Press 2 For English Immigration Articles

WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO TURN IMMIGRANTS INTO AMERICANS?

The answer is assimilation -- or, as it used to be called in the United States 80 or 90 years ago, "Americanization." Assimilation is the key to preserving national unity and fostering common civic values in a nation that comprises hundreds of ethnic backgrounds and millions of foreign-born residents. It is the most effective mechanism for making real the motto E Pluribus Unum -- out of many, one. The world over, ethnic difference plays out as ethnic hatred and violence. Yet the people of the United States, the most ethnically diverse nation on earth, have been able to live together in relative harmony and tolerance. How? Through assimilation.

For generations, immigrants knew from the day they arrived that they were expected to become "good Americans." That meant learning English as quickly as possible and accepting it as the national tongue. It meant getting a job and being a productive member of society. It meant celebrating American democracy and sharing in American pride. It meant becoming a US citizen, and holding that citizenship in high esteem.

None of this implied that immigrants or their children had to erase every trace of their ancestral culture. Quite the contrary -- as the world's great international melting pot, America has been unusually willing to accommodate foreign customs, dishes, holidays, languages. "Assimilation does not require immigrants to surrender their ethnic heritage," Peter Salins wrote in Assimilation, American Style (1997), which argued convincingly that assimilation is critical to America's cohesion and vitality. "It is about people of different racial, religious, linguistic, or cultural backgrounds believing they are irrevocably part of the same national family."

But in recent decades, the assimilationist ethic has been badly undermined. The rise of corrosive "multiculturalism," the denigration of American history and values, the growth of the welfare state, the affirmative-action mindset that assigns preferences on the basis of race and ethnicity -- all of these have weakened the assimilationist creed. And they have done so just as the influx of immigrants has surged to levels not seen since early in the 20th century.

With the decline of assimilation has come an increase in ethnic militancy -- and a growing hostility to immigrants. Both were on display in the wake of President Bush's address: Hispanic activists condemned him for doing too little and anti-immigration groups blasted him for doing too much. As the immigration debate heats up, so will the acrimony and distrust that the decline of assimilation has engendered. That, more than any other, is the immigration issue we should be focused on.

- Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby

Back to Top

(Washington, DC) - The people of America need to throw a multitude of U.S. Senators out-of-office for their sheer arrogance on immigration, according to U.S. Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA).

“The U.S. Senate has thumbed its nose at the overwhelming majority of U.S. voters, sided with a foreign government against its own citizens, and demanded that the only acceptable compromise with the people’s House is total concession by the House,” says Norwood. “That’s unacceptable.”

U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) is reported to be circulating a letter that commits Senators to vote against any final compromise with the House on immigration that doesn’t concede to the Senate plan. The Senate continues debate of a bill that would grant amnesty to an estimated 12 million illegal aliens.

Illegal aliens are reported crossing the southern border in record numbers in response to the Senate plan to grant amnesty.

Norwood says he will immediately meet with other House members to begin circulating a letter demanding that the House vote against any conference agreement that does not concede to the House plan to secure U.S. borders before considering any new guest worker programs.

“What the Senate has started with this nonsense is why even bother with conference committees in the future?” asked Norwood. “If the two bodies can’t pass identical legislation, that ends the issue right there. Based on the history of perfect agreement between the two bodies, we might as well all stay home.”

“America needs to elect a Senate that understands this government is to serve the interests of American citizens and no one else,” says Norwood. “A majority of Senate Democrats coupled with a minority of Senate Republicans are selling out our country, and if we don’t change that quick we’re no longer going to be a country. This issue has so many Americans in absolute rage some elected officials are going to lose their jobs over this.”

Earlier this year Arizona Governor Janet Napalitano announced a "state of emergency" for the Arizona border due to the flood of illegal immigration, and ordered her National Guard to the border with Mexico.

The "deployment" consisted of about 170 Guardsmen, who were assigned to help inspect cargo shipments coming through legal entry points, which does nothing to stem the tide of illegal immigration one whit. But even if they had been assigned to real border patrol duty, that's less that one soldier for every 2 miles of Arizona's border with Mexico.

The "deployment" was simply a public relations stunt to persuade the public that a governor who has supported defacto open borders and illegal immigrant rights her entire political career is suddenly tough on illegal immigration.

This Monday night, President Bush is expected to deliver a speech on immigration reform, and multiple media leaks indicate it may include a plan to use troops on the border with Mexico.

That proposal has already been actively lobbied for by multiple members of Congress, and garners somewhere between 60 and 90 percent approval in public opinion polls - a real crowd pleaser.

The truth will lie in the proposed numbers, and whether the plan is for a short-term demonstration project or a long-term strategy for truly securing our southern border.

A real plan has already been proposed, with full details and research data included in last year's Immigration Reform Caucus special report, "Results and Implications of the Minutemen Project."

Under that plan, the southern border can be virtually closed except at legal points of entry within a one-month period - at the longest. The flood of illegal immigration that has plagued America since the last amnesty plan in 1986 will be over.

It will initially take 36,000 troops. At the start, they should be National Guard personnel drawn nationally. There isn't enough National Guard in the border states alone to do the job without hindering combat readiness, so the forces will need to be pulled from other states as well under current National Guard Bureau assistance regulations.

36,000 troops will provide an average of three two-man teams per border mile for the entire 1,951-mile border with Mexico, working eight-hour shifts. Once in place on the ground, the deployment will need to be increased to 48,000 troops, to provide necessary manpower for time-off, sick leave, and long-term support services.

From the day the first National Guard boot hits the desert sand, we will need to expend all efforts to replace them as soon as possible through use of every other available resource. Our Guard is stressed to the max with missions in Iraq and Afghanistan; they can't be left on duty in the desert long-term. The first goal should be to return every initial deployed Guardsman back home in 90 days.

Immediate replacements should be called up from our Civil Air Patrol, State Defense Forces, and Coast Guard Auxiliary. We should also consider initiating a permanent, volunteer U.S. Border Patrol Auxiliary, with the same support functions as the Civil Air Patrol to the U.S. Air Force, or the Coast Guard Auxiliary to the Coast Guard proper.

As these personnel come online, the corresponding number of National Guard troops can be discharged. The President will need to make a bully pulpit call to rejuvenate our State Defense Forces, the reserve to the National Guard, for this mission. We have unfortunately allowed these state-level military reserves to drop from WWII levels of 175,000 troops to just 15,000 today, so this in fact would be a big help in America's overall homeland security, not just in securing our borders.

These military auxiliary forces should in turn be replaced as rapidly as possible by federal troops returning from overseas duty, with an estimated 70,000 on the way now as a result of BRAC. Seems we've had no problems securing half the borders of the world, we just can't find a way to secure our own.

Within a year, we should have replaced all our initially-deployed National Guard and military auxiliary forces, and have the border under fulltime federal control with an estimated 50,000 DOD troops in the field in addition to our current Border Patrol.

America's nightmare on the border would be over, permanently, starting within a week of an Executive Order by the President, with no new laws required.

If President Bush signed that order Monday night, our border would be secure for the first time in decades by Memorial Day at the latest. Mr. Fox and La Raza wouldn't like it - but the American people sure would.

Estimated costs are around $2.5 billion per year - a bargain, compared to what our immigration disaster is already costing American taxpayers.

Once the border is secure, we can began installing the new infrastructure and technology that will allow us to permanently secure the nation - fencing, lighting, sensors, roads, cameras, ultra-light aerial observation vehicles.

We will have the time to train and deploy as many new Border Patrol agents as necessary for permanent security with the new infrastructure in place.

That shouldn't take the two years the Border Patrol is currently taking. There's no reason we can't have a 90-day Border Patrol boot camp like we do for our U.S. Marines. True, we might not be able to get them fluent in Spanish in 90 days, but I don't recall us requiring our Marines be fluent in Arabic before sending them off to Iraq.

Some estimate the permanent expanded number of Border Patrol agents needed with the infrastructure and technology in place at 25,000. But the beauty of having the border secure up front is that we can take our time in determining that number, and get it right. The same luxury applies to our infrastructure decisions.

We can probably expect those improvements to take 2-5 years to get in place. During that timeframe, troop levels can be gradually reduced as new infrastructure is completed and new Border Patrol officers are placed in the field. Within 5 years, we will have a rebuilt, properly manned, and rejuvenated Border Patrol with the tools they need to get the job done.

