The revelations also spurred calls for investigations into the practices of the administration of President Barack Obama and allegations of a potential cover-up operation.

“It’s an abuse of power and it smells of Watergate,” said Bob Quasius, the president of the conservative Latino group Café con Leche, referring to the political scandal that led to the impeachment of President Richard Nixon.

“I think it goes to the top levels of his administration,” Quasius added. “If it doesn’t directly connect to him it at least connects to someone close to him.”

The post Conservative Hispanic Groups Targeted in IRS Scandal appeared first on Cafe Con Leche GOP.

Mexican American men and women were imprisoned willy-nilly by bigoted all-white judges, prosecutors and illegal juries even as Mexican Americans were majorities in the county of trial.

The United States Supreme Court decided that Texas could no longer discriminate against minorities in its Hernandez case (1954). That was the beginning of the end of Old Texas.

Fast forward 60 years and we have illegal profiling methods directed by the federal government that make the 100 years of official profiling and bigotry/discrimination against Mexicans in Texas look amateurish. This time, however, it is not a discriminated-against-minority, a sometimes unpopular Mexican American. No, this time it includes White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (and Catholics) that have coalesced in recent years under a general umbrella called the Tea Party.

Generally speaking the Tea Party is a conglomeration of center-right local political protesters that began at the grassroots  to protest President Obama’s take over the health insurance industry with what they referred to as “Obamacare.”

Hundreds of thousands of people sprung into action to show President Obama that they did not approve of his Big Government. While experienced politicos rolled their eyes at this political amateurism, the movement grew and was essential to 2010’s political revolution when Republicans swept back into control of the House of Representatives.

Massive Tea Party Rally in Washington DC After Obama’s Election

Reminiscent of the besieged-by-anti-war-radicals Nixon Administration in 1970, the Obama Administration has morphed into a Black Hole of lawlessness which we haven’t seen since Nixon’s day; ordering, for example, pro-life groups not to protest against Planned Parenthood.

President Richard Nixon – abused his power just like Obama

Similar to the Nixon years we now see Attorney General Holder acting like Nixon’s disgraced and convicted Attorney General John Mitchell. Like under Nixon, suspect affidavits by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) allowed a secret search of Fox News reporter James Rosen’s e-mails and phone calls. Progress..? The affidavits were secretly filed by a Hispanic FBI agent (Reginald Reyes) in federal court that declared Rosen was “a criminal co-conspirator in soliciting” a leak of National Security information. There is no law against a reporter using “classified information” in work product.

Historians will recall that Nixon’s FBI Director, Patrick Gray, used FBI agents for political purposes.

The Guardian newspaper in Great Britain is Obama-friendly; it broke the Rosen story. The FBI must be investigated for the Rosen case details. The Department of Justice (DOJ) used Nixon-like odorous methods in secretly searching through phone calls made from and to 20 Associated Press (AP) phone lines. A secret court order was obtained in order to link the AP with someone who might have leaked a story Obama wanted to announce personally to gain political points.

President Obama – acting like Richard Nixon!

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was clearly not the most loved federal agency before this month. Now, however, it is a rolling disaster fueled by denials that the White House knew there was an investigation in progress or what the investigation of the IRS was about. President Obama’s declaration that he heard about the IRS investigation on the news is the White House story and it is sticking to it. If anyone believes Obama, there is a bridge in San Francisco selling for $100.00. We know that the White House Counsel, the Chief of Staff and high Obama officials knew, but the President “says” he didn’t know; they knew for a month and in some cases a year before.

The IRS is in the crosshairs of California Congressman Republican Darrell Issa and his Government Operations/Oversight Committee. Hearings must be held until every IRS criminal action and criminal employee is rooted out and someone goes to jail.  Then, he’ll tackle DOJ. In the meanwhile, they key IRS manager who directed the illegal activity is taking the 5th Amendment which, by itself, reveals that criminal activity took place.

The investigations of potentially unconstitutional/illegal violations by the DOJ in the AP case, in the James Rosen Fox News Case (Plus two other Fox employees and his) and now in the “Fast and Furious” gun running investigation in which an Obama-appointed United States Attorney criminally leaked information intent on harming a government whistle-blower will stagger forward and lead us into next year’s Congressional elections. Political pros are now switching their long range views and suggesting Republicans can pick up the Senate.

For years, when Mexican Americans and other Hispanics complained about police “profiling” and biased law enforcement, conservatives pooh-poohed the complaints as “Too sensitive,” “whiny,” or “racist.” Now, conservatives are targeted; who’s complaining now?

Since Obama’s 2009 inauguration, “profiling” has been officially used by Obama’s IRS, Department of Justice and its FBI against conservatives, reporters and even Protestant, Roman Catholic and pro-Israel Jewish organizations. We’ve come a long way from the day in 1953 when a constable “arrested” me in Carleton, Texas, haven’t we?

“What are you doing on this road, boy?” “I’m going to the barber shop to get a haircut, sir.” “Are you Japanese, boy?” “No, sir, I’m Mexican.”

2013, the DOJ, FBI and Internal Revenue Service are ordered to plow through the Constitution’s 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and the 14th Amendments by “Liberals” appointed by the most liberal President in history. The Constitution means little to these people. The Texas constable who “arrested” me for being Mexican would be proud that his way has gone national.

####

Raoul Contreras Lowery

Raoul Lowery Contreras (1941) was born in Mexico, raised in the USA. Former U.S. Marine, athlete, Dean’s List at San Diego State. Professional political consultant and California Republican Party official (1963-65)…Television news commentator, radio talk show host…published Op-Ed writer (1988 to present)…author of 12 books (as of 1-05-12). His books are available on Amazon.com.

The post Profiles-in-Cowardice: IRS and Obama appeared first on Cafe Con Leche GOP.

The dam is too badly cracked to just let the water level build up again. It is shaking your fist in the face of reality to simply oppose the current senate immigration bill. The message of the USCIS union should not be “lawmakers should OPPOSE” the bill, but “lawmakers should FIX” the bill.

The letter complains about the situation as it already exists. It is unclear about what the current reform bill would do that will make it worse.  “The USCIS has been turned into an approval machine”, in which Janet Napolitano routinely denies requests of officers to put unauthorized immigrants into removal proceedings. The letter builds on statements so general that one can only guess exactly what they refer to. For example, “The attitude of US CIS management is not that the Agency serves the American public or the laws of the United States, or public safety and national security, but instead that the agency serves illegal aliens and the attorneys which represent them.”

But here is something specific:

-Currently, USCIS reports a 99.5% approval rating for all illegal alien applications for legal status filed under the Obama Administration’s new deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA) policies. DHS and USCIS leadership have intentionally established an application process for DACA applicants that bypasses traditional in-person investigatory interviews with trained USCIS adjudications officers. These practices were put in place to stop proper screening and enforcement, and guarantee that applications will be rubber-stamped for approval, a practice that virtually guarantees widespread fraud and places public safety at risk

I wish it would say more clearly if the point is that terrorists and criminals are more likely to get through. If so, then who would not share this letter’s concern?

I can’t pick out anything in the letter that complains about what the bill would do, as opposed to the mess we already have such as useless computers and insufficiently monitored student visas, until we come to this final paragraph:

The post USCIS union’s complaint about reform is unclear appeared first on Cafe Con Leche GOP.

“Who’s going to jail?”

That is what Speaker John Boehner said when asked who should be fired at the IRS that implemented the highly illegal inquisition of conservative groups applying for tax-free status.

What a terrific position for a Republican to take. Serious criminality must be punished by jail time.

Californians must stand up like Boehner and demand jail time for serious crimes like, say, gun violations.

