I received an email and a follow up call from Daniel Lucio who is a native of Texas and a representative of Battleground Texas.  The email I received grabbed my attention last week because as a resident of Arizona, I discovered how the Texas legislature is now trying to introduce a similar Arizona law that ended up costing taxpayer dollars to defend when the Supreme Court essentially gutted it out.  The controversial anti-immigrant law also cost Arizona millions and millions of dollars in tourism once the former Governor Jan Brewer signed it.  Finally, most of SB1070 was gut out out and the Supreme Court ruled that Arizona cannot require immigrants to carry proof of their legal status at all times. It also ruled that Arizona police cannot detain someone simply on the suspicion that they are in the country illegally. The court also ruled Arizona cannot make it a crime for undocumented immigrants to apply for employment.

Indeed the CBO chimed in and stated S. 744 (immigration reform law) would boost economic output—CBO projects—by 3.3 percent in 2023 and by 5.4 percent in 2033.

Now we are hawkish with Texas SB 185, and we will focus on the supporters of this draconian law and tie their heads to the economic millstone when we remind them how much SB 1070 cost our State.

From the Immigration Policy Center:

Anti-immigration measures harm states’ economies.

• If unauthorized immigrants leave, states will lose workers, taxpayers, and consumers who earn and spend money in the state. Unauthorized immigrants comprised roughly 5.2% of the national workforce (or 8,000,000 workers) in 2010, according to a report by the Pew Hispanic Center.
• Experiences from states that have passed harsh immigration laws tell a cautionary fiscal tale:

• Alabama’s HB 56 could shrink the state’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by up to $10.8 billion, according to Professor Samuel Addy at the Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of Alabama. Prof. Addy estimates that a loss of 40,000 to 80,000 unauthorized immigrants who earn between $15,000 and $35,000 annually could result in:

• 70,000 to 140,000 lost jobs with $1.2 to $5.8 billion in earnings;
• $2.3 to $10.8 billion reduction in Alabama GDP, or 1.3% to 6.2% of the state’s $172.6 billion GDP in 2010;
• $57 to $264 million loss in state income and sales tax collections; and
• $20 to $93 million loss in local sales tax collections.

• A 2011 report by Dr. Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda and Marshall Fitz found that deporting all of the unauthorized immigrants in Arizona would decrease total employment by 17.2%, eliminate 581,000 jobs for immigrants and native-born workers alike, shrink the state economy by $48.8 billion, and reduce state tax revenues by 10.1%.

• Similarly, Hinojosa-Ojeda and Fitz found that if all of the unauthorized immigrants in California were removed, the state would lose $301.6 billion in economic activity, decrease total employment by 17.4%, and eliminate 3.6 million jobs.
• A study released in July 2007 by the University of Arizona’s Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy concluded that economic output would drop annually by at least $29 billion, or 8.2%, if all non-citizens, which include unauthorized workers, were removed from Arizona’s workforce. About 14% of the state’s 2.6 million workers are foreign-born, and about two-thirds to three-fourths of non-citizens are unauthorized.

Harsh immigration laws have produced severe worker shortages.

The agricultural industry has been devastated in states that have passed harsh immigration laws. Immigrant workers have failed to show up for work and millions of dollars of produce has been left to rot in the fields. Legal U.S. workers have not been filling the open jobs. The uncertainty about how much labor will be available affects growers’ ability to prepare and plant for next year.

• After passing its immigration enforcement bill (HB 87), Georgia’s agriculture industry experienced severe labor shortages. A survey of farmers conducted by the Georgia Department of Agriculture found 56% of those surveyed were experiencing difficulty finding workers. Early reports from the state estimate economic losses for the 2011 growing season to be between $300 million and $1 billion.
• Alabama Agriculture Commissioner John McMillan stated, “the economic hardship to farmers and agribusiness will reverberate throughout Alabama’s economy, as one-fifth of all jobs in our state come from farming.” Alabama growers have reported planting less due to concerns that there may not be enough workers to harvest the crops.
• A Georgia Restaurant Association survey found that nearly half (49%) of surveyed restaurants reported labor shortages, and 88% were concerned about future shortages. Lack of workers and related business losses have cut some restaurants’ revenue by as much as $80,000 per month.