That's the formula for using American troops to successfully, immediately, and permanently secure our border.

With that kind of action, the President would have House Members sitting up and paying attention to any suggestion on improving our legal guest worker programs, and in dealing with illegals aliens already in the country.

But there's another troop formula, ala Janet Napalitano, designed to win public opinion points without really changing anything, to hoodwink the House into going along with the Senate's grotesque amnesty plan, and to leave the southern border open to new waves of illegal aliens in order to drive down American wages for employers and Wall Street.

That formula calls for a few thousand National Guard to be deployed to the border on a short-term temporary basis, with a generic mission to "assist the Border Patrol". It would call for new technology and infrastructure, with no commitment to time certain or specifics. It would call for an increased Border Patrol, to the tune of maybe 1500 a year, with two years of training before being allowed to enter the field.

And that formula would allow waves of millions of new illegal immigrants, lured by promises of amnesty from the President and the Senate, to continue swarming across our southern border in record numbers for years to come.

We will all be waiting Monday night to discover which plan the President has in mind for America.

A new study from the Center for Immigration Studies is one of the first to estimate the impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Based on Census Bureau data, the study estimates that households headed by illegal aliens used $10 billion more in government services than they paid in taxes in 2002. These figures are only for the federal government; costs at the state and local level are also likely to be significant. The study also finds that if illegals were given amnesty, the fiscal deficit at the federal level would grow to nearly $29 billion. The study, entitled The High Cost of Cheap Labor: Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget, is online at
Center for Immigration Studies

"America now confronts a distinct choice. In a few short years we could be part of a totalitarian "new world order," or we could remain a free and independent nation. Our forefathers fought and died so that we might have that freedom and independence - something to think about before giving them away. Patriotism was long regarded as a virtue. But now it is often slighted. Patriotism, we are told is facism."

From the Shadows of Power by James Perloff, Published by Western Islands, 1988.

Across America, school overcrowding threatens the education of millions of children. Massive building programs at immense taxpayer costs have not been able to keep up.

Americans do not want their Congress to use immigration next year to add tens of thousands more students into inadequate schools? Americans are for compassion toward the nation's children – including those of recent immigrants.

An integral part of the standard American ideal of a quality life is tied to the tradition of quick access to open spaces.Increasingly Americans find the "open spaces" so congested they fail to receive the psychological and spiritual refreshment they had sought.

For two decades, real wages for hourly workers have been stagnant or in decline. Income disparity has widened dramatically. The middle class is in a squeeze. Studies in top scholarly journals have shown that the flooding of the labor market with foreign workers has been a significant factor.

Most Americans want to stop such insensitive competition. They are for a life of dignity for even the lowest skilled of workers. Congress should show some compassion.

Most economists are agreed that the workers hurt most by high immigration this year are the immigrants who came last year. They are exposed to the most direct labor competition. Most Americans are for a society in which all Americans including the foreign-born can live middle-class lifestyles.

Americans in large urban areas now must spend a significant part of their lives in maddening rush-hour traffic. Imagine the transportation nightmare with the more than 400 million Americans the Census Bureau says will be living in this country by 2050 if Congress doesn't change immigration numbers.

Most Americans place an extremely high value on the American tradition of generous individual liberties and of limiting regimentation and regulation to as little as is necessary for the common good.

Instead of many types of lifestyles and local cultures to choose from, Americans are finding all cities becoming more and more like New York City and Los Angeles. Every year under current immigration policy, population growth adds the equivalent of another Detroit, Denver, Miami, and Washington, D.C.

President Theodore Roosevelt once said, "We have one language here, and that is the English language, and we intend to see that the [assimilation] crucible turns our people out as Americans." Today America's linguistic unity, which enabled the melting-pot crucible to forge one nation out of millions of immigrants from all over the world, is under attack as never before. Record numbers of non-English speaking immigrants threaten to overwhelm the assimilative process.

Instead of encouraging new immigrants to acquire the English fluency needed to succeed in our society, the policy of our government is to promote "diversity" by operating in ever growing numbers of foreign languages.

Citizens For A Constitutional Republic supports legislation to clarify that English shall be our official language, such as HR 931, by Peter King (R-NY) and HR 997 by Steve King (R-IA).

Citizens For A Constitutional Republic will combat Executive Order (E.O. 13166) which establishes as a civil right the ability to demand services in any foreign language.

by William Gheen
President of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC ALIPAC 3/16/2006

Illegal immigration in the United States, can never be fully stopped; however it can be reversed. We can greatly reduce the number of aliens that attempt to enter America illegally, by reversing this flow with remedies that already exist in United States Law. There is a large consensus of support from the American citizenry for the implementation of these remedies to illegal immigration.

Topics: illegal immigration, Guest Worker Program, amnesty, Congress, Senate, legislation, laws, Americans, security

Unfortunately, there is a state of non-enforcement of laws , made possible by politicians, greedy corporations, and racially motivated industries that represent less than 10% of the US population, yet wield a great deal of power and influence.

Simply put, America needs to enforce existing laws. Political and media pundits are constantly expounding upon our need to send the right messages to terrorists. Why is it then that many of those same pundits send the wrong message to illegal aliens?

Only by reversing the flow of illegal aliens can we lower pressure on the border. The message we need to send? That America is not open, accommodating, or receptive to those the disrespect our laws and citizenry by entering as illegal aliens. The best messengers to carry this news will be millions of illegal aliens returning to their legal homes, to the nations they are citizens of.

Those that favor open borders and unrestricted immigration into America are constantly offering false dichotomies. They say "Well, do you want to secure the border or focus on interior enforcement?" or "Why are you not focusing on fining employers that hire illegal aliens?" The truth is that we should and must do all of the above. These same apologists for illegal aliens are the same political forces that are sending the message "Come to America and we will not enforce our laws. In fact, we will simply legalize you with the stroke of a pen and enroll you into a Guest Worker Amnesty Program. There you have it! No more illegal aliens."

We need to do many things to reverse the flow of illegal aliens and create the proper market pressures for many of them to leave on their own volition. Our efforts must be on every level of government: federal, state, and local.

The four things we must do are: (1). Secure our Borders. (2.) Crack down on employers that intentionally hire illegal labor. (3.) Remove all benefits such as licenses, in-state tuition, and welfare for illegal aliens. (4.) Empower local police to enforce immigration law.

Broad consensus exists for these measures, as multiple, national and local polls show over 80+% support for each one. From these multiple examples of support, we can see that the American public not only supports these measures, but American citizens are dismayed to discover that each facet has been compromised by an influential political minority.

The current administration in Washington is quick to point out that we are spending more than ever on border security resources. They do not like to mention the fact that over two thirds of our border patrol agents have poor morale because they are being prevented from doing the job they have been sent to do.

We can secure our borders by mounting pressure for the White House to rescind the current orders for our border patrol to only "catch and release" illegal aliens caught at the border. Mexican nationals caught entering the US should not be dropped off just across the border so they can try again the next night. They should be detained, identified, told that a 2nd crossing attempt is a felony. They should then handed over to the Mexican government to be returned to their homes. A Congressional inquiry is needed to ascertain why these insane and useless directives are in place and why most of the border sensor technology the taxpayers have paid for is not in place or operational.

Fining employers is essential, and once again supported by over 80+% of the American public. In 1999 only 400 employers were fined for hiring illegal labor. Under George Bush in 2004, Immigration and Customs Enforcement issued three intent letters but issued ZERO fines. The green light has been given to every business in America that they can hire illegal aliens without fear of enforcement. Thankfully, many states are now training and hiring agents to enforce fines against employers in the absence of the federal government honoring it's Constitutional responsibilities to the citizens of America.

Removing incentives to illegal aliens can be tricky. The Open Borders Lobby are using children and anchor babies as human shields to obtain benefits such as in-state tuition grants for illegal aliens. No American should be forced to pay for services for foreign nationals. Each state and federal elected official must know that illegal aliens should not be given licenses, in-state tuition, mortgages, bank accounts, welfare, or any other benefit short of emergency medical care and law enforcement accommodations before they are deported.

Empowering local police to enforce immigration law is essential, but currently there is confusion about enforcement by local police. Most departments do not realize that Federal law passed in 1996 already allows them to take action. That is why many cities and states are already training their officers for enforcement. Both local political will and funding must exist to set this in motion.