Certainly we must discard efforts to bury the 2nd Amendment that permits us to own firearms but there are some regulations we must enforce to protect us from sick people. For example, no one should be allowed to carry firearms onto an airplane, not because individuals might be harmed but bullets fired inside an airplane can bring a plane of 200-300 people down and killed. Few survivors ever walk away from a crashed jet liner.

Any person who attempts to sneak a firearm onto an airplane should be punished with jail. Sneaking a firearm onto a restricted area like an airport should also be punished with jail time. Carrying a firearm in a bag or concealed on one’s person should be punished with prison time for violating concealed weapons laws that require special permits to carry concealed weapons.

Tim Donnelly, convicted criminal, candidate for CA Governor, CA Minutemen founder – demands severe punishment for immigrants (but not for himself)

The case of California State Assemblyman – Republican — Tim Donnelly comes to mind. He should be in prison serving a 5 to 10 year prison term for heinous violations of attempting to smuggle a loaded firearm onto an airplane which is both a state and federal violation; charge two, taking a firearm into a prohibited area, an airport and for violating concealed weapon laws every day since he acquired the weapon involved every time he took it out of his house for he has never had a concealed weapon permit as required in California. Moreover, it is against the law to have a firearm in the State Capitol in Sacramento where Donnelly’s offices are in the Capitol building.

He was detained, the firearm was confiscated and the only reason he was not arrested, booked and jailed that moment was because he is an elected state official. He pleaded NOT GUILTY. A hundred thousand dollars (or more) later of wasted taxpayer money he changed his plea and pleaded “nolo contendre” which is legally identical to a GUILTY plea. The deal was made to keep him out of prison and to keep the federal government from charging him with federal felonies that would have required ten years prison time, minimum.

His defense was that he “forgot” the gun was in his briefcase. Additionally, he says he carried the gun around for protection because he had received “death threats” because of his sponsorship of an anti-illegal alien proposed state initiative. He failed to qualify it for the ballot. As to the alleged “threats” Donnelly never saw fit to report them to his local law enforcement or to the California State Police that is specifically charged with protecting state legislators. He has produced no copies of police reports he filed about the alleged “threats.”

Donnelly lied about “death threats.” He never has produced police reports of the alleged “threats.” One suspects his defense of “forgetting” the gun in his brief case is also a lie. Certainly it is unbelievable.

He was fined $2500; he was sentenced to three (3) years supervised probation like any other criminal. He escaped prison only because he is a state Assemblyman.

On top of this criminality, we know that he spent time on the border as a Minuteman vigilante strutting around carrying rifles and the same illegal weapon he was guilty of attempting to take it onto a jet liner. Each time he carried that weapon covered with a jacket or fleece, he broke the law as it was carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. Carrying the rifle is fine because it can’t be concealed on one’s person. The pistol, on the other hand, is illegally carried unless it is in a holster in full view.

These facts are irrefutable.

Despite them, this man says he is running for Governor of California. He is running as a Republican. Californians have a duty in this race if one is a law and order Rule of Law person, or if one is a Hispanic insulted by border vigilantes, the duty is to reject a criminal who insults everyone’s intelligence by running for governor while on criminal probation.

This would be like allowing a disgraced state governor caught lying using public funds illegally and committing public adultery in an ultra-Christian state to continue in politics by winning election to congress, oops.

####

Raoul Contreras Lowery

Raoul Lowery Contreras (1941) was born in Mexico, raised in the USA. Former U.S. Marine, athlete, Dean’s List at San Diego State. Professional political consultant and California Republican Party official (1963-65)…Television news commentator, radio talk show host…published Op-Ed writer (1988 to present)…author of 12 books (as of 1-05-12). His books are available on Amazon.com.

The post Criminality in Office appeared first on Cafe Con Leche GOP.

The media is full of stories about how the Obama administration abused its power by unleashing the much feared IRS to harass conservative, Jewish, and church groups, seized AP reporter phone records, and covered-up gross incompetence and a pattern of lying to the American people about Benghazi. Speculation is rampant that one of these three scandals will end in Obama impeachment. However, barely mentioned recently is another potentially even more explosive scandal, ‘fast and furious’, in which our own government sold over 2,000 assault rifles to Mexican drug cartels, which were later used to kill two border patrol agents and dozens of Mexicans, many of whom were not involved in the drug trade. With four major scandals emerging, it seems likely that one or more will result in an effort at Obama impeachment!

Will Fast and Furious End in Obama Impeachment?

Univision performed some outstanding investigative journalism (see below), in which they exposed rampant incompetence in a ‘gun walking’ operation, in which assault rifles were allowed to be sold to Mexican drug cartels.

‘Gun walking’ is nothing new, but in this case over 2,000 assault rifles were allowed to ‘walk’ without any tracking devices or monitoring whatsoever. The Mexican government was not even told. Not surprisingly, nearly all of these weapons ended up in the hands of the drug cartels, and soon found at crime scenes. When ‘fast and furious’ resulted in the murder of CBP Officer Brian Terry, the investigation eventually led back to the Obama Justice Department, and a Congressional investigation.

CBP Agent Brian Terry – killed in the line of duty by Mexican drug cartel with weapon sold by the Obama DOJ

Will Abuse of Power in ‘Fast and Furious’ end in Obama Impeachment?

After over one year of foot-dragging by the Obama administration, Congress issued a subpoena for records which Obama’s Department of Justice had failed to provide despite numerous requests. Obama and Eric Holder defied the subpoena! When Congress was about to hold Eric Holder in contempt, Obama asserted sweeping executive privilege over all ‘fast and furious’ documents not already provided to Congress. Congress voted to hold Eric Holder in contempt of Congress, and consistent with Obama’s DOJ pervasive contempt for the ‘rule of law’ the district attorney responsible for prosecuting criminal contempt of Congress refused to prosecute Eric Holder. Congress took the matter to court in a civil case to force compliance with a valid subpoena.

The case was recently heard by U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who sharply questioned the attorney for Obama administration, and appeared extremely skeptical. Judge Jackson was appointed by Obama, which underlines just how outlandish Obama’s claim of executive privilige are. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Ian Gershengorn sought to have the case dismissed, claiming the judicial branch has no role:

“That lack of a judicial role is a deliberate part of the constitutional structure. It has been messy. It has been contentious. It has been political … but it has worked,

a claim which was met with extreme skepticism by Judge Jackson, who responded:

“You keep talking about the two [branches] as if the third one isn’t there,”

Nixon Tried the Same Executive Privilege Strategy as Obama and Lost Badly

President Richard Nixon – claimed executive privilege and lost. Resigned 15 days later.

President Obama – claims sweeping executive privilege, far broader than Nixon!

Nixon tried a similar strategy during Watergate (see United States v. Nixon), arguing that secret recordings of all his Oval Office conversations were protected under the executive privilege concept that originated with George Washington. The Supreme Court confirmed the concept of executive privilege, then narrowed executive privilege greatly, and ordered Nixon to turn over the tapes, stating the compelling interests in criminal prosecutions outweighed the president’s need for confidentiality in discussions with aides.

15 days later Nixon resigned. Now Obama is trying the same strategy, except Obama seeks to assert much broader executive privilege than Nixon did, and for communications in which he wasn’t even part of!

Obama and Eric Holder know they will ultimately lose in court, but after months of delay, appeals, etc. and the inevitable court order would come after Obama’s reelection. It’s apparent this was a ‘hail Mary’ pass to forestall the inevitable disclosures until after the election last November.

Just as Nixon and Clinton were able to temporarily obscure various scandals from public view until reelected, sooner or later the truth always emerges.

Will there be an Obama Impeachment?