Harsh immigration laws result in lost tax revenues.

• States stand to lose millions of dollars in tax revenues if unauthorized immigrants—as well as legal immigrants whose lives are made difficult by the law—were to leave. Unauthorized immigrants in the United States paid $11.2 billion in state and local taxes in 2010, according to data from the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy, which includes:

• $1.2 billion in state income taxes;
• $1.6 billion in property taxes; and
• $8.4 billion in sales taxes.
• Estimates for your state are available here.

• In Alabama, according to Professor Addy, HB 56 could result in a loss of between $56.7 and $264.5 million in state income and sales tax collections and up to $93.1 million lost in local sales tax collections.

Harsh immigration laws discourage economic growth.

Many states are hoping for a manufacturing renaissance to help reduce unemployment and lift their economies out of recession. For these hopes to succeed, states will require business-friendly public policy. Investors need to expect a hassle-free experience for work permit-holding foreign managers and workers alike, which cannot happen when state officials and law-enforcement officers are required to verify immigration status even in routine encounters.

• Foreign companies employ 77,500 workers, or 5% of Alabama’s workforce; the auto industry supports nearly 45,000 in the state. In November 2011, a German Mercedes-Benz executive, visiting an auto plant in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, was arrested during a routine traffic stop for failing to produce evidence that he was in the United States legally. Soon afterwards, a Japanese Honda employee was issued a ticket when his international driver’s license was deemed insufficient. These examples illustrate the kind of bureaucratic hassle to be faced by authorized and unauthorized workers and executives alike under the new immigration laws.

• According to Gerald Dial, Alabama State Senate Republican whip and former HB 56 supporter, an unintended consequence of the legislation in that state has been to make other states more attractive for investors. “Other states will say, ‘Hey, you don’t want to go to Alabama now,’” said Dial. “We’re probably going to lose those people. We won’t know about it. There won’t be a big red flag: ‘Hey, we didn’t go to Alabama, we’re going to go to Arkansas or we’re going to go to South Carolina.’ That’s probably the most detrimental part of the whole bill.”
• In Nashville, Tennessee, the Chamber of Commerce called harsh immigration-control legislation “detrimental to work force development and international trade efforts,” while the president of a local commercial real estate firm said it would “make Tennessee unattractive to businesses looking to relocate.”
• International tourism is an extremely profitable and growing market for the United States. In 2010, international visitors spent more than $134.4 billion in the U.S., and travel and tourism exports accounted for 24% of U.S. services exports and 7% of all U.S. exports. Despite the global recession, Mexican tourists spent $8.7 billion in 2010—an 8% increase since 2009. Harsh enforcement laws could create an unwelcoming environment for international tourists, threatening this vital source of revenue.

Harsh immigration laws make it more difficult and expensive for businesses to operate.

• Two of Indiana’s largest employers, Eli Lilly and Co. (a drug manufacturer) and Cummins Inc. (an engine manufacturer), published a statement arguing that Indiana’s proposed immigration enforcement law (SB 590) would impede their ability to compete globally and grow in Indiana. According to Eli Lilly and Co., Indiana has a sizeable and growing biosciences industry, with almost 90,000 employees and supporting a total of $22.7 billion in economic output—direct, indirect, and induced. Spokesman Ed Sagebiel said the company’s “ability to thrive in Indiana is dependent on an environment that is welcoming.” Similarly, Cummins Inc. highlighted 550 new high-paying jobs they brought to the state as a result of Indiana’s friendliness to new business.
• States could experience significant blows to tourism/convention profits. After Arizona passed SB 1070, major groups and associations cancelled events and conventions in the state. A report by the Center for American Progress (CAP) estimates that Arizona will lose $45 million in lodging revenue alone. Arizona was eventually forced to spend $250,000 for a marketing campaign to help improve its image after SB 1070 was enacted.
• Some proposed laws require the mandatory use of the E-Verify employment verification system. Bloomberg estimates that implementing E-Verify costs small businesses an average of $435 per year. There are also costs to U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who are erroneously flagged as not eligible to work by E-Verify and must take time off of work to navigate the bureaucracy to fix the error.
• State immigration enforcement laws mean businesses must incur additional costs. Economist Jeremy Thornton of Samford University points to the “shadow costs” employers incur when they take steps to protect themselves from the law’s stiff penalties. Businesses will spend more on employee screening to protect themselves from provisions of the law that bar them from knowingly hiring unauthorized workers. There could also be increased litigation costs for businesses because any legal worker could sue the employer if they have hired an unauthorized worker. “Every business that now has to comply with this legislation, that’s just extra cost. And anytime you raise costs, businesses shrink, Thornton said.” Businesses will likely have to spend more on third party assistance for employment eligibility paperwork and extra human resources staff.
• Alabama had to push back the deadline for businesses to obtain or renew their licenses “due to the hardship placed on Alabama businesses” that could not get business licenses in October because of implementation of the new law. The new law requires individuals and businesses obtaining or renewing business and store licenses to show additional documentation, which has led to long lines at courthouses and other delays.
  