Now picture yourself as an illegal alien in an America where the existing laws are enforced, border patrol is allowed to do their job, employers are fined, benefits have been restricted, and the local police are now involved. Are you getting the message?

A final touch should be the declaration of English as America's national language. New laws must be passed that prohibit government agencies and businesses from discriminating by catering to Spanish speakers. Legal immigrants should be required to have some command of the English language. Current bi-lingual services are provided at a cost to American taxpayers and consumers are specifically designed to aid and abet illegal aliens. All legal immigrants to America should know how to speak American!

Illegal aliens will have trouble finding employment and services. They know if they are deported that getting back in will be more difficult than ever and when they are caught by police for crimes, drinking and driving, or driving without a license they are immediately placed in the deportation line and local officers are sent to their residence to determine the status of others living at that location.

There is no need for mass deportation, random sweeps, or draconian house–to-house searches.

If these measures are put in place, our illegal alien population will shrink instead of grow. This will also allow the employers that have been unscrupulous in their hiring practices to have some adjustment time. It took us years to get into this crisis and it will take years to get out. There will be some pain in the process, but we can send the illegal aliens home on air conditioned, first class buses stocked with diapers, refreshments, and baby formula, to satisfy the most tender-hearted Americans.

I often say in my speeches that "A chair without four legs is not a chair. We must do these four things. This is a true and holistic immigration reform. If we implement, a nation , these four measures, millions of illegal aliens will begin to leave the United States of America. Some will have to be helped on their way through deportation, but we do not have to deport 12 million. We can engage in enforcement through attrition." I've dubbed this "chair" the Krikorian Chair in honor of, Mark Krikorian, of the Center for Immigration Studies. As an admirer of Mr. Krikorian's work, one day I observed him facing down an Open Borders opponent on television by stating that we needed both border security and internal enforcement. Mark then pointed out that a stool needed more than one leg to be effective.

Mr. Krikorian has pointed out that illegal aliens ,in a sense, are migrants. This means they move from place to place. Those of us following this issue in the media have watched how illegal aliens chose states based on enforcement trends and benefits and how they start to leave a town when local officials crack down. Many of our illegal aliens will migrate back to the land they know if we implement Krikorian's Chair and send the correct message which is "Illegals Go Home!"

Another good analogy to use is being in a boat that has holes in the hull and is taking on water. Much like America, the boat will remain afloat for awhile but then pass a point where she starts to sink rapidly.

Right now, we are taking on much more water than we are bailing out. We need to plug some of the holes to reduce the flow of water. We need to increase the amount of water we are bailing out. We need to throw unneeded cargo weight off of the boat to alleviate pressure. Only when this is done will the situation improve for us.

Most importantly we need to identify those that have punched the holes in our boat and are standing there saying let's allow all of the water to stay in the boat and more to come in! These captains of doom need to be removed from political office, positions in the media, and positions of political influence.

William Gheen is the President of Americans for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee or ALIPAC found at www.alipac.us He also serves as a legislative assistant in North Carolina. William is a veteran campaign consultant with experience in over 40 campaigns. He can be contacted at WilliamG@alipac.us or 919-787-6009.

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For further information please refer to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

To keep the debate over illegal immigration in the proper perspective, I am attaching these two articles from the Washington Times. The Houston Chronicle is terminally biased in favor of amnesty for illegal immigrants and does not report on the national security threats created by our open borders. I hope that Houstonians read this vital information since you will never see these stories in our local newspaper. I have verified the complete accuracy of these reports either in person or through questioning witnesses who testified under oath before my committees. I have also confirmed the reliability of Mike Maxwell, the former Director of the Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) Office of Security and Investigations, who quit because he was outraged over the blatant refusal of CIS to solve the security problems he uncovered. I am putting together both open and closed Congressional hearings to expose the massive incompetence, fraud and even espionage at the Department of Homeland Security and CIS. Most importantly, I will continue to focus Congress' attention on national security solutions that will work right away, like my successful effort in the House to send a total of $100 million directly to every border county sheriff from Brownsville to San Diego so they can hire enough deputies to enforce law and order, stop the flood of illegal immigrants and build enough detention beds to house them until they can be deported. America will never win the war on terror until we protect our borders. Congress must never reward someone who has broken our laws by legalizing their behavior.

Houston Office:
10000 Memorial Drive Suite 620 Houston, TX 77024-3490
p/(713) 682-8828 f/(713) 680-8070

Washington Office: 1728 Longworth House Office Bldg Washington, D.C. 20515-4307
p/(202) 225-2571 f/(202) 225-4381

Two weeks ago, Congressman John Culberson visited the Texas/Mexico border to learn more about a zero tolerance program called Operation Streamline. This common sense program is deterring border crossings and dramatically reducing illegal immigration. "The Del Rio sector is now closed to illegal immigrants thanks to the initiative of local Federal District Judge Alia Ludlum and Border Patrol Chief Randy Hill. In their sector, they are no longer tolerating illegal aliens coming into the United States and they are insisting that the law be enforced. "The effect has been dramatic. They are arresting, prosecuting, and locking up every illegal alien for six months and then deporting them. Before Operation Streamline began, they had about 7000 aliens illegally crossing the border every month from countries other than Mexico. Last month they had about twenty. "This proves we can protect the border with existing laws and existing resources. Once word got out that illegal aliens were being prosecuted, illegal crossings plummeted. Law enforcement works and it is protecting our communities and our nation. "Unfortunately there is a systematic and deliberate refusal to enforce immigration laws along the rest of the border. It's outrageous and I will not rest until our borders are secure and we have zero tolerance from Brownsville to San Diego." Operation Streamline is a partnership between the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas - Del Rio Division, the U.S. Attorney's Office, the U.S. Marshal's Office, and the ICE Office of Detention and Removal. The Del Rio Sector experienced a 38 percent drop in apprehensions during FY'06, and a further 52 percent reduction in FY '07 so far. The reduction in illegal immigration has allowed the Border Patrol to focus on preventing crossings by terrorists and drug smugglers. Prior to Operation Streamline, many illegal aliens were released into the United States after they were caught. Congressman Culberson's interview with KTRH reporter Scott Braddock can be found here.

With all the discussion about immigration in the news media, it must not be lost that one thing is fundamental to this whole issue of illegal immigration: border security.

If we do not secure the borders of the United States, we leave ourselves wide open to infiltration and assault by terrorists, not to mention drug traffickers and weapons smugglers. Although the Senate has failed to act on the question of immigration reform, the House has been explicit in its insistence that the border with Mexico be secured by the erection of a fence along the areas of high illegal entry. Although the fence and other security measures are on the border with Mexico, the illegals entering the United States come from many countries other than Mexico, and it is some of those “other than Mexicans” who may pose the greatest danger to our nation.

Part of the argument over allowing illegal immigrants to stay in this country is that they are hard-working and support various sectors of our economy. That may be true of some, but there are many dangerous persons who enter the U. S. illegally. In testimony before the House, the head of the Federal Bureau of Prisons reported that out of the 189,000 persons incarcerated, 50,000 of them are illegal aliens. This is the number in federal prisons and does not account for those who are in local or state jails.

Another section of the House immigration reform legislation is ending what is known commonly as the “Visa Lottery.” This section of the legislation was originally a stand-alone bill sponsored by Virginia Congressman Bob Goodlatte. The Visa Lottery, or diversity immigrant program, as it is referred to in the Immigration and Nationality Act, allows 55,000 visas annually to natives of five countries from which immigrant admissions were lower than a total of 50,000 for the preceding five years. Applicants must be reviewed by the State Department, but since its inception in 1995, this program has not been amended to prevent immigration from countries that the U. S. identifies as sponsors of terrorism from participating in the lottery.

A related item is the “anchor baby” legislation found in HR 698. Although this bill was not included in the immigration reform bill adopted by the House, I am hopeful that it will be enacted on its own.

After the War Between the States, Congress enacted a bill that guaranteed citizenship to all freed slaves by assuring that all children born on U. S. soil are recognized as citizens. Today, the provision allows any child born to an illegal immigrant on U. S. soil to be a full-fledged citizen. HR 698 says that only children born to parents, at least one of whom is a U. S. citizen or legal resident, will be granted U. S. citizenship. It is this loophole in United States law that attracts many aliens to get to this nation any way they can so that their child or children can become U. S. citizens automatically, and I believe that it should be repealed.

