Wednesday, September 28, 2011

The "Diversity Immigrant Visa Program:" Compromising American Exceptionalism

To truly understand the mismanagement of immigration control, we must put a magnifying glass on the current process.

Most Americans are unaware of the Immigration lottery. Even fewer understand how it works. In condensed fashion, here it is: The United States government admits 50,000 immigrants per year via a lottery. In essence, these fortunates put their names in the state department's hat and receive a green card when their names are drawn.

No attempt is made to judge qualification. It seems that the only real qualification is "diversity." These "new Americans" could be illiterate. They could be coming from terrorist countries. Doesn't matter. As long as they are "diverse," it's okay.

Let's put it into a different perspective. What if a corporation hired people without reading their resumes? How about a professional baseball team that selected it's players from the telephone book? Or, a university that chose it's students from drawing names from fishbowls at local high schools?

Most Americans would ask, "are we stupid?"

I think we are! It almost lends credence to the belief that some unseen power is attempting to destroy America at the roots by allowing anybody and everybody into our country. Diversity, which is rapidly becoming the politically correct term for "an excuse to encourage and facilitate a lower standard," is always the lone justification.

The "Diversity Immigrant Visa Program" is not open to residents of countries that already send thousands of immigrants each year through other categories of admission. Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians and Poles, to name a few, aren't eligible. Non-excluded countries are issued visas on how many from that country have already been accepted. The fewer a country may send, the more diversity visas it receives.

What do these "diversity" applicants need to have on their resume? A high school diploma OR two years working at a job that requires two years of training to hold. That's it!

The question becomes, "how can we correct this ill conceived practice?"

The immigration proposal outlined in "E" is for English introduces a points system that insures that America gets the most qualified immigrants. It works like this:

+-If you are under 30, you will receive 1 point.
+-If you are under 30 and have a college degree, you will receive a bonus point.
+- A high school diploma earns one point.
+- An undergraduate degree earns two point.
+- An advanced degree earns an additional point.
+- A medical degree earns three additional points.
+- The ability to pass a 4th grade English proficiency test earns a half point.
+- The ability to pass a high school English proficiency test earns two points.
+- A nursing degree gains an additional half point as does an engineering degree.
+- A trade is worth an additional half point.
+- If your departing country has NATO membership, you will receive an additional point.
+ Any receiver of a PHD at an American college or university would automatically receive a green card.

What about family ties in the United States. Under the current system, parents and children are given a higher priority than siblings. This would change. Under the "E" plan, children would receive three points,siblings would receive two points and parents one point.

So, if 27-year-old,Joseph Molinski of Kracow, Poland, an engineer capable of passing a high school English proficiency test seeks to join his brother in Skokie, Illinois, his qualification points would tally in this manner:

+-1 point because he was under 30
+-1 point because he had a high school diploma
+-2 points because he had a undergraduate degree
+-1 bonus point because he was both under 30 and held an college degree
+- 1/2 point because his degree was in engineering
+- 2 points because he was capable of passing a high school English proficiency test
+- 2 points because he had a sibling already residing in the United States.
+- 1 point because Poland is a member of N.A.T.O.

The United States would determine how many visas would be issued. The sole determinant would be cumulative points. There would be no quota or limit placed on any country.

Joseph's point total would be 10.5. If he was in the top percentile of applicants, he would be allowed to immigrate. It would not matter how many or how few fellow applicants came from Poland. Our goal would be simple: We want "the best of the best." Diversity would be irrelevent.

The idea behind the plan is very simple. We want younger, better educated immigrants more capable of immediate assimulation. The "E" plan would insure it. It would also be a major step toward perserving Social Security. People are livng longer than when the plan was conceived. That's good. But, it translates to more people receiving the entitlement. Our population is aging. We need younger, better educated and more qualified people to enter our work force.

Predicably, opponents of the plan would describe it as "racist." Their contention would be, "if you give preference to English speakers, you will be favoring certain countries?" And what about giving weight to applicants departing from NATO countries? After all, most of those countries are in Europe!