There are four major scandals with a steady drip-drip-drip of embarassing revelations, and any one of these scandals could lead to an Obama impeachment. Impeachment won’t happen today, tomorrow, or even next month, but its apparent the situation is spiraling out of control for the Obama administration.

With dropping popularity likely with the Obamacare ‘train wreck’ on the horizon, it seems likely impeachment or resignation may result before Obama’s second term is finished, just as predicted by Governor Mike Huckabee.

####

Bob Quasius is the founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans

The post Will ‘Fast and Furious’ End in Obama Impeachment? appeared first on Cafe Con Leche GOP.

Wired magazine, Breitbart.com, the liberal ACLU, and the conservative Rutherford Institute have taken strong positions against this “threat to privacy”, also generally called Big Brother, or alternatively, Mark of the Beast. A May 13 press release by Senator Rubio denies it. It doesn’t dispute the reality, but labels as “myths” the words used to describe it.

Senator Rubio’s press release classifies, as a “myth”, the reports of Wired Magazine and Breitbart that “The immigration reform measure the Senate began debating yesterday would create a national biometric database of virtually every adult in the U.S.” which would be “a federal database so large it would contain photographs, names, ages, and Social Security numbers of every American who has a driver’s license or state-issued photo ID.”

How does Rubio explain how that overstates the requirement of his immigration plan that all businesses in America must check all employees through E-Verify?

Rubio boldly declares as “FACT: The enhanced E-Verify system does not establish a massive biometric database of every American.”

It doesn’t? E-Verify’s database currently has social security numbers, but only a few photos. Individual states have photos in their drivers’ license databases, and the Real ID act, if it is finally implemented this 8^th year after it was supposed to be implemented but wasn’t because half our states rebelled, will eventually surrender all that state data to a federal database. But the immigration reform bill will hurry this along.

But Rubio explains, “The ‘Photo Tool’ already exists and is in operation.” But wait a minute, that is right after Rubio explains, “FACT: The immigration bill creates what is called a “photo tool” to add another layer of security onto the existing E-Verify program.” Well, the truth is that the “Photo tool” was officially added to the E-Verify system in late 2007. But before E-Verify acquires photos of all drivers from all the states, that tool is limited.

But that doesn’t even matter according to this “fact”, which continues: “But guess what? That isn’t a ‘biometric’ data set by any reasonable definition.” (Rubio is quoting Justin Greene, “The Immigration Bill Does NOT Create a ‘Biometric Database of All Adult Americans’,” Daily Beast, 5/13/13)

How are photos which can be processed by facial recognition software calculating 25 anthropometric facial fiducial points not well described as “biometric data sets”?

Rubio answers, “Biometrics typically refer to certain physiological traits that are distinctly unique to you, like your fingerprints, an iris scan, or your DNA that comes off on those small sticks that you swab on the inside of your cheek at the doctor’s office. The legislation does not call for the collection of biometric information from US citizens by the Federal government.”

I feel better now, knowing those 25 anthropometric facial fiducial points on my face that are as distinctly unique to me as my fingerprints, are not called “biometrics” in Rubio’s office. He can go ahead and have them, then, as long as he doesn’t call them that word.

The Daily Caller said Wired is wrong; there is nothing to worry about; immigration reform can’t create the national database and the “photo tool” because we already have it. Besides, “Any E-Verify system that could actually prevent fraud will necessarily be more intrusive than the current system.” We need Big Brother to stop immigration fraud. We need the Mark of the Beast to identify those cursed immigrants. Going to Hell is such a small price to pay. We can’t ensure that we can limit the freedom of immigrants to work, without limiting our own. So bite the bullet and roll over.

America really is ripe for a national discussion on whether America would benefit from “a national biometric database of virtually every adult in the U.S.” The discussion will not begin well with the lead Senator on bringing it to us denying that is what it is.

This is the issue that killed the Immigration Compromise act of 2007. It was about to pass, until Senator Grassley of Iowa, a day or two before the vote, got his amendment passed that stripped reform of the same requirement that all employers check all employees with a national database including biometric photos. That amendment was blamed for breaking up the coalition ready to pass it. Grassley and Kennedy co-floor-managed the bill, but after Grassley’s amendment passed Kennedy told the Senate “Unless you are going to have a tamper proof card you might as well forget it.” (Details)

For readers who have trouble imagining why we lose freedom to the extent government can monitor our every movement, visualize your mother along on your date; your pastor going over your TV watching schedule; a patrolman tailgating you for 20 miles; an IRS auditor going over your records for the past 15 years; a committee of child abuse bureaucrats watching you handle an unruly child; or your neighborhood enemy getting a government job where he can monitor your every movement.

Or check out the conservative Rutherford Institute’s explanation. Or the liberal ACLU’s explanation.

You can read a Bible study indicating the E-verify database, after it incorporates state drivers’ license photos, will literally satisfy Revelation 13’s description of the Mark of the Beast.

America really needs to give freedom to its millions of disenfranchised residents, and to others waiting to come. America really doesn’t need to give up our own freedoms to do it. Immigration reform needs to cut loose from the E-verify monster ready to devour us.

By Dave Leach

Des Moines, Iowa

www.Saltshaker.US/HispanicHope, www.InmigracionSoluciones.info

The post Rubio denies immigration reform would grow E-verify into a national database of SSN’s and biometrics appeared first on Cafe Con Leche GOP.

Former Arkansas governor and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee made the stunning prediction that Obama will not finish his second term. Huckabee, widely respected and not known for partisanship, may be right!

The Political Demise of Richard Nixon

Many older Americans remember the Nixon years. Richard Nixon was reelected in a landslide, but the groundwork for Nixon’s demise was laid during his first term. The Nixon administration engaged in dirty tricks to aggressively undermine his opposition.

The White House “plumbers” were hired to repair “leaks” of sensitive information that embarrassed Nixon. With no accountability or oversight, the “plumbers” were soon out of control. One night they broke into Democratic National Headquarters (DNC) at the Watergate Hotel, and were arrested.

Nixon didn’t know in advance about the burglary, and was furious. Like most presidents, Nixon’s king-sized ego that would not allow apology, and instead he covered-up, which led to Nixon’s downfall.

Nixon, like John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson before him, unleashed the IRS to go after his enemies, which also came to light during the furor over Watergate.

Nixon was able to cover-up scandals during his first term, but during his second term a steady drip-drip-drip of revelations about Nixon’s abuses of power appeared in the news media, and eventually Congress began impeachment proceedings, and when impeachment became apparent he resigned.

Obama’s Abuse of the IRS

Like Nixon, Johnson, and Kennedy, the Obama administration used the IRS to intimidate enemies. The latest revelations are truly shocking. Any organization whose name included “tea party” or “patriot” received intense scrutiny from the IRS, which demanded answers to questions about donors, volunteers, Facebook posts, even which legislators they had talked to.

Now Jewish groups who had opposed Obama’s Mideast policies have revealed they were abused by the IRS too, and the Koch brothers revealed in 2010 the White House had information about them which could only have come from the IRS.

If Obama abused the IRS to intimidate and harass his political enemies, that may well lead to an Obama impeachment, just as it did with Nixon.

‘Fast and Furious’ may also lead to Obama impeachment

During Obama’s first term, the Obama administration sold over 2,000 high powered assault weapons to Mexican narco-traffickers, supposedly to track these weapons, but nobody put tracking devices in the guns or tracked them. Border patrol agent Brian Terry was killed with one of these guns, which initiated the scandal.

Basically the guns were allowed to ‘walk.’ The Mexican government was not told and dozens of innocent Mexicans were killed by drug traffickers with these weapons.