Please keep in touch with me on issues that are important to you. You may write Congressman Virgil Goode, 70 East Court Street, Room 215, Rocky Mount, VA 24151; or fax to 1-540-484-1459; or call toll-free to the Danville office, 1-800-535-4008.

Border security and immigration reform are among the toughest and most complex government policy issues I’ve ever had to grapple with. In order to arrive at a policy that reflects that we are both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws, we require a civil, careful, and thoughtful discussion. As Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, I have attempted to address this problem in a comprehensive manner because the people of Wisconsin, and the vast majority of Americans, are more than ready for an overhaul of our country’s policy toward illegal aliens.

Last year, I introduced the Border Protection, Anti-Terrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act (HR 4437), which passed the House of Representatives in December. The Senate is currently deliberating its version of an immigration bill, which by all accounts, appears to be headed in the wrong direction.

The bill that passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 27 repeats the mistakes made 20 years ago when we provided amnesty to illegal aliens and let unethical businesses off the hook. The Senate bill includes amnesty for the 11 to 12 million undocumented aliens in the US who have managed to elude the authorities. This is a slap in the face to those who are following the law and taking the right steps to enter this country. The Senate proposal absolves the wrongdoers and penalizes those who are obeying the law. I do not accept the claim made by some that this is not amnesty because among other things, illegal aliens would have to pay two fines of $1,000 each. It is offensive to me to think we have legislators who are considering selling US citizenship for $2,000. US citizenship is not for sale. It is a privilege bestowed upon those who appreciate its value, and who contribute to our nation by living in a manner that reflects the principles and ideology of being an American. When someone’s first step in this country is taken in direct violation of our laws, I cannot support a process that allows them to continue residing in the US, while others wait up to 20 years outside the US before they are able to take their first step into this country legally.

To end this migration of illegal aliens into the US, we must stop the businesses that hire them. Without employment opportunities, people will be less likely to break the law to enter this country. Moreover, companies that hire legal residents are placed at a disadvantage when compared to those that hire illegal aliens because they have to pay a higher wage to their employees. In order to survive, many of these ‘legitimate’ businesses have to depress their employees’ wages just to remain competitive with the companies that hire illegal aliens. This is bad for all the people involved, and it is bad for our economy. To address this, my bill requires businesses to verify the accuracy of employees’ social security numbers, and raises the penalties assessed to corporations that hire undocumented workers from $250 per illegal alien to $5,000 for first-time offenses.

It is time to tone down the rhetoric, and come to an understanding on this issue. We need to look at what Congress has done in the past, and learn from our mistakes because the current system isn’t working. Having 10,000 or 100,000 people marching in the streets of our nation might make for good television, but it doesn’t provide a solution.

Mr. Speaker, the United States is under attack. And like December 7, 1941, we are asleep on a Sunday morning. The reason, Mr. Speaker, is because this Nation is under attack by another nation. We are being invaded, we are being colonized, and there are insurgents from the nation of Mexico and their allies further south.

Mr. Speaker, in 1836, the State of Texas from which I hail from was invaded by Santa Ana and his Mexican Army, and they found those Texans who were seeking independence from Mexico in a beat-up old Spanish mission that was 100 years old at the time called the Alamo. They were led by a 27-year-old lawyer from South Carolina by the name of William Barret Travis. William Barret Travis knew the odds were against him, he knew that freedom was important, and he drew a line in the sand and he said, ``All of those who wish to die for liberty, cross this line.'' And they all did, save one individual who unfortunately hailed from the nation of France.

Texas lost the battle of the Alamo, and Mexico continued its conquering of Texas. General Sam Houston, who hailed from Tennessee, Governor of Tennessee, came to Texas, led the Texas Army at the Battle of San Jacinto. Texas was liberated from the nation of Mexico and gained independence on April 21, 1836.

I bring that history to the floor of the House because history is important for us to understand what is now taking place in the year 2006 in our country. Texas remained an independent nation for 10 years, and then in 1845 became a State in the United States. This body, along with the body down the hallway, admitted Texas to the Union by only one vote. Some wish even now the vote had gone the other way. But be that as it may, Texas became a part of the United States. And in history, the Southwest was first and foremost claimed by the nation of Spain, and I have on this map over here this beige color on the southwestern portion. And Spain claimed what was Texas west and went as far as California, and of course claimed Mexico. And Spain claimed that area and was Spanish for 100 years or more.

In 1810, Mexico decided to gain independence from the nation of Spain. They wanted their own country, and they fought from 1810 to 1821 to gain their independence. Spain lost Mexico because they were at war with Napoleon over in Europe, and Napoleon was hammering Spain at the same time the Mexicans were hammering Spain here in the Americas.

So Mexico became an independent nation, and Mexico claimed much of this area that was formally Spain's. Of course, in this same area lived those people that we call American Indians, mainly the Apaches and the Comanches. Now, they didn't really have towns; they just roamed that entire area that is in beige. So you have the American Indians and you have Mexico claiming this territory. And, of course, Texas was a part of Mexico at the time because it was settled under Spanish rule.

Texas decided to gain independence from Mexico, because Mexico went from a democracy to a dictatorship. Sounds familiar, does it not? That dictator was by the name of Santa Ana. And when Santa Ana became the dictator of Mexico, he abolished what we enjoy as human rights, civil liberties. And that is why Texas gained independence and fought for independence, to have those basic rights that now all Americans have.

Anyway, after Texas spent 10 glorious years being the Republic of Texas and joined the Union, Mexico was upset with that conduct, and in 1846, invaded the United States of America in three places. One was in Matamoras, that is down here in the lower Rio Grande Valley as we call it, and came across the river. Also at that time they came in Palo Alto, Texas, in a place called Palma that no longer exists.

Of course, the United States, seeing that we were invaded and Mexico was trying to reconquer the Southwest, actually declared war on Mexico. Thus, the Mexican-American war.

And just so we understand, Mr. Speaker, what the intentions of Mexico were in 1846, the President of Mexico, President Paradas, spoke of occupying not only Texas, but taking Louisiana, New Orleans, and even going as far as Mobile, Alabama. Well, his desire to conquer the Southwest and part of the South never materialized, because American troops along with Texas Rangers went into Mexico and defeated the Mexican Army at Vera Cruz, occupied Mexico City; civil war broke out in Mexico, the government was replaced.

California is declared an independent republic for a period of time, and the American forces conquered this entire area of the Southwest, California, New Mexico, and Texas, once again. And the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed, and Mexico ceded California and New Mexico to the United States. It also recognized the boundary line of Texas and Mexico as the Rio Grande River. That was already done in the previous treaty that Mexico signed when Texas became an independent nation.

So the second time Mexico reaffirmed the border of the Southwest being the Rio Grande River. Mexico got 15 million for this acquisition along with forgiveness of all of the debts that were owed to American citizens in Mexico. And then in 1853, the United States bought more land from Mexico called the Gadsden Purchase, and in that document reaffirmed for the third time that the border between the United States and Mexico was the Rio Grande River.

Now, the reason I mention all of that, Mr. Speaker, is because now today, the year 2006, there are some who still want Mexico to occupy this entire land. And it is obvious from the actions from Generalissimo Fox in Mexico that this is his intention. In fact, let me give you some examples.

The nation of Mexico has furnished school books to the school districts in Los Angeles. Of course, they are in Spanish. And in those books they teach that this land, Los Angeles, still belongs to Mexico. We even have people who live in the United States of Hispanic descent that teach the same thing, that California really belongs to Mexico and they wish to reconquer it.

You know, Vicente Fox, Generalissimo Fox, is really a fox in fox clothing. Unlike his ancestor, Santa Ana who invaded the United States, he won't bring troops into this country. He stays behind the border and sends his people here and expects them to colonize and invade the United States. I will give you an example of that, Mr. Speaker.

We have here on this chart part of a document, a coloring book that is published by the Mexican Government, Vicente Fox's government, and this is handed out to Mexican nationals before they come into the United States telling them how to get into the United States illegally. And this is a portion of the book that I have put for you on this chart, Mr. Speaker; and it is a guide for the Mexican migrante. Here it shows illegally crossing the border. This other panel shows what happens when you come in contact with those mean old border security agents in the United States, what to do about a human smuggler or a coyote and how to pay those individuals, and then this last panel shows another place of where to cross or not to cross.

This whole booklet is given to Mexican nationals so they know where to cross so they can avoid places where the border security is, avoid places where maybe the wall will be built like Mr. King is proposing to do.