78% of immigrants arriving on diversity visas last year were born in Africa or Asia. Only 19% entered from Europe. The top ten sending countries were(in order) Ethiopia, Egypt, Uzbekistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Kenya, Ghana, Ukraine, Morocco, and Nepal. Germany which has traditionally sent large numbers of immigrants to the U.S. ranked 16.

The greatest concern, even more than accepting less qualified applicants, is security. This past July a House Judiciary Committee approved a bill that would abolish the diversity lottery. Their reasoning was based on heightened security risks. There was also evidence of "pervasive fraud" in applications to the program including the use of fake birth certificates and passports to support multiple entries for a single person.

The immigration points system as outlined in "E" is for English has been referred to as the "most fair, practical and comprehensive" plan yet to be conceived. It simply guarantees a better educated, more qualified immigrant. Better yet, it arrests the aging of America. This may be the most fundamental point in saving Social Security.

The "E" plan defintely needs to be part of immigration reform discussion; politically correct or not.

Friday, September 23, 2011

Perry's Immigration positions: "How they must be interpreted."

Many conservatives are confused with Texas Governor, Rick Perry's immigration position. With the recent debate tone it's easy to understand why!

Texas waived out-of-state tuition for children of illegal aliens. As Mitt Romney correctly underscored, it amounted to about $22,000 per year in savings for these students. "Why would Governor Perry defend such an action?"

Some have suggested that Governor Perry may be "soft" on illegal immigration. If he were not, why would he oppose the building of fences along Texas' 1200 mile border?

Interestly enough the questions mostly came from three Republican candidates from "blue states:" Michelle Bachmann, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. The questions seemed fair and pertinent. Yet, in hearing Governor Perry's response, I came away with the feeling that he was attempting to educate novices on both subjects.

Let's look at the tuition question first. These students were children of illegal aliens. They were not anchor babies. They had entered the country with their parents legally. Their parents came to the country on visas that were generally education or religious in nature. The visas expired. The children meanwhile had attended and graduated from Texas public schools. They had legally applied for citizenship. Should they have been afforded exemption from out-of-state tuition? All but four of the Texas Congressmen and Senators thought so! Were they wrong? They didn't think so. Neither did Governor Perry. Almost unanamously they concluded that it was "a Texas thing." On that subject, they were 100% correct. It is a decision that should be made on the state level. They made it.

Republicans from these "blue" states often don't connect with border issues. They simply have no experience. It is likely that Michelle Bachmann knows as much about this subject as Rick Perry knows about "ice fishing for Walleye at Lake of the Woods." Romney is as familiar with the naturalization process as Perry is fluent on the joys of "polo matches at Martha's Vineyard."

True it arouses the conservative base with anti-Hispanic resentment. But this is a clear ticket to losing the general election. Neither Bachmann or Romney have connected with Latinos. Republicans must win 40% of the Hispanic vote. It is doubtful that either Bachmann or Romney can capture 20% of this crucial vote. That's why I do not think that either can defeat Barack Obama in the general election. No matter how awful the economy may be next year!

Governor Perry held his ground. In doing so he demonstrated conviction. It gets down to two things: "do the individual states have the right to make this call?" And, "are we willing to look at immigration on a case-by-case basis?" True, most of the Republican base doesn't agree with him. But the position reflects practicality,compassion and wisdom. It could ultimately be a winning position in the general election.

What about the border fences? Doesn't his lack of enthusiasm for them prove that the Texas Governor is "soft" on illegal aliens?

Actually, he knows that they won't work! This comes from being Governor of a state that shares a 1200 mile border with Mexico. Perry is correct in that "boots on the ground," as in soldiers are needed to get the job done. Only experience in having grown-up, lived and governed such a state can true understanding of the problem be manifested. For Romney and Bachmann it might translate to good politics. Taking exception to Perry's position will always score short term points with the base. But what about the long term?

While staunch conservatives may be disappointed in Perry's position, it must be remembered that Barack Obama will not take issue with either the tuition waiver or the fence in the general election. He will position both Bachmann and Romney as anti-Hispanic. With Perry, this will be difficult it not impossible.

It is easy enough for Bachmann and Romney to question Perry's actions. But what would have they done if placed in Perry's chair? As the old Cherokee proverb went, "Don't pass judgment on another until you have walked in their moccasins for three days."