Implementing and enforcing harsh immigration laws cost states millions.

Implementing these new measures will cost taxpayers dearly at a time when states are already having tremendous difficulty balancing their budgets. Potential costs include:

• Cost to Police: Costs associated with a projected increase in arrests and overtime.
• Cost to Jails: Costs associated with a projected increase in jail population.
• Other Criminal-Justice Costs: Cost of projected increase in prosecutorial and public-defender staff, jail space, court rooms, and support offices needed to handle increased caseload.
• Costs to State Agencies: Costs associated with additional personnel and time necessary to check the identification documents of all persons applying for certain state benefits. Also, cost of foster-care for children of detained immigrants.
• Costs to Schools: Costs associated with checking and reporting the immigration status of children enrolled in schools and lost federal or state funding for schools due to decreases in school enrollment.
• Legal Costs: Legal costs incurred by the state to defend against lawsuits.

Some states that considered immigration enforcement laws in 2010-2011 backed off once they considered cost estimates for implementation.

• In Kentucky, an enforcement bill died after an estimate showed it would cost the state $89 million per year to enforce.
• In Louisiana, a bill was withdrawn when it was estimated to cost $11 million to implement.
• In Tennessee, immigration bills are stalled in 2012 until “sufficient funds can be generated to finance it.” In 2011, the General Assembly Fiscal Review Committee found that their proposal would increase expenditures by $3 million for the first year and $1.8 million every year after that.
• In Indiana, state police said they would have to spend $5 million to train for and enforce the law.

States will have to spend millions to defend laws in the courts.

Most anti-immigration measures have immediately been challenged on constitutional and other grounds. Defending the law in the courts can be very expensive.

• Utah’s immigration control bill, HB 497, has cost taxpayers more than $85,000 to defend in federal court. The price tag will likely increase a great deal before a final ruling is reached.

• In Arizona, seven lawsuits were filed to stop implementation of SB 1070, and other states are likely to see numerous lawsuits against similar legislation. At the end of February 2011, Arizona had already spent more than $1.5 million defending SB 1070.

• Farmers Branch, Texas, has already spent about $3.2 million to defend itself since September 2006, when it launched the first of three ordinances. The city has budgeted $623,000 for legal expenses through the rest of the fiscal year related to the ordinance defense. Legal costs could exceed $5 million by the end of the fiscal year.

• Riverside, New Jersey, rescinded an ordinance that penalized renting to or employing unauthorized immigrants after the town of 8,000 accumulated $82,000 in legal fees.

With writing, timing is everything. Being in the right place at the right time.

– John Ridley

Above:  Benito Martinez — photo credit American Crime.

This powerful sneak peek trailer for a new television drama American Crime was heart wrenching for me to see. American Crime will be premiering this upcoming THURSDAY MARCH 5 10|9c on ABC.

3 things came across my thoughts while watching the impassioned performance from both Johnny Ortiz and Benito Martinez in the trailer:

1)     I put myself in the shoes of the parent (Benito Martinez) whose kid was being detained for the allegation of murder. The young man (Johnny Ortiz) was complaining about his father being overbearing — but the  patriarch made no apologies for his strict parenting.

