Saturday, January 19, 2008

Answers For Illegal Immigration

Let me start by saying that I am a product of immigration. Since my great-great grandparents immigrated from Eastern Europe in the 1870’s they were not subject to any modern day immigration laws.

I believe stemming the flow of illegal immigrants is crucial to preventing further attacks on the US, winning the war on radical Islamic fascists, and protecting our sovereignty as a nation. We could discuss all day long (maybe several days) why the US is such a magnet for illegals. The solutions for illegal immigration are not particularly difficult to implement. Nor are they especially cost prohibitive given today’s technology. The steps are simple, the motivation is great, but the initiative by today’s policy makers is clearly sorely lacking.

The first thing that has to be done is sealing the borders. The process starts with building the double fence across the southern border. The “no mans land” between the double fence would need to be monitored with motion and seismic sensors. Cameras on drones flying over head would be directed to investigate activity. Officer would be sent to capture illegals when they are identified. Next, begin to secure border crossings on our northern border and build the same type of fences along much of the northern border, starting at heavily populated areas. Finally, secure our ports and coastline using drones and satellite imagery. The desired result would be to shut off the influx of illegal immigrants. It should take about 18 months to complete the walls on the southern, using American contractors with American labor.

Once the southern border is closed we need to build a better immigration policy/process. This should begin by identifying how many immigrant workers are required by the US economy, then streamlining the process allowing company sponsorship for legal immigrants. Immigrants with college educations applying for visas to work in healthcare, high-tech, or other high paid professions would move to the top of the list. Companies should be able to apply for sponsorship of employees, be able to hire them for a 90 day probationary period and be able to apply to convert their status to the 3 year work visa via the internet with near real time (hours – not weeks) feedback. Companies would be required to report when probationary employees don’t work out so the government can make sure these immigrants either find new sponsorship or go back to their country of origin. I admit, this puts a heavy burden on companies. However, they are the beneficiaries of the low labor, so they should be required to bear the burden. When combined with the implementation of the Fair Tax (a discussion for another day), which includes the elimination of collecting payroll taxes and the corporate tax their ultimate costs would be lower.

Next enforce the current laws regarding illegal immigration. Begin by cutting off federal funding for “sanctuary cities”. Only law enforcement, hospitals and fire department would be exempt. Any public official (mayor, city board member, etc...) that publically endorses sanctuary cities should be arrested for treason (even if only for “publicity”). State drivers’ license would only be issued to immigrants with proper documentation. States violating this would forfeit federal transportation funding. Also, heads of companies must be held accountable for their hiring practices. Heavy fines/jail time for the owners of private companies and the CEO’s of public companies. This would result drying up the market for illegal immigrants and allow them to be replaced via the new stream lined process for legal immigration.

Change the rights of immigrants. The child of two illegal immigrants should be considered illegal, even if born here. Current illegal immigrants would be required to return to their country of origin and reapply for citizenship. The process for citizenship would require assimilation. Visa’s granted to immigrants should only be valid for them (i.e., they should not be allowed to automatically bring their family). Families would include only spouse and children who would be allowed to join the spouse after one year of proven work history. Families would NOT include brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, cousins, in-laws, etc…

The work visas should be valid for three years, with two one year’s extensions allowed. Application for citizenship would be required before the end of the first 3 year term. Substantial completion of the application for citizenship would be required by the end of the second 1 year extension. If the above is not met, the entire family should be deported. Spouse/children would only be allowed to stay if they have their own work visa, they are gainfully employed, and they have met all the application for citizenship requirements on their own.

Being granted citizenship would require: 1) Proven conversational English; 2) Proven reading of basic English (required for driving); 3) Proven knowledge of the REAL history of the US; 4) Sworn allegiance to the constitution of the US; 5) If convicted of a felony before completing application for citizenship, immediate deportation (not jail here first) to country of origin.

I believe this immigration policy would protect our boarders, stem the flow illegal’s, supply businesses with enough workers, and provide the US with the type of immigrants that will grow to be solid, taxpaying citizens.

For a great overview of the Immigration Act of 1965 see:

Thursday, January 17, 2008

'08 Election Cycle

Ok, so we are all wondering, "What happened to Reagan conservatism?" The truth is the principles are still out there, but unfortunately no Republican candidate in this election cycle supports all of the Reagan conservative values. An analytical look at the candidate’s records and rhetoric can tell you who best fits the mold. Again, there are no Reaganites in the race. They are all wannabes... This is personally disappointing, but it is the sad reality.

