a federal program cannot be audited or examined.

SEC. 11. HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE.

Notwithstanding any provision of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), with respect to assistance provided under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), an alien who adjusts status to that of a lawful permanent resident under this Act shall be eligible only for the following assistance under such title:
(1) Student loans under parts B, D, and E of such title IV (20 U.S.C. 1071 et seq., 1087a et seq., 1087aa et seq.), subject to the requirements of such parts.


(2) Federal work-study programs under part C of such title IV (42 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.), subject to the requirements of such part.

(3) Services under such title IV (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), subject to the requirements for such services.
The American Tax Payer will foot the bill for the education of all these Illegal aliens getting an education. YOU have to pay for it. You have to subsidize the failure of other governments to offer economic opportunity to their citizens.
There is more in this very short proposition, I recommend everyone read it. Then ask yourself what the hell is going on in this country when not only are we rewarding illegal aliens with the opportunity for an education but we may in fact end up paying for it.  Meanwhile law-abiding immigrants are essentially punished for following the law and trying to do things the right way.
Call your Senator.

ANCHOR BABIES AND THE ATTEMPT TO SILENCE CRITICS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

This is a response to an opinion piece in the Arizona Republic by James Garcia.

“Anchor babies” are identified as such because their parents are illegally in the country.  And, these parents are fully aware that once the child is born he/she/they are immediately eligible for government handouts, among these are WIC subsidies, Food Stamps, housing assistance and welfare.  This term is used to quickly refer to the situation of these children while economizing words. This method of creating terms for people is quite common in society.  I don’t recall anyone ever objecting to the term “crack babies”; a term used to describe children who are born to mothers that are addicted to crack cocaine.  Is this a form of racial slur?  Is this a detestable label?  How about “welfare mother” or “soccer mom” or DINK (dual income no kids), or Yuppie (young upwardly mobile), or X-genner, Y-genner?  And what about the use of the term “Tea bagger,” is this also a detestable label?  This term is also meant “to punish, degrade and dehumanize.”  Has Mr. Garcia ever called for the end to its use? 

This indignation is nothing more than an attempt to marginalize and silence anyone who disagrees with his view on illegal immigration: if you use the term you are racist and therefore your ideas are not worth listening to.  

Mr. Garcia takes offense because his parents are Mexican; from what he indicates his parents arrived and spent their time in the US legally.  Kudos to them!  This does not, however, change the dynamics of the phenomenon we know today as anchor babies.   The United States is financially broke and indebted up to its ears; unfettered immigration is steadily increasing that debt as more and more illegal immigrants come across the border with the sole intention of giving birth to their children in the United States in an effort to abuse the system and to take advantage of the American taxpayer. 

Mr. Garcia then claims that birth-right citizenship is a constitutional right, when, in fact, Rule of Naturalization is a power given to the Legislative branch under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution: “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;”  This would make it statutory, not Constitutional.  I’m sure that Mr. Garcia would then point to the 14^th Amendment as his Constitutional proof, but even Senator Howard, who wrote the 14^th Amendment explicitly stated that it was not intended to apply to aliens: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers”…   Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, elaborated: "What do we mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States? Not owing allegiance to anyone else. That is what it means ... It cannot be said of any (one) who owes allegiance ... to some other government that he is 'subject' to the jurisdiction of the United States."  re foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministries."

If Mr. Garcia wants to stop these slurs he should support efforts to eliminate the situation which creates this category of people.  If illegal immigration is the root cause of what society calls “anchor babies” then the logical solution is to eliminate, as much as possible, illegal immigration.  But this is not part of Mr. Garcia’s agenda; he merely wants to squelch people’s right to express their opposition to illegal immigration by feigning indignation instead of talking about a real solution to the illegal immigration problem in the United States.