The fence conclusion is derived from experience and being there. The tuition question comes down to a decision that will always have supporters and opponents.

Bachmann is a "neo-con." In fairness, it may be impossible for a woman born in Iowa who grew up in Minnesota to truly understand the principle of states rights. She may talk about the 10th amendment. But facts are facts. Governor Perry was joined by practically all of the law makers in Texas. It is a "constitutional thing!" It never seemed to occur to Congresswoman Bachmann that this was Texas' business and Texas'call.

Governor Romney is easier to fathom. He "is a "trimmer." In other words, "he trims his sails to the political winds." Had the Republican base voiced praise for Perry's decision, he would have seconded the motion.

Saturday, September 10, 2011

Obama's true message.

President Barack Obama cares as much for Americas' unemployed as Adoph Hitler cared about the presevation of Jewish lives.

For those who dispute this statement answer two questions: "Why has Obamacare not been repealed?" And, "why are we moving forward with endless job killing regulations?" These regulations range from meaningless banking regulations to subjective EPA mandates that are based on theories that draw less water every day!

Obviously if the president held concern about jobs, he would immediately put the brakes on some of the most obvious regulatory initiatives. Perhaps, as Mitt Romney phrased in the September 7th debate, "he's a nice guy but he hasn't a clue."

Mitt gets an "A" for diplomacy. But it's quiet way of saying that the President of the United States is stupid. But can he honestly be that tone deaf?

The case is further made by Newt Gingrich's reminder that 69% of Alaska is owned by the Federal government. Energy is abundant and the the majority of America wants ANWAR developed. The enormous gas find in lower Cook Inlet translates to high paying jobs for the state. We certainly could use the energy. So what's the problem?

I think Barack Obama may be a lot of things. But one thing he isn't is stupid. He knows exactly what he is doing. For insight, please visit,

When this chilling film is viewed, fair minded, hard working Americans find themselves becoming incensed. It is a well researched account of "dumbing down" the country and quietly advancing Socialism under the guise of "social justice" and "progressivism." This is not some conspiracy theory mind you! All of this is being done in the open. It's a must see.

It does not take an Econometrist to determine that the very regulations so proudly hailed by Obama are discourging job creation in America. As soon as we relax regulations, the jobs return to our shores. Why would Obama have a problem with this?

Obama mentioned the yearning to have that "made in America" stamp on more products. Yet, guess who occupied the seat next to Michelle Obama? Jeffrey Immelt of General Electric, the "undisputed outsource king." We must remember that Immelt has shipped endless jobs to China. He has literally moved American companies there! He has also done business with Iran. Strange bedfellows!

Obama's Thursday speech was purely political. It shrewdly sets a "trap." He is trying to bait Republicans into saying"no." In fact, odds are, he hopes that they will say "no" to everything. This will be a true test for the new elects. If they unilaterally reject every piece of Obama's jobs bill, they will look like calloused obstructionists, lacking in compassion and reason. If they accept all or most of it, they will look weak. Is there a "sweet spot?"

So much of Obama's slant was to his base. He passionately defended regulations. He vigorously supported collective bargaining. When he talked about "cheap labor" and "pollution" you knew that he was aiming his gun at Rick Perry. In other words, without these regulations, we have a dirty place to live! And right to work translates to cheap labor. Does he honestly believe this? Maybe he is "clueless," with an attitude.
Or, to put it more specifically, "a combination of impudence and impotence." Unfortunately, I think it's deeper than that...

Problem for Republicans is, it was a good speech. It might have been Obama's best speech of his career. Republicans now find themselves in a box. The best way out of it might be to agree to the payroll tax cut extension, the extension of unemployment benefits, the hiring credit for long term unemployed and a couple of the other sidebar items. If they do this, while leaving out the "meat" of the plan, they will have proven that they are willing to meet the president halfway. Going a step further, they can propose a one year moratorium on any new regulations. This will save billions. Will it be enough to cover the cost of their concessions? Probably not. And it is highly unlikely that Obama would agree to it. But, it could allow the American public to put a cost figure on regulations. It would also set Obama up for the November 2012 election.

Ironically, it was Obama's intention to do this to Republicans.