2)     As the authorities were separating the child from his father in light of the allegation, I thought of the immigrants who were and are separated from relatives because of a clearly broken immigration system the Republicans have stalled and refused to fix. The broken immigration system criminalizes hard working immigrant fathers and mothers who were forced to be torn apart from their children until the Obama administration used his executive powers to give some relief to these families.

3)     Lastly, I thought about a friend of mine – Joaquin, who was falsely accused of a crime. My childhood friend had not yet even met the “victim” who was living in another state during the time of the allegation. I watched Joaquin’s mom and dad go through a living personal hell and watched them stand by the side of their only son.

In this American Crime Podcast hosted by film critic and radio personality Elvis Mitchell, you get to hear a 30 minute interview of the show creator John Ridley and Executive Producer Michael McDonald who discuss the series. American Crime centers around the brutal attack of a young couple in Modesto, California. Matt Skokie, a war vet, is murdered, and his wife, Gwen, is left unconscious, barely hanging on. The crime sends shock waves throughout the community stirring up tensions across socioeconomic and racial lines in this gritty new drama — from the points of view of all those involved. “It’s not about the police. It’s not about the prosecutors. It’s really about the family,” creator John Ridley says.

Essentially Ridley stated this drama was about familia and how a 3 a.m. phone call in the middle of the night can happen to anyone.

The sneak peek managed to capture a patriarch caring father chastising his son who was being detained — yet while they were taking his son away to jail after being charged for murder, you saw the hard ass of a dad turn into a very different emotional state.  No matter what, the dad was going to be there for his boy to ensure he received a fair trial. You could see it in Benito’s eyes and his acting was moving.

Through the lens of a Chicana, I believe American Crime will captivate the tough love we see in ourselves an what we would do for the protection of our kids, family or friends. Often times in our culture, I see tough love displayed through discipline and/or the sheer defense of those we love in order for them to survive.  Kids are our livelihood and many of us know we would die for our children no matter what.

Joseph JT Campos (playing Bruno the immigrant border jumper in the American Crime series) is an actor who made me aware of this new television drama and I’m glad he did because the sneak peak is powerfully irresistible.

I encourage my readers to watch American Crime this upcoming Thursday on ABC.

Honor the treaties, Senator John McCain.  Haven't you read history with regard to the genocide of our Native American brothers and sisters with regard to manifest destiny when white settlers moved westward and stole their lands after killing them?  Haven't Native Americans and the indigenous gone through enough already? The land deal you were part of was not your land.  Now your legacy will include stealing MORE land from the Natives so that you can give it to a mining foreign company.  The land you stole and gave away was rich in mineral$. 

You are sham and a disgrace.  Your legacy includes not supporting the Martin Luther King holiday, flip flopping on immigration, and now stealing more land away from Native Americans to help out foreign greedy corporations. 

From Tucson News: 

Former San Carlos Apache Tribal Chairman Wendsler Nosie said he felt sick when he heard what legislators did last week.

Members of Congress — including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. — inserted into the National Defense Authorization Act a controversial land-swap measure that would privatize national forest land sacred to Western Apache tribes.

More than a dozen versions of the land-swap bill have failed to pass Congress since 2005. But now the U.S. Senate is expected to make a decision on the defense spending bill by late Thursday.

After almost a decade of fighting the land swap, Nosie said he couldn't believe it had been tucked into the must-pass defense spending act.

"I was questioning, 'Why isn’t anybody listening? Why are McCain and these guys allowed to do what they’re doing?'" he said.

If you are disgusted the way we are, please sign this petition:

It's a well known fact there are a few DREAMers who were hijacked by the Republican Party.  We call them "TeaDREAMers" for pushing the Republican Party agenda ... never mind the 2012 anti-immigrant platform adopted by the Republican National Committee in 2012 on the eve of their GOP convention that was essentially blessed by Kris Kobach [sarcasm included]. 