But in any event, it is an insurgency in the United States that seems to me to be sponsored by Generalissimo Fox. You know, it appears to me that Mexico is at war with the United States and we don't even know it. We have 5,000 people a day illegally crossing into the State of Texas. As Mr. King pointed out earlier, we have 11,000 coming across the entire southwestern portion of the United States every day, and they are not all coming here to work. There are three types of people.

We know that the drug cartels are bringing drugs in this country like never before. We also know that those people that want to do us harm, we still call those people terrorists, they are coming across the southern border of the United States. And there are other people coming here illegally. And what are we doing about it? Well, we have a place called Maywood, California where the public officials have decided that this town in the United States is going to be a sanctuary for illegals. In other words, if you are an illegal from another country, you can go to Maywood, California, and they will make sure that the local police don't arrest you for being in the country illegally. They even want to name a new elementary school there in Maywood, California, U.S.A. by the name of President Benito Juarez. Of course, he happened to be President of Mexico at one time. Colonization of the United States, Mr. Speaker, is taking place.

And to carry it further, last week when it was reported that the National Guard may go down on our borders, the Mexico City newspaper was outraged about this and quoted a lot of locals about what they thought about it. One Mexican national said in the Mexico City newspaper, ``No wall, no fence will keep us out. For Mexico, there are no obstacles.'' It sounds to me like folks are coming over here uninvited and appears to be an invasion.

You know, certain groups in the United States want Mexico to retake California and the Southwest, and they advocate such. Two of those groups, Aztlan and MEChA, both are groups that you can see are in favor of colonization of this country and turning it back over to Mexico.

To give you an example of that, we have one elected official in Baja, California, a reported Gloria Vargas, that says, ``Many Mexicans are nourishing the ground in the United States. This was once our land. Those same lands we are reconquering for our country, Mexico.''

It seems a bit odd we have American elected officials preaching and advocating that this country, part of it, ought to go back to Mexico.

So apparently there is a movement to conquer the United States. And I wonder, Mr. Speaker, are we going to cross the line and fight for our Nation, or are we going to remain asleep on a Sunday morning while the invasion takes place? The line obviously is drawn in the sand.

I want to mention those three types of groups that are coming into this country. Now, I hail from Texas, southeast Texas. Where I come from is right on the Gulf of Mexico and it borders Louisiana, and so I have been very familiar with the outbreak of folks coming in the United States illegally from all nations. I have spent some time down on the Texas border with our local sheriffs all the way from Roma, Texas, up to Langtry, Texas. Probably no one in this House has ever heard of either one of those places. There was a favorite judge of mine by the name of Judge Roy Bean who used to hold court in Langtry, Texas.

But be that as it may, I was down on the border with some of our Texas sheriffs, and at one time I was there with Rick Flores from Webb County and Ziggi Gonzales from Zapata County, and I wanted to see how the drug dealers were bringing dope into the United States. Now, Webb County is where Laredo, Texas is; across the river is Nuevo Laredo. And so the sheriff said, Okay, I will take you to portions of the Texas-Mexico border, but I am not taking you down to certain portions of the border unless you go with my SWAT team and you are wearing a bullet-proof vest. And I said, Why do I got to wear a bullet-proof vest for? And he says, You go down to the river in certain parts, those drug dealers are going to shoot at you, not from the American side, but from the Mexican side.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have got a problem with that. I have got a problem with being on sovereign U.S. soil standing on the border getting shot at from the other side. Now, I wonder if that offends anybody besides myself.

Anyway, we went down to the border. We saw what takes place on the Texas-Mexico border, because the drug cartels are fighting every inch to bring that dope into the United States. It is a very well-organized movement. Nuevo Laredo, as I mentioned to you, used to be a town which shared common interests with Texas and Mexico, frequent border crossings, legal border crossings, and tourists would go to Nuevo Laredo. Nuevo Laredo now is a war zone. It is run by the corrupt officials and the drug cartels. Over the past 2 years, the murder rate in Nuevo Laredo is the highest in the world because the drug dealers are killing off the police and they are killing off the citizens and they are fighting with each other. There have been 44 kidnappings in Nuevo Laredo and Laredo of American citizens; and yet of those 44 kidnappings, not one, Mr. Speaker, not one has been solved.

All of those murders in Nuevo Laredo of the police and of the citizens and of the good people in Mexico, not one have been solved. That is what is going on because of the drug cartels using Nuevo Laredo as the staging area to bring that dope into the United States and sell it among Americans.

It is an epidemic, it is organized, and these folks not only have the narcotics, they have the money and they have the fire power.

I was talking to Sheriff Flores of Webb County. Webb County is about the size of Rhode Island, and he has about 27-30 deputies. At any given time, he has seven deputies on patrol in a county the size of Rhode Island. He was telling me, you know, the drug dealers, they have got more money than we do. And let me give you an example: he said, I make $44,000 a year. My deputies, they make about $27,000 a year. A drug dealer, he makes $30,000 a week bringing drugs into the United States. So there is more money in lawlessness than there is in following the law.

Anyway, he said they had better equipment and they have better fire power and better communications. He said that, you know, when we are out on patrol and we use our cell phones, those drug dealers in Mexico track us with GPS; they know exactly where we are, and they have better vehicles than we do as well.

So that is the armed invasion that we are fighting on the border, and not just in Texas, but it occurs in Arizona and New Mexico and California as well. So it is important that we take care of business and protect the dignity of the United States, to keep the drug dealers from bringing those drugs into the United States for money.

You see, it is all about money, and we will get to more about that in a minute, but you follow the money trail and you will see why people do what they do when they invade the United States.

On the second trip down to the border, I was with other Texas sheriffs, and we saw the same thing where the drug dealers sneak into the United States, and they have paths into our country and they know what we know. Let me explain to you that.

The Border Patrol of the United States patrols the first 25 miles from the border inland. So the drug dealers make sure that they get that dope 30 miles inland because once it is 30 miles into the United States, they can take it anywhere else they want to in the United States. This is all they have to do is avoid the Border Patrol for the first 25 miles because that is all the Border Patrol is allowed to patrol by law. That is why we need not only the Border Patrol but the sheriffs, the Texas sheriffs, the Arizona sheriffs and the California and New Mexico sheriffs, all involved in border security.

So that is the first group that we have to protect ourselves against. That is the duty of government, Mr. Speaker, is to protect the public, protect the people. In this House, we pontificate every day about what government ought to be involved in. Let me tell you something, the first duty of government is national security, protect the people of these United States. Oh, programs and building bridges and that kind of stuff may be important, but it is not as important as the number one duty of government which is to protect us, and our government has the duty to protect us from those criminals who are vicious that are bringing dope into this country.

The second people that we need to be concerned about are terrorists; and, Mr. Speaker, I serve on the International Relations Committee and the Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation, and we understand that terrorists want to do us harm. We forget our history too quickly. September 11 was not that long ago, but the next terrorist attack that occurs against us is probably not going to be because somebody gets on some airplane and flies into Reagan National over here and gets off the airplane and says I wonder what damage I can do to Washington D.C. It is not going to happen that way, even though we are doing the best we can in the airline industry.

It is going to happen that somebody crosses the border into the United States because this country still has porous, open borders. It is easier to cross the border, and we know that has already occurred, Mr. Speaker. How many of those people that are here are going to do us harm? We do not know, but we do know that there are people who wish to do us harm that are forming cells in Mexico, assimilating into the Mexican population, learning Spanish and then sneaking into the United States as migrant workers and setting up cells in this country and some day hoping to do us harm.

We have an obligation to fight the war on terror at our borders. We are protecting the borders of other nations. Why are we not protecting our own border against terrorists? That is the second group of people that we have to demand that we keep out of this country, and those are the terrorists.

Then the third group of the people are those human traffickers. We call those people coyotes because that is what they are is a bunch of coyotes who bring people into the United States for money, and the human smugglers work with the drug dealers. That is what we have got to understand; and that little group of terrorists, we know they are kind of involved in all of that, too. You see, these three groups all work together because they know the routes into the United States to bring drugs, damage or weapons and bring human beings, and for those reasons, we have to protect the dignity of our country.

We know, of course, that the Mexican Government, Generalissimo Vicente Fox is not doing anything to stop this, contrary to what he says, contrary to the comments he makes, that apparently he is not doing anything to stop this nonsense.