When Congress investigated, the Obama DOJ dragged its feet for months, withholding requested information. The eventual subpoena led to a showdown with Obama. With Holder about to be held in contempt of Congress, Obama threw an overreaching blanket of executive privilege over everything related to ‘fast and furious.’ Congress held Eric Holder in contempt, and not surprisingly the DA refused to prosecute his boss. Any day now we can expect a court to order compliance with the subpoena, court appeals, but in the end Obama will lose and the truth about ‘fast and furious’ will be public.

Will the Benghazi cover-up lead to Obama impeachment?

The full story of the tragic loss of four American heroes in Benghazi begs to be told. Benghazi was unmistakably a terror attack from the beginning, but Obama lied for weeks to assure his reelection.

There was nothing criminal about Obama’s actions leading up to Benghazi, but the incompetence will sink Hillary’s career and tarnish Obama’s leadership. Terror attacks on American diplomatic outposts are nothing new. Two U.S. embassies in Africa were destroyed by car bombs during the Clinton years with massive loss of life. Hillary Clinton was first lady, and Susan Rice the Associate Secretary of State for Africa at the time. Amazingly, Hillary Clinton ignored numerous urgent requests for beefed up security.

Obama failed to authorize military support when told about Benghazi, and at least two who died could have been saved with military support in the region. The Obama administration sought to cover up this gross incompetence to get past the election just two months later, and Susan Rice and Obama clearly lied to the American people about a third-rate video and “spontaneous” demonstration, to divert attention from the fact Al Qaeda is as dangerous as ever.

It remains to be seen whether witnesses in Congress were induced to lie and obstruct. There are already serious allegations a recent witness was the victim of retaliation. One thing is already apparent. The “talking points” from the intelligence community, which Jay Kearney said received one minor insignificant edit before release, were edited 12 times and scrubbed of any terror references. The Review Board that reviewed Benghazi didn’t interview key witnesses, who now are testifying in Congress. Apparently, the review board was a whitewash from the start!

Will Congress consider an Obama impeachment?

If an impeachment vote were held today, it would undoubtedly fail. Congress generally won’t impeach a popular president.

Bill Clinton committed impeachable offenses and was impeached, but the Senate balked at removing Clinton from office because he was still popular.

However, as these scandals grow and the wheels fall off of Obamacare next year, Obama’s approval ratings can be expected to sink to rock bottom levels, and we may well see an effort to impeach Obama. The Obama recovery is worse than the Bush recession, and the public is tired of a jobless economy. Bush has been out of office for four years now, and Obama owns the economic morass though he still blames Bush.

In my opinion, Obama is the worst president in modern history, and the only reason he was reelected is that Mitt Romney wasn’t the best candidate, and didn’t run a good campaign against Obama.

####

Bob Quasius

Bob Quasius is the founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans.

The post Obama Impeachment? appeared first on Cafe Con Leche GOP.

The IRS admission that it assaulted any group with the name “Tea Party” or “Patriot” by political inquisition parallels what Lyndon Johnson did 50 years ago and Richard Nixon refined with his “enemies list” in the early 70s. While President Obama says “If” the IRS did this it will be held accountable,” the “transparent” IRS has already admitted to the crime.

Worse still, the IRS is hiring of 16,000 MORE agents to police Obamacare’s individual mandate. They are doing this despite no experience and a history of mistakes in providing information or even in reviewing tax forms prepared by experts. One in five (20%) of IRS answers to questions is wrong according to audits. And now it wants to expand to prepare tax returns for trusting Americans, for “free.”

This is bad news for everyone, yes, but for Hispanic Americans these IRS actions and new hiring are a forthcoming disaster. Why, because the IRS is on a mission to offer “Free” tax preparation for low-income people which, of course includes many Hispanic Americans and importantly those that are currently the target of legalization efforts in the Congress of the United States.

We must recall that despite private software companies offering up to 16 different software packages to anyone that wants to prepare their individual tax forms and send them to the IRS FOR FREE, if the IRS gets its way, it will enter the private space of everyone it can possibly reach for “Free.”

Nothing, however, is for free. Since when is it not a conflict of interest for the tax collector to prepare tax returns?

We already know that the IRS’ California pilot program of free tax preparation cost over $200,000 for the preparation of 11,000 tax forms. That is $200,000 of our taxpayer money. Assuming that the IRS would reach out to millions, just how many billions of taxpayer dollars will be spent preparing tax forms that are free today from private industry sources?

On top of those potentially wasted billions, what about the local “notarios” (notaries) who prepare tax forms for low-income people today? Low income Hispanics have traditionally received tax preparation in neighborhood offices of people they know whom they trust. Certainly these “notarios” charge small fees but they have the trust of the client who generally is their neighbor. Will the low-income worker be able to trust free tax preparation by his “friendly” tax collector. As “collateral damage” how many people will lose their jobs or small businesses by this expansion of the IRS?

The question is: Who can or will trust an agency that practices illegal inquisitions and investigations of legal entities practicing free speech, free association and petitioning of the government? Which individual can possibly trust this agency to honestly prepare tax forms for little people like you and me? If the agency deliberately violates the legal rights of organizations that disagree with the agency and the President, just where are we going?

Congress must step in and launch massive investigations targeting the IRS’ illegal activities revealed in the past few days, as to who authorized these activities and just exactly where the responsibility lies. Congress must stop or at least hold in abeyance the hiring of more IRS agents, stop its development of Obamacare oversight and stop any expansion of “free tax preparation” for low income people including millions of Hispanic American workers who want to be on the right side of legalization requirements being constructed in Congress at this very moment.

We cannot trust the IRS any longer. Spying on groups and individuals for political reasons by the IRS cannot be countenanced. Nor can the IRS be allowed to expand its activities such as oversight over health care mandates or “free” tax preparation” until Congress discovers who and what is responsible for these egregious crimes.

Let there be no doubt, the IRS has run rampant committing crimes, again. Many thought that this criminal activity belonged to the Lyndon Johnson/Richard Nixon dark years (1963-1974) but they are wrong. The IRS dark years are here again in the year 2013, and have been at least since 2011.

It must stop now before millions of innocent Hispanic Americans and those waiting to apply for legalization are sucked into the IRS Black Hole of criminality.

####

Raoul Contreras Lowery

Raoul Lowery Contreras (1941) was born in Mexico, raised in the USA. Former U.S. Marine, athlete, Dean’s List at San Diego State. Professional political consultant and California Republican Party official (1963-65)…Television news commentator, radio talk show host…published Op-Ed writer (1988 to present)…author of 12 books (as of 1-05-12). His books are available on Amazon.com.

The post A Criminal Internal Revenue Service Wants You! appeared first on Cafe Con Leche GOP.

Marco Rubio

The other camp, led by Senator Marco Rubio and Grover Norquist, argues our legal immigration system has been broken for decades, and we effectively have de facto amnesty because it’s simply not practical, humane, nor economically wise to deport 11 million. They believe our present immigration system, with its arbitrary quotas and massive bureaucracy, is inconsistent with conservative free market principles. They reject the notion that immigrants invariably vote Democrat, and see opportunity to win more New American votes, as proven by Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and recently by Canada’s Conservative Party.

A May 2011 poll by Pew Research found staunch conservatives split 49%/49%. Three Republican groupings, staunch conservatives, main street Republicans, and libertarians split roughly 60/40% in favor of immigration reform including a path to citizenship.A recent poll found 60% of Republicans  support immigration reform, and after details of the gang of eight immigration reform plan were explained, support rose to 75% with just 10% strongly opposed. The perception fostered in the mainstream news media for years is that Republicans are monolithic and opposed to immigration reform, but clearly Republicans have been and still are divided. Before November, Republicans who were shrill about immigration were often quoted in the media, while most Republican leaders tended to avoid the topic or only talk about immigration enforcement, which is less divisive. Since the November election debacle, pro-reform Republicans are more vocal, pushing back against the shrill minority who for years have berated immigrants.