These TeaDREAMers include DREAMACTIVIST.org and cohorts of Mohammad Abdollahi,  [and whom Rep. Luis Gutierrez had to distance himself from for their racist views], DRM Action (a for profit company) with the likes of Erika Andiola downplaying importance of the Latino vote even though she can't vote herself, and their surrogates.  Our organization asked Jose Antonio Vargas and Gaby Pacheco to take leadership and speak against folks who supported the likes of Mohammad Abdollahi for stating he wanted to hijack comprehensive immigration reform in 2013 but we saw no leadership from the likes of them. 

Now we are seeing more backlash from folks we consider allies. 

Lack of "DREAM Act" leadership and turning a blind eye leads to heckling and showing utter disrespect for the Office of the Presidency. 

Ungrateful TeaDREAMers who find it cute to disrespect the President of the United States and interrupt his immigration speech are getting more backlash from those who are considered immigration allies.  (See below.)

Look what the cat dragged in ...  according to the forum at Ultimate Guitar, Ted Nugent is considering moving to Mexico.  No joke.   And if I were Ted Nugent, I would reconsider that move considering he told FOX NEWS he advocated shooting undocumented immigrants [from Mexico]. 

Here's the FOX NEWS transcript with regard to the 2008 interview:

 

COLMES: You want to kill on sight anybody who illegally comes into the country. Just shoot them, right?

NUGENT: If they're armed, and they're attacking our country, yes.

COLMES: Well, they wouldn't be attacking. You don't know if someone coming over the border — would you just shoot anybody coming over the border who you suspect of being illegal?

NUGENT: In an unauthorized entry, armed, like they are right now, invading our country, I'd like to shoot them dead.

COLMES: Just shoot them dead. All right.

Make no mistakes, stronger alliances between the Native Americans and the Indigenous Mexican Americans are growing leaps and bounds across our Nation after Nugent made his unclean vermin remark towards our Native American brothers and sisters.  As a Xicana activist, you can bet your brown ass I'll be sure to tell all of Mexican media how the "nuge" advocated shooting undocumented immigrants from Mexico and helped spread anti-immigrant bigotry. 

P.S.  The petition protesting Ted Nugent venues more than double last night within a 24 hour time period.  Please share and sign this petition to kick bigotry out of the music industry! 

We are approaching the 2 year anniversary in remembrance of Joaquin Luna Jr.   Joaquin was a Mexican DREAM Act undocumented student who took his life because he felt he had no hope.  Joaquin was waiting for his DREAM to be fulfilled and this talented young man was not able to see it come into fruition.  This bright young man was on a healthy course had these United States Senators voted in support of the DREAM Act in 2010 because Joaquin was accepted into ITT and Texas A&M and University of Texas – Pan American in Edinburg, TX, and had high hopes.

2 years ago, we immediately asked Senators to pass the DREAM Act before they take their 2011 Christmas vacations in light of Joaquin taking his life the day after Thanksgiving Day 2011, and to prevent more of these tragic situations with kids.   Sen. Dick Durbin heard our cry but we knew Republicans would not think this important enough.   They went on their Christmas or Holiday break ignoring us.

Indeed the Mexican American community was angry when we attributed the blood of Joaquin to the mostly Republican politicians who did not support the DREAM Act vote in 2010 .   55 Democratic Senators voted in support of it with only 3 Republican Senators and 2 Independents helping.  However, a whopping 36 Republican Senators voted against the DREAM Act with 5 Democrats helping them. The House vote consisted of 208 Democratic and only 8 Republican Representatives supporting the DREAM Act of 2010, while a whopping 160 Republicans voted against it with 38 Democrats helping them.   It was now our turn to ignore supporting the Republican Party when the consequence of their "no vote" was delivered to the Republican Party on November 6, 2012.  The Obama win was fueled by Mexican American / Latino muscle.  In fact, shortly after November 2012 elections, McCain tweeted the need for comprehensive immigration reform. 

A special event will take place in Texas in remembrance of Joaquin Luna Jr. which will begin with a memorial walk using Luna's Dream T-Shirts, and we will end the walk at his final resting place.  Pastor Bustos will lead us in prayer a few words from Luna Lerma family, and DeeDee Garcia Blase of Somos Independents  and Tania Chávez of LUPE will be speakers.