We recently understand that in Hudspeth County, Texas, an armed group of military from Mexico, in other words, Mexican soldiers, were on American soil helping drug dealers. The Hudspeth County sheriff so relates this event; and we know that in the last several years, since 1996, there have been 200 recorded incidences of Federal military from Mexico on the American side of the border. Why are they here? Well, they are not over here looking for work, Mr. Speaker.

So now we use our military to go down to the border, the proposal to use the National Guard to enforce the border, enforce the rule of law, to help our border sheriffs, to help our Border Patrol. So what is Mexico's response? They are going to sue us. Well, we are going to take you to court in your own court and try to prevent those military, those American soldiers, from being on our side of the border, protecting us from them. How outrageous is that, going to sue to prevent that from occurring.

Not only that, you know, over in Maricopa County in Arizona, the sheriff there is trying to enforce the rule of law and arrest folks that are illegally in the United States. They threatened to sue him, too, because you do not have the authority to do that says the Mexican Government, and so they are going to take him to court, trying to prevent local law enforcement from enforcing American law.

So how have we allowed ourselves to get in a situation where we have a foreign nation taking us to court in our own courts, preventing us from protecting our borders? Just like in 1836, when William Barret

Travis and those volunteers at the Alamo, volunteers from every State in the United States and 13 foreign countries, including Mexico, fighting for dignity were under siege of Santa Ana, it appears that the United States, at least on our southern border, is under siege by Generalissimo Santa Ana Vicente Fox.

The invasion, of course, benefits Mexico and its allies--$20 billion a year in remittance go to Mexico since Mexican nationals working in the United States send that money south of the border. The number happens to be $20 billion. That is just a number. You know, here in Washington, $1 billion here, $1 billion there, does not mean anything; but to Mexico, that $20 billion of money going south of the border into the coffers of Mexico is the second largest amount of foreign income into Mexico, save only the crude oil that they sell on the world market.

We also now understand the population of the northern states of Mexico has declined 35 percent. Well, where are those people? They are all in the United States. When I was down on the Texas-Mexico border, the sheriffs were explaining to me, the border towns across the river, many of which you could see, are almost totally empty of the male population. The only people there are kids and women and older citizens. Well, where is the male population? They are all in the United States, sending money back to Mexico. Mexico, the border towns in Mexico have become ghost towns because those people have come to the United States.

President Fox is making his problem our problem. His failure to get rid of corruption in Mexico, his failure to have a stable economy, his failure to take advantage of the workers in Mexico and the natural resources in Mexico to make that nation a prosperous country, he is making his problems our problems.

Let me at this time, Mr. Speaker, recite to you an immigration policy: number one, if you migrate to this country, you must speak the language. Two, you have to be a professional or investor; no unskilled workers are allowed. Number three, there will be no special bilingual programs in the school, no special ballots or elections, and all government business will be conducted in just one language. Four, foreigners will not have the right to vote. Five, foreigners will never be able to hold public office. Six, foreigners will not be a burden to taxpayers; there will be no welfare, no health care, no government assistance. Seven, if foreigners come and want to buy land, this is highly restricted. Eight, foreigners may not protest; no demonstration, no foreign flag, no political organizing and no criticizing the President or the policies. Nine, if you come into the country illegally, you will be arrested by our Federal police, sent to jail and then deported.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the U.S. immigration policy, but this is the alleged policy of President Vicente Fox in Mexico. It appears to me that the immigration policy of Mexico is quite hypocritical because they have a policy that they do not want us to have in this country, and it is ironic that Mexico defends its southern border from illegals coming in from the South American countries and from Central American countries, has an immigration policy like this, and the United States is harassed, intimidated and criticized for trying to have a simple and fair immigration policy.

There is this little document called the matricula consular card. Now, what that is, is a card that is issued to people illegally in the United States. That is an identification card, and that matricula consular card is not just used for identification, but it allows people--illegally in the United States--to go and open a bank account. Then the bank, working with the illegal that is in the United States, can ship that money that they are earning here back home to whatever country they come from. Some say there are 11 million people here illegally. Others argue that there are 15 million, maybe 20 million people illegally in the United States.

Let us talk about immigration. Let us talk a little bit about the guest worker program. Oh, how the United States has been criticized by certain countries because we do not let people come here. The United States is a Nation of immigrants, we all know that. It still has the most liberal immigration policy in the world. We let more people in legally in the United States every year than all of Europe does, and let me give you an example of how many people.

This chart shows since 2000 how many people we legally let in the United States each year: 2000, it was about 1 million; 2001, 1.1 million; 2002, 1.1 million; 2003, 1.2 million; 2004, 1.1 million. These are people legally allowed into the United States; and you notice, most of these people stay in the United States. They have a legal permit to be here. Under whatever system they come here legally allows them to stay 3 to 5 years. So we have several million people already in the United States legally. We also know that 40 percent of them that come here legally, when they are supposed to go home, they do not do it. That is another issue.

So this business about we do not have a guest worker program is nonsense. What has this done? Has allowing 1.1 million people legally in the country every year stopped illegal entry into this country? Absolutely not. In fact, all it has done is encourage more people to come here illegally because people are going to come here whether we let them in or not, and that is just the way it seems to be. So the guest worker program does not stop illegal entry into this country.

This body down the hallway from us who want to increase the number of people legally coming here under a guest worker program must understand that that will do nothing to stop the illegal entry into this United States.

We hear that they are taking jobs away from Americans. I think that is nonsense. That is just an excuse to let people who come here illegally and come here legally as an excuse to pay them subpar wages. It appears to me that the United States is sort of staring down the barrel of this big battle and embracing the enemy.

And if we were at the Alamo, it would be similar to asking Santa Anna to come on into the Alamo for whiskey before he takes us over, because we do not seem to understand this problem and the affects on our Nation. If affects our country.

Let us talk about education. Many States are looking for money to educate their youth. Education is one of the bedrocks of this Nation, educating the young to be all they can be. But most States, and I do not know any State that has more money than they need in the area of education, but part of their education problem is they have to educate people that are here illegally because that is the way it is. They have to educate those people. In some States, my State for example, up to 20 percent of the cost of the education system in the State is based upon the fact they are educating people illegally in the United States.

Why don't we talk about that? Why don't we deal with that issue? Is there any other country in the world that one of us in this room could illegally go into and demand an education in our own language and get it? I think not. But in the United States we do it, and we pay the consequences for the illegal entry into our country.

The second one is health care. Every American is concerned about health care and the cost of health care. There are so many Americans in the middle class that are opting out of insurance because they can't afford insurance and they are concerned about health care for themselves and their families and what is going to happen to them down the road. It is one of the biggest concerns all of us in this House hear about every day, the cost of health care. Well, about 23 percent of the cost of health care is being paid by us because people who are in the system aren't paying for it.

And I am not talking about the uninsured. I am talking about the people here illegally in the United States. Just a couple of weeks ago, a hospital down in my district just spent $250,000 on one patient, and he happened to be in the United States illegally. Because of an injury that he had, we paid for it because he certainly didn't have any means to take care of himself.

We know illegals go to the emergency rooms. The highest most expensive costs in our health care system are the trauma rooms, the emergency rooms, and they go there to get taken care of because we don't turn anybody down. That is our system in this country. Does that make any sense at all?

So what are the hospitals doing? They are closing their emergency rooms. Some hospitals are closing down because they can't afford to stay in business because they are treating people that don't pay their own way.

And Americans are not getting health care because we are having to pay for the health care of those people who are here illegally in the United States.

The third category, besides education and health care, is the criminal justice system. Before I came to this House, I spent all my time in the criminal justice system, first as a prosecutor, and then 22 years as a judge down in Texas trying felony cases. And about 20 percent of the people that come through our criminal justice system are illegally in the United States. So they are not only committing crimes, they are getting caught, then going through the justice system that taxpayers pay for, and then they go to our penitentiaries, if convicted, and we have to pay for that system too.

So we get hit twice by criminals from other countries all over the world. First, it is the crime, and second, we pay for the crime because we furnish them the system and then we pay for their incarceration as well.

The fourth category, of course, is social services, such as Social Security benefits. Our Social Security System was never designed to be a system that took care of people illegally in the United States and allowed them to send their Social Security benefits back home to the country they came from, and yet that is occurring. The Social Security System was never designed to be an identifying system that employers have got to check Social Security numbers.