The basic issues this cycle are the same as they have been for decades (appointment of strict constitutionalists to the SCOTUS, smaller government, lower taxes, strong military, etc..), with the added importance (at least in conservative circles) of winning the war on radical Islamic fascism and immigration reform. There is a great site,, that will take you through each candidate’s record on crucial issues.

Here's my synopsis of the '08 elections cycle as it stands today. Despite Obama's best efforts, the Clinton machine will roll over him and secure the nomination. It is widely speculated that Mrs. Bill Clinton has already chosen Evan Bayh (D-IN) as her running mate. However, in the race so far, she has had to take very moderate positions in nearly every far left-wing issue. This erodes her base. She may be forced to pick a far left running mate to shore up that faction of the party. In this case, Barack Hussein Obama seems like the right choice, as he would also guarantee the minority vote.

So then the question becomes, "Who can beat a Clinton/Obama?" (or Clinton/Bayh)

Without regard to my opinion of who would be best suited to run the country, Mccain seems like the only Republican candidate who would stand a chance. If the biggest issue is going to be the war on radical Islam, Clinton equals surrender, while Mccain (despite his stand on torture) advocates winning the war on radical Islam. Some of the other issues he'd win on are controlling government spending, de-federalizing education, etc... Mccain has enough appeal to the moderates (i.e., liberals) that he will steal votes from Hillary. However, will it be enough to replace the far right conservatives that may choose to sit out? Time will tell.

Now, for my choice. Since there is no "Ronaldus Magnus" type in the race I laid out the issues then assigned them a weighted value based on my view of their importance to me and scored each candidate accordingly. I have given the most weight to principles & values since I believe this is a much better judge of how a president, when faced with critical decisions, will come down on the issues. I identify most closely with Mike Huckabee. I don’t like his record on immigration, raising taxes, and on social welfare type issues. However, I recognize that governing a state is different than governing a nation. There are certain mandates from the federal government that states are required to submit too (i.e., educational, infrastructure, etc...) to which a president is not bound.

Also, I like his support of the Fair Tax. He is the only candidate who "gets it". Personal and corporate income tax, capital gains, etc... are all taxes on productivity. The US still has the world's 3rd highest corporate income tax (after Japan & Germany). I'm not here to sell you on the Fair Tax, you can learn more about it on your own at: . Having said that, I like that Mike is openly discussing the fair tax, because changing to the fair tax would have the largest impact on the economy in the history of this nation.

I do believe Mitt Romney, as of today, probably is probably better suited to drive change in Washington D.C. because of his corporate experience. I am by no means equating corporate America and the US Congress, for one while both are driven by their market, their decision making processes are diametrically opposed to each other. Corporate America makes decisions based on profit motive guided by identifying and fulfilling customer needs. Corporation are quick to kill projects that are not profitable & productive. The government, on the other hand, is a giant behemoth that wants to redistribute wealth (after skimming off enough money to line the politicians pockets) in order to keep buying votes for reelection. Having said that, I looked into how Romney approached his governorship in Massachusetts and I liked it. I believe that same approach could work at the federal level.

I also believe that Fred Thompson probably has the most conservative record on any Republican, but he has not shown the initiative to do the campaigning that it takes to get the job. (I actually like that, but it will keep him a fringe candidate.)

So who would Mccain choose as his Vice Presidential candidate? We shall see… It all depends on who the Democrats nominate. A Hillary/Obama ticket will be much more difficult to defend in some ways (common sense would tell you that they would garner more women & minority votes) and easier in others (it would be so far left that it might turn off some moderates). Fred Thompson & Mccain are close friends and Fred would strength the conservative base (as would Huckabee). However, a Hillary/Obama ticket would require "balancing the ticket" with a woman and/or minority as a running mate. (think Michael Steele, JC Watts, Kay Bailey Hutchison, etc...)

Some of you may wonder why I have not mentioned Rudy Giuliani yet. I don’t believe Rudy is a serious contender, nor do I believe he can be considered a serious conservative. I do not believe he is electable. Aside from name recognition and his stance on the war on radical Islam, he has nothing to offer to the Republican Party. Besides, two candidates from the same state would be an awful thing for the American political system.

And as for Ron Paul, well..... Not such big fan.....