DATE: Monday,  November 25, 2013

TIME:  10:00 am

LOCATION:  1 1/2 S Abram Rd Mission TX 78574

No Party Preference

By Ryan Trabuco

“I am an American; free born and free bred, where I acknowledge no man as my superior, except for his own worth, or as my inferior, except for his own demerit.” — Theodore Roosevelt

My decision. My choice. Certainly, this wasn’t easy. Allow me to think this through.

I’ve always admired Theodore Roosevelt. He fought corruption, spoke out passionately about his beliefs in much-needed reforms, and was noted for his fairness in policy and politics.

Of course, you may also read that folks at the turn of the 20th century considered him belligerent and opinionated. Hell, I’ve been called worse. For every one of his critics, however, there were many more who considered him “the hero America needed” as author Michael L. Cooper penned in his 2009 biography on our nation’s 26th President.

What I admire most about Teddy’s legacy and leadership, was his ability to bring folks together — often transcending partisan politics — and in doing so, for the good of our country.

Many of Teddy Roosevelt’s decisions were not easy, such as leaving the Republican Party in 1912 — a party he was active in and helped lead as a New York Assemblyman, Police Commissioner, Governor, Vice-President, and President. The Republican Party had left him and tacked a hard right turn, and Roosevelt, through the passion of defiance, left the party to continue to champion those reforms, values, and ideas he held dear.

Today, I feel it’s the same path I must take as well. Today, I re-registered to vote as “No Party Preference” (a.k.a. “Independent”).

I assure you, no decision could have been harder for me, personally.

Freedom. Opportunity. Self-Reliance. State’s Rights. Government efficiency.  There’s a sense of tradition and a value system — that I cherish and hold dear — you just don’t find in other political parties.

There’s a proud history of nearly 10 years here registering Republican voters. Volunteering. Fundraising. Knocking on doors, calling voters, doing anything I could possibly do to help Republican candidates win elections — pouring blood, sweat, and often tears into these efforts. Oh Lord, did I mention the tweeting?

For now, in this moment, I just felt it was the right choice to make.

As unfortunate (for a number of reasons) that I felt 2008 was a bad year politically, nothing could’ve prepared me for the slaughter of 2012. Of course, in the heat of election cycles, it’s easy to re-hash the talking points of a campaign, and paraphrase why you feel it’s better that voters should choose your side. There’s facts, graphs, logic, and ideology at play. What’s often overlooked though is governing, and the plan to govern.

There hadn’t been much thought about re-registering until recently, while watching the fiscal cliff debate play out over weeks on end. Speculation. Finger-pointing. The constant will-they-won’t-they approach to politics. Quite honestly, it was sick. For as bad as it was for Democrats, I couldn’t honestly sit back and defend the Republicans’  seemingly hands-off approach to governing.

I kept asking myself, “Where’s the leadership? Where’s the plan?”

Then, allowing the Democrats to figure it out on their own and then dictate the terms of whatever the compromise would be was embarrassing to say the very least. I can’t defend that.

I admit, I said for a long time that wild horses couldn’t drag me from my party — and they didn’t. The selfish behavior of those who would rather bring our country to its’ knees, rather than face the challenges ahead of us have drug the party away from me. The constant kowtowing to the Tea Party and like-minded ideologues have damaged the brand, the mission, and the spirit of the Republican Party.

Look at California. The Republican Party, here, is a mess. Enough said.

In San Diego, it’s not nearly as bad but there’s problems here as well. There’s nothing wrong with good-natured, well-intentioned, and much-needed government reforms, but there is a significant problem when you allow a single elected official — an emotional and personality equivalent to Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride — to dictate the focus of the party, and whether you are or aren’t welcome within the apparatus.

When Nathan Fletcher left the Republican Party last spring, I admit, I was more than disappointed and reflected those feelings to him over the phone. He said he was tired and over the drama. All the critics said it was political. After much soul-searching these last few weeks, I have to say that Nathan was right. I’m tired and over it, too.

All in all, I don’t feel there’s leadership. Or focus. I don’t feel there’s necessary attention being paid to strengthen the Republican Party. All talk, no action. I’ve said for years that the GOP needed to embrace it’s roots founded in the original 1856 Platform — a document that reads more like the blueprint for ideas in freedom and governance, rather than today’s GOP platform which specifically says what you can or can’t do in life.