Social Security was never designed to be an identification for who you are. It is a retirement system. So we have abused the Social Security System, or allowed it to be abused by those people who don't even belong in the United States.

Another category that I just cannot comprehend is how we allow folks that are illegally in the United States, and I am not talking about legal aliens or immigrants that are here legally, we will get to them in a minute, I am talking about folks who are here illegally in the United States, who graduate from one of our high schools and then want to go to college. Now, if one of these folks from some foreign country, any foreign country, illegally in the United States, gets admitted to one of our State universities in Texas, they pay in-State tuition. They pay the same tuition anybody else in the State of Texas would pay.

Remember, we wonder, do we not, why are they going to school anyway if they are illegally in the country? But let's say you are from Oklahoma. We can talk about Oklahoma or Iowa, where Mr. King is from, and let's say one of those students, American citizen, legal immigrant, wishes to go to school in the State of Texas to a State school. They pay out of State tuition because they are not from around here. They are from some other place. So we make them pay out of state tuition.

So I ask this question, Mr. Speaker: Why do we discriminate against American citizens in other States, legal immigrants in other States, make them pay out of State tuition and furnish an in-State tuition fee to a person illegally in our own State? That is an absurd policy. I don't understand why we do that. That is certainly not fair to people that are legally in the country or to American citizens.

One thing that has been mentioned and continues to be mentioned is the concept of the fraud that is perpetrated on the United States based upon the 14th amendment. Let me give an example.

Down in south Texas, frequently pregnant ladies come across the Texas River, illegally coming to the United States from all over the world, and then they have a child born then in the United States. We assume that child is an American citizen. And because it is our policy to assume that person is an American citizen, the mother gets to stay. If the husband is here, he gets to stay. And before you know it, the whole family is allowed to stay because of the fraud perpetrated on the American people by that pregnant individual coming into the United States illegally and having a child.

It is based upon a phrase in the 14th amendment that says that ``All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof'' are citizens. Now, notice, Mr. Speaker, what the phrase says. It says ``all persons born or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof'' are citizens.

Well, I think the argument should be made that that individual that perpetrated a fraud on the United States, illegally coming into the country, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. She is subject to the jurisdiction of whatever country she came from. And, hopefully, this matter will be resolved by either legislation from this body or by our Supreme Court across the street to determine whether or not those people really are subject to the jurisdiction of the United

States and whether they should be granted automatic citizenship or not. That will be left for another time.

But just to show you how we are our own worst enemy and how we are inviting the insurgents into our country, we have cities in this Nation, it is usually the large cities, the big cities, and, unfortunately, it happens to be my city of Houston, Texas, that have sanctuary policies. What a sanctuary policy is that local police officers are instructed that they are not to stop people and inquire as to their legal status in the country. If they do so, then they will be disciplined. This gives an open invitation to people, because they know they will not be stopped by the police, arrested and deported.

What used to happen, Mr. Speaker, was local police would stop somebody on a traffic or some other minor offense, find out they were here illegally in the United States, and they would turn them over to the immigration officials and immigration officials would then deport that individual. That doesn't happen any more. Now they may stop them and realize they are from some other country, but they let them go because cities have sanctuary policies. Don't arrest people here illegally in the United States.

This means you can get arrested for jaywalking but you can't be arrested for being here illegally in this country. Makes me wonder whether or not we have lost our common sense.

Let me read some letters and correspondence I have gotten and received from individuals about this whole issue of unlawful entry into the country. As many Members of the House have done, we have received numerous comments, e-mails, letters and phone calls of what people think about this whole issue of the border and border security, which is the issue.

One of the towns I represent is a small town called Humble, Texas, and Zine from Humble has written me this comment: She says, ``I am an immigrant myself, who was blessed to have the privilege of becoming an American citizen. I came to this country legally many years ago with my two daughters. As soon as we arrived, my daughters were enrolled in school so they could learn English and we spoke only English at home. My sister, who sponsored us, took us to McDonald's and told my daughters that they couldn't really be Americans unless they ate hamburgers and drank Coca-Cola. Five years later, we became U.S. citizens. We are Brazilian by birth and Americans by choice, and we did it legally. We never demanded any rights because we had none until we became citizens. We pay taxes, we obey the law, we love this country with its tradition and all it stands for, and we do not wish to see it destroyed or changed. In 2004, I had to go to the emergency room of a local hospital. I was there for 7 1/2 hours because the waiting room was full of illegals who, according to the law, had to be taken care of. I pay taxes, they don't. Where are my rights?

Another letter I received from Jack, in Houston, Texas, tells me this. He says, ``My wife, who I love dearly, is an immigrant, a legal immigrant who took the time and effort and wanted to do the right thing that would allow her to come and stay in this country legally. For illegal immigrants to demand their citizenship and rights I think pretty much violates all this country stands for, which is fair and equal treatment under the law of the land, which they seen fit to break. To me, this is akin to convicts in prison demanding to be released because they want to be released regardless of crimes that they have committed.''

Another U.S. citizen of Hispanic descent, Marinell, from Houston, proudly writes, ``Speaking for the Hispanic community who are U.S. citizens, I'm asking you for your support to secure the borders. There are some issues that are very important and are simple that should be followed. One, close the border. Two, make illegal entry into the United States a felony. Three, no amnesty programs by any name. Four, guest workers should be fingerprinted and background checked. Five, any detained illegals should be immediately deported.

Six, English only. The cost to us for accommodating so many languages is overwhelming. Seven, no more automatic citizenship for people born in America of parents who are not U.S. citizens. Eight, exact a tax on money wired out of the United States by illegals. Nine, stop listening to illegals and start listening to Hispanics who are U.S. citizens.

Ten, don't believe that our economy will collapse if we don't have illegals. We would all rather pay a little more for goods and services and less for our health care premiums.''

Wise common sense by a person who did it the right way, proud to be in the United States and proud to be here legally.

Philip from Montgomery, Texas, says, ``I've heard it argued that illegals are only coming to improve their economic standing. Can not the same be said of anyone who commits larceny? They want to improve their economic standing as well. Illegals are systematically robbing our public coffers, denying our citizens adequate education, medical care and other essential services. Enough is enough.''

Carl from Beaumont, Texas, writes, ``The argument used to justify illegal aliens is that they will do the work that Americans won't do. Well, that is not correct. Americans will do the work if paid the going wage, not less than the minimum wage. I am disheartened that we reward employers who rob Americans of honest work by cheap labor. This has to stop. This country has grown into a powerhouse without resorting to economic slavery of immigrants.''

Just this week I received a letter from a member of a local union down in Beaumont, Texas. He sent me a newspaper article. This newspaper article headlines ``Fabricator requests 300 Mexican workers. Company claims there's not enough Americans to work.'' And the article goes ahead and points out that there are three businesses down in Beaumont, Texas, that want pipefitters and welders to come on board from other nations because there is not workers. Well, that is preposterous. This local pipefitters union member wrote me a letter saying he hadn't even heard about this, and his whole responsibility is finding jobs for local citizens as pipefitters and as welders.

And you notice we are talking about pipefitters and we are talking about welders. We are not talking about someone doing unskilled labor. These are good wages. And some of the businesses would rather hire people from other nations, claiming there are no Americans that will take these jobs, and then pay subpar wages. Mr. Speaker, this is just not right, and these individuals certainly, who are American citizens and are legally here, ought to be receiving the jobs over people from other nations.

So what are the solutions? The first one, the government has to fight for America. Some have said that our government's at war but it is at war with the American public, at war with the American will. We ought to make sure our government has the moral will to protect the dignity of our country, the borders, both the northern border and the southern border.

Our government has to quit working for other nations. There are reports even this week that the Minutemen, nonviolent individuals who go and sit on the border and watch for illegals coming in and then notify the Border Patrol, there are reports that the Border Patrol is telling the Mexican government where these Minutemen are so that the illegals crossing into the United States go around them.

I do not know if this is true or not, but we are going to find out if that is true and it is going to stop. The American Government has to work for America not for foreign governments.

We have to protect our borders. I mentioned earlier that we protect the borders of other nations, so maybe we ought to protect the borders of our own Nation. Third world countries protect their borders better than the United States does.

The reason is we do not have the moral will to protect the dignity of the border. We talk about how we are going to protect the border, but we have not done it. There was talk about it in 1996 when this House talked about border security and a guest worker program. Nothing happened. We got the guest worker program, we just didn't get border security.