Grover Norquist has been staunchly pro-immigration reform for many years. He participated in a series of immigration reform conferences during 2012. Only the last conference, just weeks after the election, garnered any media attention at all, while Mitt Romney’s self-deportation rhetoric garnered constant media coverage. Most media coverage of conservatives who support immigration reform is recent.

Immigration Before the Progressive Era

Prior to the progressive era, American had no immigration quotas and a few common-sense restrictions, such as barring criminals, prostitutes, paupers, etc.

America’s first unauthorized immigrants were African slaves, imported after Congress banned the importation of slaves in 1808. In the Southern states slavery was still legal, and more slaves needed, and so the importation continued despite the ban.

Later, many Irish immigrants bypassed legal ports of entry because they were simply too impoverished to pay the head tax. The federal government did not have immigration inspectors until 1890, though some states had immigration inspectors. Very few immigrants who arrived in America were turned away. Those who chide unauthorized immigrants with the claim their grandparents came legally would do well to compare today’s immigration laws with the past; the laws are vastly different now.

Immigration as a Tool of Progressive Social Engineering

Prior to the first quotas, Ellis Island admitted 98% of immigrants who arrived. There were no immigrant visas; those who wanted to immigrate simply arrived, and unless they were in an excluded class (i.e. criminal, prostitute, sick, etc.) they were admitted.

Madison Grant, progressive and author of “The Passing of the Great Race”

In 1921 and 1924 strict per-nation quotas were imposed, designed to bar non-Europeans altogether, and severely restrict immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe. Early modern progressives like Margaret Sanger, Madison Grant, and Harry Laughlin argued Southern and Eastern Europeans were genetically inferior and lowered the intelligence of America’s people”, would never assimilate, came seeking charity, increased crime rates, etc, many of the same arguments we hear today.

Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood founder

Harry Laughlin infamously testified in Congress that 82% of Jewish immigrants were feeble minded.” Madison Grant wrote the book “The Passing of the Great Race, or the Racial Basis of European History” (read here), which argued “Nordics” were superior, and greatly inflamed American public opinion against immigration. Hitler called Grant’s book his “Bible” and ordered it translated and published in Nazi Germany, and Nuremberg war crimes defendant Karl Brandt referred to Grant’s book. Not surprisingly Hitler praised the 1924 National Origins Act.

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and an ardent supporter of eugenics, wrote of immigrants and blacks in Pivot of Civilization: 

“…’human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning… human beings who never should have been born.”

Harry H. Laughlin, architect of 1924 immigration quotas

Later, Laughlin founded the Pioneer Fund, which later financed today’s leading anti-any-immigrant organizations with millions, and still funds academic “research” about “differences” between the races. Numerous Pioneer funded studies were referenced in the book “The Bell Curve“, which insinuates blacks have lower intelligence levels than whites for genetic reasons. The book has been widely debunked by other researchers, but the ideology keeps cropping up, most recently among the anti-any-immigrant lobby headed by FAIR, NumbersUSA, and the Center for Immigration Studies. FAIR grew with the help of millions in funding from the Pioneer Fund.

John Tanton – who founded FAIR, NumbersUSA, and CIS.

John Tanton, founder of the modern day anti-any-immigrant movement is very much like Madison Grant, except Tanton’s bigotry is much more subdued, since most modern day Americans won’t listen to bigots. Like Madison Grant, John Tanton is a liberal, conservationist, eugenics activist, and has held leadership positions in Planned Parenthood, Zero Population Growth, etc. Most of the arguments Tanton and his disciples use to argue against immigration and for population reduction are identical to those of his ideological great-grandfathers Madison Grant, Harry Laughlin, Margaret Sanger, and Paul Ehrlich (author of The Population Bomb).

Is the Gang of Eight Immigration Reform Amnesty?

Those who constantly throw out the term “amnesty” in describing the gang of eight immigration reform would do well to consult Webster’s dictionary:

amnesty: the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals.

pardon: the excusing of an offense without exacting a penalty.

With $2,000 in fines and a ten year wait to even apply for permanent resident status, clearly a stiff penalty is exacted, in addition to a tough set of requirements such as proof of payment of taxes, background check, etc. The 1986 immigration reform clearly was amnesty, as no fine or wait time was required. Those who met the requirements were simply granted permanent resident status.

Is “Amnesty” a Magnet for More Illegal Behavior?

Opponents of the gang of eight immigration reform argue amnesty is a magnet for more illegal immigration, and point to the increase in illegal immigration after 1986 as evidence that amnesty is a magnet.

Historically, what has been America’s experience with mass amnesty? Did past amnesties lead to more illegal behavior?

America’s first mass amnesty was Abraham Lincoln’s proclamation granting amnesty to confederates who would swear a loyalty oath to the United States. Lincoln didn’t live to see the end of the civil war, but President Andrew Johnson honored Lincoln’s amnesty, though he added exclusions, for example refusing amnesty to top confederate leaders. How many civil wars have we experienced since 1865? Zero!

If the U.S. had made a serious effort to prosecute confederates for treason during time of war, we could probably have denuded a number of forests building gallows for hanging hundreds of thousands. However, the nation saw the need to move on after a bloody civil war, and virtually all confederates were granted amnesty in exchange for regaining their loyalty to the U.S.

Immigration Amnesty

America’s first immigration mass amnesty came in the late 1920s. Early modern progressives saw immigration laws as a tool for social engineering. Immigrants from various nations were barred, starting with the Chinese in 1882.

In the early 20th century, 200,000 Italians immigrated to the U.S. each year, but in 1924 Italy’s immigration quota was set at under 4,000, a 98% reduction! Similar reductions were imposed on Russia and other Eastern and Southern European nations. Not surprisingly, within a few years the U.S. had several million unauthorized immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, who were “inspected” and allowed to stay. Then, as today, it was considered impractical to deport so many. Recently the New York Times opined that Hispanics are the New Italians, drawing parallels with 20th century immigration.

Did the late 1920s immigration amnesty lead to more illegal immigration? Clearly not, because the great depression soon followed and the economic forces that led so many to immigrate illegally vanished.

Critics of immigration reform argue the 1986 amnesty served as a magnet to more illegal immigration, but was this really the case? In statistics, there’s a term “correlation is not necessarily causation.” A doctor once pointed out in an op-ed the correlation between pantyhose usage and lung disease, but pantyhose clearly doesn’t cause lung disease!

There has indeed been more illegal immigration after 1986, but a review of the inflows of unauthorized immigrants reveals that inflows followed to the state of the economy, not policy. During the late 1990s illegal immigration inflows surged, while in recent years net illegal immigration from Mexico has dropped to zero, as the U.S. experienced a jobless recovery while Mexico’s economy has been strong, and Mexican birth rates have declined. AFTER a 1996 law that toughened immigration enforcement, there was a surge in illegal immigration. Clearly illegal immigration inflows have much more to do with economics than policy!

Is Today’s Immigration Policy “Conservative” or “Progressive”?

The quota concept originated with early modern progressives, who were huge believers in racial eugenics and social Darwinism. The infamous Dillingham Commission (1907-1910) authorized by Congress devoted entire volumes of their report to immigrants as charity seekers, criminals, and predicted immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe would never assimilate and become a vast underclass. Children of immigrants were often “retarded” according to the Dillingham Commission.

Dillingham Immigration Commission – Retarded Children of foreign-born non-English speaking fathers.