Where’s the allure? What’s the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, aside from being polar opposites on the political spectrum? Nothing. God forbid you find yourself in the political center. You have no where to go.

All that said, where do we go from here?

I’m sure folks will say I’ve always been a squish. Not committed. Not conservative enough. That’s fine. That just shows that those folks have very little respect for the consistent work I did all those years. All the more reason for my decision to step aside, and re-register.

I am now a simple, registered voter who states that I have NO PARTY PREFERENCE. That doesn’t change who I am or what I believe. Our spending needs to be under control, I’m not in favor of big government or higher taxes — we need some desperate spending cuts, for sure. However, if I ever served as an elected official, I would have sense enough to know not to bring a government to its knees because of hard-headedness (a heartfelt sentiment to both parties).

Thankfully, I have no designs on political office. I’m too honest for it.

Now, there are good Republicans, and there are good Democrats. I’m honored to know both. It’s the self-interested ones on both sides of the aisle who need to reappraise their purpose in politics.

Hopefully, there will be a time in the very near future when the Republican Party evaluates itself in the tradition of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. I pray it does.  It would be an honor to re-register as a Republican under such circumstances. Until then, I will spend my time focusing on my commitments and service to my community, and encouraging camaraderie among others — no matter what their political persuasion may be.

Teddy Roosevelt once said, “Keep your eyes on the stars, and your feet on the ground.” I’ve always been inspired to reach for the stars, and although I’m no longer a Republican, I feel as grounded as I’ve ever been.

12 Steps to Securing Our Borders and Legal Immigration

Why is securing our borders and legal immigration needed?

A healthy and legal immigration solution will secure our borders, create a safer North American Continent and promote a stronger relationship with our contiguous neighbors.  Enforcement-only initiatives promote a situation that emulates the failed days of Prohibition, which serves only to encourage the underground labor market.  Our government needs the additional tax revenues that new immigrants generate in order to sustain the burgeoning entitlement programs baby boomers require as they continue to retire.  By developing a reasonable legal immigration plan, we create a system where immigrants share American tax burdens as they continue to contribute millions of dollars into our tax coffers.  New immigrants sharing our tax burdens will help discourage our government from increasing taxes, because under the current system these entitlement programs will drain all federal revenues within 15 years.

Our 12 point plan addresses securing our borders, fixing the  immigration system, developing a process for legal immigrants to enter, demand for labor, the D.R.E.A.M Act, sustaining international trade relationships, and employer sanctions that will assuredly be implemented by the current Congress.

How to fix a broken immigration system.

12 Steps to Securing Our Borders and Legal Immigration

Immigration Reform Efforts Currently Being Led By DeeDee Garcia Blase, Lionel Sosa and Joe Penalosa

1.       BORDER SECURITY:  The preservation of our national security must be the paramount objective of the immigration policy of the United States.  At least 5,000 additional border patrol agents should be added on the border between the United States and Mexico and an additional 10,000 border patrol agents should be assigned to duty on the North border. In addition, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should work in conjunction with the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to take appropriate measures, including the addition of drug and bomb sniffing canine units that will deter drug activities.

2.       PROCESSING APPLICATION FEES:  The creation of a path to citizenship for undocumented persons should not increase the bureaucracy in Washington or add to the already heavy burdens on the American taxpayer.  All applications for legal status by undocumented immigrants should be processed as efficiently as possible and all expenses in connection with the processing of such applications, including background checks, should be borne by the applicant in the amount of $500.00

3.       OFFENSE FINE: There is no right that we Americans hold more dearly than the privilege of calling ourselves citizens of the United States.  We do not advocate amnesty, therefore, undocumented individuals should be required to pay a fine as a civil penalty (not to exceed $1,500 per person of $5,000 per family) for entering in the country illegally and after a background check clearance has been carried out.