My grandfather used to say when all is said and done, more is said than done. That is what is going on. We are talking about it and there is a lot of publicity about it, but it does not seem that we are demanding and securing the border.

We have to help the Border Patrol do their job. We need to give them the best equipment. Just like we give our military the best equipment, we need to give our border patrol the best equipment.

The National Guard, they are part of the military. Their responsibility is to protect us. It is a good idea to use them immediately because no wall can be built overnight, yet the National Guard can be deployed overnight. Even if Generalissimo Vicente Fox does not like it, we ought to do it.

We should consider using a fence in appropriate areas. I know other Members of Congress have received all types of correspondence and mail. We get all kinds of things sent to us. But recently, I had an individual from Texas send me four cases of bricks. Here is one of those bricks. He sent a letter along with it. In the letter he said, why don't you use this brick and these other bricks to build a wall to protect us from people illegally coming into the United States. Other Members of Congress have received these bricks as well.

The American public wants something done. Whatever it takes to secure the dignity of the United States, we certainly ought to do it. Maybe we ought to have Extreme Makeover go down to the Texas border and have an ``Extreme Makeover Border'' edition. As fast as they build something, they would not take long to build a wall. The reason we are building the wall is because of those people illegally coming into the United States. No American should ever feel guilty about that.

Mr. Speaker, we need to use the best law enforcement groups in the United States and that is the sheriffs, the Texas sheriff, the border sheriffs in California, Arizona and New Mexico. Those are some right-thinking folks. They know the area. They know the people. They have dedicated their lives to enforcing the law. But the way the law is written now, we cannot use the border sheriffs in detaining illegals that come into our country, and we ought to use them. We ought to give them the law enforcement power to turn illegals over to Federal authorities and have Federal authorities deport those individuals.

Rick Flores of Webb County made the comment, he said this is not a partisan issue. It is not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue, and he is a Democrat. He said this is a red, white and blue issue. He is right. Our border sheriffs ought to be used because they all grew up in these particular areas. They know the people and know who shouldn't be in those particular areas. So we should give them the money to do this.

The second thing we need to do after we secure the border, and we secure the borders before we start talking about people who are here illegally or any other immigration policy because you must stop the bleeding before you can solve the problem.

Once we secure the dignity of the border, we have to go back and look at our immigration policy. It is chaos in my opinion. It takes too long for people to come here legally. I have had individuals from Mexico who have tried to get into the United States, and it has taken years. People in my district, it took them a long time to come in legally. We seem to discriminate against people. We do not treat them all alike. We have to look at our immigration policy, maybe start over and make it fair and put the world on notice here is how you enter the United States legally.

Whether you want to work here, or whether you want to be a resident alien or become an American citizen. We have to stop the chaos in the immigration department.

One thing that we ought to do, it seems real obvious to me, when people cross from the nation of Mexico or Canada or the Caribbean, they can show one of several hundred documents to prove that they are from some other nation. They can even use a baptismal certificate. Our border agents have to shuffle through all of these different papers to figure out whether these people in this car are legally coming into the United States.

Why do we make it so difficult on ourselves? Why don't we do what every other nation does, and that is if you come to the United States legally, you have to have a passport, just like they do in every other nation in the world. When we let people into this country legally, we do not even know who they are. When they leave, we do not record that they left. With the bar code in a passport, we can check people's criminal record. We can record and keep a database if they are legally coming into this country and when they have to go home.

Then the employer can have a photograph on a visa and the employer can use a government document rather than some Social Security number to see if the person he is hiring is legally in the United States and quit making police officers out of our businesses.

Why people are opposed to a passport, I do not know. We talk about all kinds of identification cards that we want people to carry; simple, universal, worldwide, because we are in the world community, a worldwide document, a passport to enter the United States.

Then we ought to deport felons that are convicted automatically. Let me tell you what happens. Someone would be in this country, they are caught committing a crime. They are tried. They are sent to the Texas penitentiary. You would think that our government would automatically deport those people. But we do not do that. What we do is let them go back in the county in which they were convicted. Then the immigration service has to recapture them and have a deportation hearing and may or may not deport them.

I tried people back in Texas who were illegally in the United States and never deported. They were released, went back and committed another crime, and went back to the penitentiary. We ought to deport people who are convicted of a felony if they are from another country.

Probably the best example of an individual who abused our system was an individual by the name of Angel Resendiz. He came to the United States. He was captured several times, deported a few times. After being released, he committed nine murders in the United States. He was released by Federal authorities after being captured several other times. Resendiz is sitting now on death row in Texas waiting to be executed.

I haven't even talked about those people from all over the world who come here just to commit crime. So deport people who are convicted of felonies in our Nation as soon as they serve their sentence. We have to abolish this catch-and-release policy. Catch and release is a phrase that fishermen use. Catch and release is you catch them, take them off the hook and you let them go.

That is what they do with fish, catch and release. Because we claim we do not have enough facilities to detain individuals. People from Mexico, if you are captured illegally, we deport you. We send you back home. But if you are from some other nation other than Mexico, OTMs, if you are from China or Peru or France, instead of deporting you automatically, you are released. Thus, the catch and release. What they do, they stand before a magistrate and swear that they will come back for their deportation hearing in 6 months.

Mr. Speaker, does it surprise anybody that more than 90 percent of those people we never see them again. They just move on. We catch them, we let them go. This is absurd. Police officers work too hard to capture these individuals just to let them go. We have to find facilities to house these people until they are deported. Put them on old military bases.

We have 10,000 trailers sitting in Hope, Arkansas, owned by FEMA. They are in Hope because they would not bring them down to hurricane areas like Texas because of the floodplain. That violates one of their policies. Why not use FEMA trailers as temporary housing for OTMs. Here we discriminate against Mexican nationals here illegally because we send them home. But if you are from some other Nation other than Mexico, you are released and told to come back. And then we are shocked that people do not come back.

We ought to deny benefits for people here illegally in this country. They shouldn't receive health care, education, welfare, housing, AFDC, Social Security and they certainly should not receive amnesty. The idea that we are going to tell people here is what we are going to do, we are going to give you amnesty, but you are going to have to pay a fine, pay some back taxes and learn English. What if they do not do that? We are going to do nothing because that is what we have been doing, nothing. What prompts those people to do that. They have been dealing with a cash economy. They do not even know what their back taxes are. So this whole idea of rewarding illegal behavior is wrong.

We ought to also go after employers that knowingly hire people illegally in this country. You know, 3 or 4 weeks ago we heard about a couple of businesses in the United States that were raided and captured folks that were here illegally, and the business was being prosecuted for hiring illegals. That has gone away. That is not in the news anymore. Why not? Because all that was a publicity stunt, in my opinion.

There are many businesses that hire people legally from other nations, and there are other businesses for cheap, plantation labor hiring them subpar. We ought to go after those people. It is follow the money. Follow the money trail, and that is something that we ought to do.

There are people with different motives that do not want our borders protected. There are some on the left, those northeastern elites who I think for political gain don't want our borders protected. There are people on the right for cheap labor that do not want our borders protected. Our borders need to be protected because all people in this country have the right to have our borders protected.

Mr. Speaker, the battle for America and its dignity is upon us. I think we ought to fight for our homeland. This has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with the law. As I have mentioned, there are many good folks from other nations that are legally in this country that have become citizens. But those people that illegally flaunt our Nation and our laws should be held accountable. Our Nation has to be engaged in this process.

I am concerned that maybe our Nation is not engaged. Maybe we do not understand that there are those who wish to colonize our country. We cannot allow this unlawful, illegal invasion and insurgency and colonization to occur. The line has been drawn in the sand, and I hope we are willing to cross it and protect our border. The number one duty of government is public safety. We had better get in the fight. Instead of waving the white flag of indifference, we have to understand that our Nation is sovereign. Part of sovereignty is protecting the borders.

Mr. Speaker, history will reflect on these days and one wonders in the long lamentable catalog of human conduct, were these the best of days or were these the end of our days. Only history will tell how we as a people react to protecting our Nation, to establishing border security, to establishing a fair immigration policy, and then establishing a policy on what to do with those folks already here illegally. We can solve these problems, Mr. Speaker. America has always been able to solve every problem. With the good Lord's help, we have solved every problem we have ever had, but we must have the moral will, we must have the moral desire and the moral integrity to defend our borders.