I have read through several volumes of the Dillingham Commission Report, and one thing stands out: Southern and Eastern Europeans were smeared in the same manner as Hispanic immigrants are today. A vast permanent underclass was predicted by early modern progressives, but for some reason I’m not able to find a vast underclass of Southern and Eastern European descendants in America today, nor am I able to locate a large population of feeble minded Jews as predicted by 1924 National Origins Act architect Harry Laughlin. In fact, Jews are among the most successful demographics.

The blatantly racist per nation immigration quotas and bars to non-European immigration were eliminated in 1965, but the quota concept remains with us to this day, for both immigrants and guest workers.

Do quotas make sense? I think not! Immigration is driven by economics, and inflows should be driven by labor markets, not arbitrary quotas influenced by special interest groups (i.e. big labor). Critics of immigration reform point to America’s immigrant quota as largest in the world. However, as a percentage of population U.S. immigration inflows are #22 of 34 OECD nations. Canada admits 2-1/2 times as many immigrants; Switzerland and Germany five times as many, and tiny Luxembourg ten times as many immigrants, as a percentage of population. For some strange reason our demise as a nation is predicted if we accept more immigrants, but 21 other nations already accept more immigrants and don’t experience the dire consequences predicted for America.

Similar arguments were made by slavery proponents, that freeing the slaves would bankrupt the U.S. We freed the slaves and paid for a long civil war, but didn’t go bankrupt in the process.

Conservative Principles in Immigration Reform

Conservatives believe in limited government in free markets and limited government, but are current immigration policies consistent with conservative principles? I say emphatically not! The main features of today’s immigration policy are arbitrary quotas with no basis in free market capitalism, with massive government bureaucracies telling employers how many immigrants they can hire, how to recruit them, and even how much to pay. Some employers, particularly farmers, must deal with several big bureaucracies, with no assurance their harvesters arrive in time for harvest, and big fines for honest paperwork mistakes. Not surprisingly, farmers bitterly complain how difficult the system is to use, and less than 10% of farm ‘guest workers’ have visas.

Conservatives also believe in the ‘rule of law’ and conservatives are against amnesty, as amnesty by itself is a temporary solution. As a conservative, I am opposed to amnesty in and of itself, as that doesn’t address the underlying problem. In 1986 Congress passed immigration amnesty with some enforcement provisions which proved largely ineffective. Congress failed to follow up for many years on border security, and never followed up on guest workers. In effect, in 1986 Congress ‘kicked the can down the road’, making three million immigrants legal, without addressing the root causes of the problem.

Current immigration and guest worker quotas have no rationale in economic need. Historically whenever economic demand for immigrants and guest worker labor exceeds quotas, the result has always been widespread illegal immigration. This happened in the 1929s, again in the 1950s when a resurgent post war economy required more guest workers than the quota. We’ve often experienced illegal immigration since the braceros program was eliminated during the 1960s at the behest of big labor unions. Big labor continues to be a major obstacle to guest worker programs. We presently have 9-9.5 ‘guest workers’ of which 1.8 million have a work authorized visa. The balance would no doubt be happy to obtain a visa if those were available to them, but they’re not.

Immigration Reform and the Rule of Law

As a conservative, I support the ‘rule of law’, but I also recognize that enforcement alone cannot turn bad policy into good policy. If we lowered superhighway speed limits to 20 MPH to conserve gasoline we’d surely have enforcement problems! Then would we pour massive enforcement resources to stop speeding, or step back and recognize that policy and enforcement are intertwined, and sensible policies result in manageable enforcement? Or would we take an ‘enforcement first’ stance and massively enforce a 20 MPH speed limit until everyone stops speeding, before setting rational speed limits?

When guest worker visas are limited by arbitrary quotas to less than 20% of demand, we should not be surprised that many come here illegally seeking work. Obviously we’d like for everyone to enter the U.S. through the front door, but when that door has been broken for decades we should not be surprised that our ‘hired help’ enters through the back door or windows. It’s obvious that the best way to divert migrant workers from illegal channels to legal channels is with sensible guest worker programs.

It’s Time to Pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform

I’m not happy with all aspects of the gang of eight immigration reform. I’d rather see us get rid of quotas, perhaps implementing a tariff on guest worker wages payable by employers, to tile the table in favor of hiring Americans workers first. It’s easy to predict future waves of illegal immigration, when demand exceeds quota and Congress again fails to act, under pressure from big labor. Big labor has already been hard at work undermining guest worker reforms, for example limiting the number of guest worker visas in the construction industry. However, once housing rebounds, and the need for guest workers exceed quotas, we can expect unauthorized immigrants to fill that gap.

I’m also not keen about e-verify. The federal government has been trying to make e-verify work since 1996. E-Verify is a deeply flawed system. Unauthorized immigrants can readily circumvent e-verify by using a real person’s name and social security, with fake ID. As long as the name and social security number match, most will pass e-verify. U.S. citizens who are unlucky enough to be the subject of errors in government databases, and their employers, can expect to spend weeks dealing with mammoth bureaucracies to get errors fixed!

The gang of eight immigration reform plan calls for increased use of e-verify, and buried within the bill are provisions to incorporate biometrics into e-verify. Biometrics will make it much more difficult to circumvent e-verify, but many Americans will balk at providing biometric information such as fingerprints, DNA, etc., viewing it as the invasion of privacy it is. Another major annoyance will be exit controls for everyone leaving the country. Without capturing information about those leaving the U.S., the entry/exit tracking for visa overstayers cannot work. However, this will impose delays on all travelers exiting the U.S.

However, all-in-all, the gang of eight immigration reform plan would be a big improvement over the present situation. Eliminating quotas is not likely as long as progressives and their big labor backers are wedded to the notion of quotas, especially for guest workers. Guest worker programs would be streamlined, and guest worker visas would become portable. It may also be easier for Congress to act in the future with the most contentious issue – legalization – behind us. We should all back the gang of eight immigration reform plan, while also writing our elected representatives with suggestions for improvement.

####

Bob Quasius is the founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans.

The post Conservative Principles and Gang of Eight Immigration Reform appeared first on Cafe Con Leche GOP.

At first glance when reading through the Bible, one would think that the Bible does not directly address the concept of free labor – the concept that immigrants should legally be allowed to travel and be employed without any overly encumbering restrictions. However, if one takes a closer look, one will notice several key biblical principles that can support the idea behind a biblical policy for immigrant labor. Moreover, economic data also reveals that there is also a net benefit that is achieved from immigrant labor. In Romans 13, Paul is clear that God gave the sword to the government to punish those who do evil and God expects the government to reward good behavior. The United States government does much good and it gets many things right. Yet, one of its grave shortcomings has to do with the issue of immigration. The current immigration system in the US can even be considered unjust due to three inherent flaws: (1) its regulations infringe on the Christian individual/business owners’ rights to be able to carry out God’s command to be hospitable towards immigrants, (2) its regulations are unrealistic towards immigrant laborers and employers, (3) and its regulations go against God’s command to do good for the nation’s people.

First, the scripture makes it clear that God expected His people to be hospitable towards immigrants. The Hebrew word used to refer to resident aliens or immigrants in the Old Testament is gēr. This term is used to refer to both Israel and any other people group residing in a foreign land (Ex 23:21). In a sense gēr is referring to an individual’s status or position in the foreign nation.[2]  The scriptures also makes mention of the verb gur, which means to “reside [as an alien].”[3] According to Rousas Rushdoony, the biblical laws dealing with hospitality towards aliens both “permanent and temporary” are dealing with those who resided in the land and not those foreigners who were just passing through.[4] This concept of hospitality was a personal, individual, or familial decision to take care of the immigrant.[5]

God called his chosen people to treat the resident immigrant justly. In fact, the Old Testament is very specific in requiring the people of God to treat the immigrant as a protected class (Ex 20:10, 23:12; Lev 16:29). This is most clearly shown in Exodus 22:21 which states, “You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt,” and Deuteronomy 27:19, “‘Cursed is he who distorts the justice due an alien, orphan, and widow.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’” (NASB) In the book of Exodus, God reminds the nation of Israel that they were once resident aliens in Egypt. One can therefore infer that the reason God willed for them to remember this, was so they would make it a point to treat the immigrants in their land as they would have wished to be treated in Egypt.