4.       REGISTRATION: Upon enactment, undocumented persons must register with the DHS for background check, and wait until the border is certified as “secure” by DHS in order to trigger legalization. Persons should be given the opportunity to remain in the United States as residents with a temporary legal status

5.       REGULARIZATION PROCESS: Upon certification, undocumented immigrants who satisfy the requirements for temporary legal status with moral character and no criminal record will enter into a six year program before becoming citizens of the United States.  No participants in the program shall be entitled to receive any federal government assistance while they are in the program which will consist of three phases.

6.       PAYING BACK TAXES: Undocumented immigrants must apply for a Social Security Number from the IRS and pay any income taxes owed.  We recognize that undocumented immigrants contribute to the system by paying state and federal sales, use and excise taxes.

7.       ASSIMILATION AND MANDATORY ENGLISH EDUCATION: Undocumented immigrants who are qualified to enter the Regularization Process shall be required to take courses in English and Civics as a condition to obtain a certificate of completion for citizenship.  The hours of study should be twice the amount to what the Reagan Administration had proposed as part of immigration legislation championed by the President in the 1980s.

8.      D.R.E.A.M. ACT and H-1 Visas:   Republicans who support H-1 Visas may as well support the DREAM Act. Republicans are increasing their support for H-1 visas because corporate lobbyists wish to reduce bureaucratic government.  Since the DREAM Act covers both students and immigrants who want to enlist our military, then the Act should be a win-win solution for our Nation.

9.       FUTURE FLOW LOW SKILLED GUEST WORKER PROGRAM:  The adoption of a guest worker program would permit individuals registering with DHS to legally enter into the United States to work in states whose governors, or other legally authorized persons, certify that demand for labor cannot be satisfied by existing populations of legal residents will strengthen the economy.  The number of workers admitted to such a program would depend on the demand levels identified by the States, and can suspend the program in the event that the national unemployment rate exceeds certain levels.

10.   JOBS, ECONOMY & LABOR MARKET:  Immigrants Move In, Americans Move Up.  According to the CATO Institute, “Multiple causes lie behind the shrinking of the underclass in the past 15 years. The single biggest factor is probably economic growth. Despite the current recession, the U.S. economy enjoyed healthy growth during most of the period, lifting median household incomes and real compensation earned by U.S. workers, which ushered millions of families into the middle class and beyond. Welfare reform in the 1990s, and rising levels of education, may also be contributing factors. Another factor may be immigration itself. The arrival of low-skilled, foreign-born workers in the labor force increases the incentives for younger native-born Americans to stay in school and for older workers to upgrade their skills…..”

11.    TARGETING CIRCUMVENTING CRIMINALS (TCC) / E-VERIFICATION: Although cooperation between state and federal law enforcement officers is essential to the protection of our borders, Section 287(g) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) has not provided a proper framework for the establishment of cooperation between state and federal law enforcement officers, this despite the fact that the costs of the administration of the 287(g) program sky-rocketed from $5 million in 2006 to $55 million in 2010. According to a report by DHS, the 287(g) enactment does not require sufficient focus on the identification and deportation of that small percentage of undocumented immigrants guilty of violent criminal offenses.   The ineffectiveness of the 287(g) program has resulted in an epidemic of states seeking to usurp federal authority by taking immigration matters into their own hands and adopting misguided legislation, most notably in Arizona, that unfairly scapegoat immigrants.  We need to get smart and concentrate on training and supervision that will focus on circumventing criminals that wish to do us real harm. Congress should consider replacing most of 287(g) resources with a national E-verification program that will discourage future illegal immigration only “after” Congress passes a reasonable immigration solution where the Electronic employment eligibility verification would not immerse America’s workers and business in burdensome bureaucracy and avoid eroding the freedoms of the American citizen.

12.   (OPTIONAL) FREER TRADE RELATIONS FOR SAFER NORTH AMERICAN CONTINENT: The United States should continue honoring trade agreements, such as NAFTA, so that we do not undermine the stability of the economies and our relationships with our neighbors.

Conclusion

Despite what opponents to legal immigration say, benefits would include secured borders,  better military qualified readiness, furthered assimilation by immigrants that demonstrates their loyalty to America, shared tax burdens and increased revenues to the tax base for state, federal, and local governments, and our labor market needs will be maintained especially with the baby boomers retiring.