|
September 11, 2009
Will Obama’s “Stealth Amnesty” Provoke His Impeachment?
By Joe
Guzzardi
In
1986, when I returned to
my
native California
after living in
New
York and
then
Seattle, an
interesting sequence of immigration-related events brought me,
quite unintentionally, to the
place I
now occupy
as an
activist
and patriot.
I
arrived in Lodi without a job. But I got a tip from a friend
that the
Lodi
Unified School District
was looking for an evening
English
as a Second Language
instructor.
I had
no teaching experience but spoke Spanish. The principal was an
open-minded type who figured that he needed someone—and soon—and
that, based on my interview, I would be able to pass the tests
required to get a
California teaching credential.
Immediately, my classroom
filled to overflowing
with
Mexican
farm workers
who were fulfilling their
federally mandated
40 hours of
English language instruction under the 1986
Immigration Reform and Control Act.
Then—even though they
never
actually learned English—the
aliens would qualify for their
“green card” and
could change their immigration status from illegal alien to
legal permanent resident and eventually to U.S. citizen.
The
process, which involved thousands of students, wore on for
months.
Looking
back today,
I realize that, at the moment I issued my last certificate
attesting that the aliens had satisfied their educational
obligation, the U.S. illegal immigrant population was reduced to
zero.
Technically, that’s not quite accurate, since many aliens didn’t
take advantage of what was then referred to as a
“one-time”
amnesty.
But
for the sake of today’s discussion, let’s assume that, effective
at the end of 1986, America had no illegal aliens. And for the
sake of fairness, let’s use an average of the commonly cited (by
the
mainstream media
and
immigration enthusiasts)
of 12 million aliens living in the U.S. and my more probable
calculation of
20
million. That makes
16 million as the number of aliens currently living in the U.S.
Those
16 million represent
“stealth amnesty,”
immigration reform patriots’ most insidious enemy.
Defined, stealth amnesty means that a foreign national comes to
the U.S. never leaves. While he’s here, he does all the things
an
American citizen
or a
legal
immigrant
might: He
works,
puts his children
in
school,
receives
medical
attention,
buys
a house,
etc.
Stealth amnesty beneficiaries come in two types.
First, many aliens qualified for legal amnesty under six
separate federal acts between 1994 and 2000. They were
individually smaller in scope than IRCA, which amnestied
approximately 2.7 million. In aggregate, however, the six
provided amnesty to more than 3 million.
They are:
-
Section
245 (i)
Amnesty, 1994: A temporary rolling amnesty for 578,000
illegal aliens
-
Section 245(i)
Extension Amnesty, 1997: An extension of the rolling
amnesty created in 1994
-
Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act
(NACARA) Amnesty, 1997: An amnesty for close to one
million illegal aliens from Central America
-
Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act Amnesty
(HRIFA), 1998: An amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens
from Haiti
-
Late Amnesty, 2000:
An amnesty for some illegal aliens who claim they should
have been amnestied under the 1986 IRCA amnesty, an
estimated 400,000 illegal aliens
-
LIFE Act Amnesty,
2000: A reinstatement of the rolling Section 245(i)
amnesty, an estimated 900,000
These amnesties that provided a
“path to
citizenship”
to
millions more aliens. They qualify as
“stealth amnesties”
because the bills were passed under the radar without meaningful
debate of Main Stream Media coverage, either before or after
they were enacted.
Even today, many
patriots
have no idea that these amnesties existed.
Second, the more visible stealth amnesty community are illegal
border crossers and
visa
overstayers.
From time to time on the evening news, most often on
Fox or
CNN, video
clips of illegal aliens marching through the
Arizona
or California
deserts emphasize the
crimes that inadequate border security allow.
What’s never shown on television is the equally egregious
offender—the visa violator who represents about a third of the
illegal alien total. Using our 16 million base figure,
visa overstayers
number
about 5.5 million.
Eight years after
9/11,
when visa abuse provided entry into the U.S. for the terrorists,
America is still without an effective entry-and-exit monitoring
program.
The
United
States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology
program (US-VISIT) has tightened up the entry process, with a
series of biometric authentications matching the person issued a
visa abroad with the person standing at a passport counter. But
when that person leaves the country, no such process takes
place.
The
border
and visa processing
failures, both of which effectively mean stealth amnesty, are a
headache both for national security and for controlling
immigration. They serve as a worldwide advertisement that if
people can just get into the U.S., they can stay as long as they
want, outside the law, and without much hassle.
Either the federal
government cares about its laws or it doesn't. Despite the
costs, following through with US-Visit on exit as well as entry
is vital to sending a message that the U.S. is resolute in
policing its borders, appropriately monitoring its visitors and
protecting its people.
Five consecutive presidents have not only deliberately ignored
immigration laws, they have to various degrees actively promoted
amnesty.
In so doing,
Ronald
Reagan,
George
H.W. Bush,
Bill Clinton,
George
W. Bush and
now Barack Obama have defied the Constitution that, in
Article
IV, Section 4
expressly states:
"The United States
shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form
of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;
…
By refusing to uphold the Constitution, President Obama is
committing, as have his five predecessors, an impeachable
offense.
Obama has promoted illegal immigration by including illegals in
Obamacare
and promising
“comprehensive immigration reform”—Obamnesty—at
every opportunity
And there are
ominous signs
that he is quietly sabotaging enforcement.
VDARE.COM’s
Peter Gadiel
called for
George W. Bush’s
impeachment
because of his
abandonment of
enforcement
and his advocacy of amnesty.
Recently, various conservative voices have sprung up recently
endorsing Obama’s impeachment—most prominently the widely
admired radio talk show host
Michael
Savage.
(Listen to Savage demand Obama impeachment
here.)
From a national security and economic stability perspective, the
consequences of allowing more legal and illegal immigration are
higher than ever. Not only does the terrorism threat remain
unchecked but
jobs
are fewer and the economy shakier
than at any time in American history.
Bringing impeachment proceedings against a sitting U.S.
president is a large order.
Congressman Dennis Kucinich
and Ralph Nader
tried
and failed
against Bush II for his role in falsifying the evidence that led
to the Iraq War.
Even if Congress votes to impeach, it’s
never
gotten a conviction.
Obama has the
Democratic Congressional majority
and the corporate,
cheap
labor lobby
on his side which makes his impeachment improbable.
But courageous
Blue
Dog Democrats
could send Obama the vital message that the America’s fate is
more important than his radical left agenda.
And the sooner moderate Democrats join up to expose
Obama’s
treason,
the sooner we can kill stealth amnesty.
Joe Guzzardi
[email
him] is a California native
who recently fled the state because of over-immigration,
over-population and a rapidly deteriorating quality of life. He
has moved to Pittsburgh, PA where the air is clean and the
growth rate stable. A
long-time instructor in English at the Lodi Adult School,
Guzzardi has been writing a weekly column since 1988. It
currently appears in the
Lodi News-Sentinel. |