God also had expectations of how the nation of Israel was to treat foreign laborers, in matters such as being given the right to glean for food and to be employed as residents if taken in by a family to work on their residence. Daniel Carrol states,

Without land and kin, many sojourners would be dependent on Israelites for work, provisions and protection. They could be day laborers (Deut. 24:14), and the Old Testament mentions that they were conscripted to do the labor in building the temple (1 Chron. 22:2; 2 Chron. 2:17-18). [6]

In other words, God expected his people to treat the immigrant labor justly. Bernhard Asen even further bolsters this point by stating that Israel was not just to treat the ger as a protected class, but the people of Israel were to also incorporate or include them into their society. Asen States, “in addition to protection, inclusion of the gēr into the community to share privileges also is seen as important.”[7]  This incorporation according to Christopher Wright included the “feast of weeks and booths,” and a resident alien who happened to be a hired laborer could also be included at Passover.[8] Write argues the eligibility was based on the fact that they would have been included within an Israelite family with whom they were residing.[9] Therefore, the people of God in the Old Testament were to be hospitable toward the resident alien and include and protect them as a class, just as they would have wanted to have been treated when they were in slaves in the land of Egypt.

This concept is even more important if one looks at the teaching of Jesus. As he stated in Luke 6:31, “Treat others the same way you want them to treat you.”  Thus, just as Christians would want people from other nations to give them help and employment, so that they could take care of their families, so then should Christians help out those immigrants who wish to labor for their families. However, this has proven problematic in the United States since there are unrealistic worker visa programs that make it almost impossible for Christian business owners to be able to be hospitable and have the opportunity to hire immigrant laborers who are in need. The current federal caps on immigrant labor incentivize many immigrants to come here illegally and risk being caught. Many of these people, if they could, would have obtained a work visa or a legal means to come to the United States.

This becomes a problem, biblically, for Christians because as the chosen people of God they too should be hospitable towards aliens and any other class of people who should be protected. This is why the current immigration policy restrictions pose a dilemma for Christians, because while they are to be submissive and respectful to the government God has placed over them, they also have an obligation to protect and seek justice for those who are in classes that need to be protected, like the resident alien. Christian individuals/business owners should respect their government, while at the same time seek for a more biblical policy that will lead to a more realistic policy towards aliens seeking work, and continue to work to incorporate the alien into the community. This is all founded on the basic biblical concept of loving one’s neighbors and treating them, as the believer would want to be treated if he or she were in a similar situation.

The second problem with the immigration system is that it has unrealistic regulations on immigrant labor. As previously mentioned, the scriptures do not ban migrant or immigrant labor. Rather, it takes for granted that foreigners would be around and would need protection. Just as prohibition failed because it was an unrealistic regulation on human action; so too the current immigrant labor quota system is failing because it is unrealistically regulating labor. There is not a biblical mandate on the total number of immigrants a nation should allow to enter its borders; rather, the Scriptures simply presuppose that resident aliens will be around.  The guest worker program in the United States is broken down into three major sections H-1b[10](skilled labor) which is capped at 65,000 persons and the  H-2a(agricultural) and H-2b[11] (non agricultural) visas – both capped at 66,000. These all do not even come close to meeting the demand for labor that many American industries need.

In addition to these quotas, the Federal government, under the current administration, has made it harder on farmers to legally higher immigrant labor. According to an Immigration Works policy brief, the Obama administration’s new regulations eliminated “the streamline application process for employers” implemented by the Bush administration and instead in required employers to “submit to a lengthy DOL(Department of Labor) review,” to apply for immigrant laborers.[12] The Obama administration also has raised the federal minimum wage on foreign workers to $9.48, and increased fines to $1,500 per employee for farmers who are missing even one piece of paper work.[13] This is on top of that fact that it costs farmers thousands of dollars to hire lawyers to help them file all the legal paper work with the department of labor. Another added cost for farmers created by new regulations is the increased risk for being sued. David Bier explains,

Labor Department requirements mandate U.S. employees be treated similarly to migrants, but Obama officials created a new definition of ‘corresponding’ treatment that could be interpreted by courts to include the housing, transportation, and in some instances, meals that H-2A regulations require employers to supply to migrants. Disgruntled employees who are citizens or permanent residents could sue under the ambiguous definition and potentially collect damages.[14]

The current administration has also passed new regulations on highly skilled laborers with H-1b visas that are adding cost to businesses that would keep their business here in America if it were not for these added costs. One such regulation dictated that no company who had employees with H-1b visas could be eligible to partake in federal bailouts through the Trouble Asset Relief program known as TARP.[15] There has also been an increase in the processing fees of business with more than 50 employees who wish to higher immigrants with H-1b visas “from $325 to as much as $2,300.”[16] These are all added cost that do harm to business and ultimately the nation’s economy.

All of these added costs and legal liabilities incentivize farmers to hire illegal immigrants. The caps on legal immigration also incentivize immigrant workers to come work in the United States illegally, even with increased federal enforcement.  The fact is, “if the extra cost of such enforcement[along with these new regulations] is larger than the net fiscal cost of illegal immigration, then driving illegal immigration to zero would fail a cost benefit test.”[17] Current federal enforcement for hiring legal immigrants may cost more than to take a risk to higher immigrants who are not authorized to be here. A perfect example of this risk taking by business owners can be found in Arizona, since it passed the Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA). LAWA required Arizona employers to use E-verify to ensure the legal status of their employees. In response to this law, employers and immigrants responded differently. First, there was an increase in self employment by 73%, of which, “about 25,000 Arizona Hispanic noncitizens dropped out of the formal wage market and became self-employed.”[18] Moreover, employers responded with only a “72 percent” participation rate in 2010, and a “67 percent in 2011.”[19]  The reality is that this is a Genesis 3 world; unrealistic laws like prohibition and immigration labor regulations are unjust because they do not coincide with basic human nature. The government should seek to do good for its citizens (Rom 13:4), and placing unrealistic labor restrictions that incentivize individuals to sin by breaking laws is not good. This is why Christians should seek to reform immigrant labor laws to be more free and open by removing these unrealistic restrictions.

Thirdly, the current immigration policies inhibit economic growth and reduce national productivity. This is counter to the idea that, “one of the primary responsibilities of government is to act as God’s servant to ‘do good’ for the citizens of a nation (see Rom. 13:4).”[20]  The reality is that immigration will increase the nation’s ability to produce and therefore increase economic growth. Yet, there are some detractors who disagree with this position like Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS), and possibly the most academic detractor when it comes to low skilled immigrant labor is Economist George Borjas.

For example CAPS runs sensational TV ads, insinuating that Americans are unemployed, because immigrants are “taking American jobs.”[21] This is clearly Malthusian’s thinking that there are only a set number of jobs. There are not a set number of jobs. Jobs are created and lost every day; there is no set labor force. Since the 1950s, there has been an increase of about 90 million new workers in the labor force including women, and baby boomers.[22] This has not resulted in any “long term increase” in unemployment rates.[23]  Many activists who support immigration and immigrant labor argue that immigrants do the jobs that Americans won’t do,  at least for the wages being offered, but if the wages were increased then Americans would apply for those jobs. In some cases this may be true, but it does not ring true in all situations. The problem is that higher wages would mean that many of those jobs would no longer be there.[24]  Benjamin Powell explains,

Approximately one third of all garment workers in the United States are immigrants. If wages needed to be higher to get Americans to take the jobs, many of these jobs would have gone overseas. .. In Arizona, for example, only 30 percent of the 2004 lettuce crop was harvested; the rest was left in the ground to rot. Losses were nearly $1 billion. Farmers certainly could have paid higher wages to get the crop harvested, but losses would presumably have been even greater.[25]

In the end, an increase in wages could result in a loss of productivity and economic growth.

Another proponent of the idea that immigrants are taking “American jobs” is Harvard Economist George Borjas.  In 2010 he coauthored an article arguing that African American incarceration rates were on the rise because low skilled immigrants were taking their jobs.[26] Diana Furchotgott-Roth explains the flaws in Borjas’s study. First, African American men started to “withdraw from the labor force in the 1960s,” when immigrants made up “less than 1 percent” of the labor force.[27]Moreover,  “The percentage of black men between ages 16 and 24 who were not in school, not working, and not looking for work rose to 18 percent in 1982 from 9 percent in 1964. It then reached 23 percent in 1997 and remained at that level as of 2011.”[28] Finally, Borjas does not even mention in his study the changes in laws and policies, nor does he consider how both have been enforced. Therefore, immigration is not the reason for the rise in African American unemployment or the direct reason for the increase in their incarceration rates.

Another problem with this argument that immigrants take American jobs is the fact that, many more families are moving towards both parents working outside of the household. Hanson found that this, “often requires hiring outside labor to care for children, clean the home, launder clothes, and tend to the yard.”[29] He also found that the in cities where immigrant labor was prevalent that these services were more affordable.[30]

Borjas in several of his studies showed that cheap immigrant labor harms the high school dropouts by reducing their wages. In 2003 he claimed wages dropped by 9%, in 2004 by 7%, and in 2006 by 5%.[31] There are two other studies worth noting.  One is by David Card which showed that low skilled immigrant labor reduced low skilled workers wages by 3 percent in cities where the population of immigrants was higher. The second study was done by Giovanni Peri, who found that immigrants only cause 0.7 percent decrease in low skilled workers’ wages.[32] In other words, even though wages are depressed for high school drop outs, there is not enough decisive evidence to point out how much wages are lowered, nor is there enough negative evidence to call for a reduction in low skilled immigrant labor compared to its benefits.

There any many benefits to having affordable labor. As previously mentioned, in cities that boast a high percentage of low skilled immigrant labor, goods and services are provided at a more affordable rate. This translates into cost savings for the population as a whole.  It is imperative to understand that the total national income is not lost from these savings; rather it is redistributed by creating employer gains and savings for consumers.[33]  The savings for the consumer will allow them to later choose where they would like to spend the extra cash, which would in turn help another business, consequently, helping the employees of that business. In the end, the wealth is not lost.  In addition, high skilled laborers who are paid less than native born employees actually add to economic growth and job creation. Economist Peri explains that “firms pay immigrants less than their marginal productivity, increasing the firms’ profits. Such cost savings on immigrants act as an increase in productivity for firms…[T]his allows firms to expand production and employ more people in complementary task many of which are supplied by natives.”[34] Therefore, immigrant labor helps to creates more affordable goods and services by increasing profits to businesses and helps them to employ more Americans, which are net benefits, instead of a net loss.

In conclusion, a biblical policy towards immigrant labor would be to allow for a freer more open system, because it fulfils God’s command that the government do good to the people, and it allows Christian individuals/business owners to legally carry out God’s command to be hospitable towards immigrant laborers. This should include the removal of federal caps on labor and a shift towards a system where the free market decides the number of laborers that are needed.  There should also be a removal of unrealistic federal mandates and regulations that make it harder for business owners to legally hire immigrant labor. A policy based off the free market would not just benefit the United States, but it would also benefit the immigrant who comes to the United States to make several times more than he or she could have earned in their home nation. In many cases, this move would also improve the immigrant’s standard of living. Some may argue that these immigrants harm low skilled native born workers; but the reality is that these people already have protections which come in the form of unemployment insurance, welfare, food stamps and so on. Ultimately, the government’s job should not be one of creating jobs, but one of being just. A just society creates the ideal framework for economic growth and prosperity – for both the citizen and the immigrant.

[1] The term freer labor is used instead of Free Labor because, the author does not believe in open borders, but does believe that the free flow should be allowed by the Government who should screen and have limited regulations, but not cap allowing people to freely and legally come to work in the United States.

[2] Baker, D. L. Tight Fists or Open Hands?: Wealth and Poverty in Old Testament Law. Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans Pub, 2009.178.

[3] Baker, Tight Fist Open Hands, 178.  This verb “gur” (1481a.גּוּר)has been translated by the NASB several ways which many can convey the idea of residing, or dwelling: “abide*(1), alien(1), aliens(1), assemble(1), colonize(1), dwell(3), dwells(1), habitation(1), live(4), live as aliens(2), lives(1), reside(13), resided(1), resides(3), sojourn(11), sojourned(9), sojourning(1), sojourns(13), stay(6), staying(4), stays(1), strangers(3).” Robert L. Thomas, ‘1481aגּוּר   gur.” New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries : Updated Edition (Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998).

[4] Rushdoony, Rousas John. The Institutes of Biblical Law 2, Law and Society. (Nutley, N.J.]: Craig Pr, 1982.):199.

[5] M.  Daniel Carrol R., Christians at the Boarder: Immigration, the Church, and the Bible. (Grand Rapids: Baker Pub. Group, 2008): 95.

[6] Carrol, Christians at the Boarder, 103.

[7] Bernhard Asen, “From Acceptance to Inclusion: The Stranger (גֵּר /gēr) in Old Testament Tradition, in Christianity and the stranger: historical essays. (ed. Nichols, Francis W. Atlanta, Ga: Scholars Press, 1995): 16-35.

[8] Christopher J. H. Wright, God’s People in God’s Land: Family, Land, and Property in the Old Testament. (Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 1990.): 101.

[9] Wright, God’s People in God’s Land, 101-102.

[10] United States citizen and immigration services, “Cap Count for H-2B Nonimmigrants,” 17 April 2013, (21 April 21, 2013).

[11] Andorra Bruno, “Immigration of Temporary Lower-Skilled Workers: Current Policy and Related Issues,” Congressional Research services. (2012): 9.

[12] Immigration Works USA, “Reduced Access: New Regulations Aimed at Temporary Worker Visas.” (2009):1.

[13] David Beir, “Obama’s Secret Anti-Immigrant Campaign.” Real Clear Politics.com, 9 July 2012,  (16 April  2013).

[14]Beir, Obama’s Secret, 2012.

[15] Beir, Obama’s Secret, 2012; & Immigration Works USA, “Reduced Access,” 2009, 3.

[16] Beir, Obama’s Secret, 2012

[17]Gordon H. Harrison, Immigration and Economic Growth, CATO Journal. 32, 1 (2012): 31.

[18] Alex Nowrasteh, The Economic Case against Arizona’s Immigration Laws, Cato Policy Analysis No. 709. (2012).9.

[19] Nowrasteh, The Economic Case, 9.

[20] Wayne Grudem, Politics According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for understanding Modern Political Issues in the Light of Scripture, (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 2010), 269.

[21] Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS), “Press Release: Memorial Day TV Ad Ask why President Obama is admitting millions of Immigrant Workers when 1 in 3 Young Veterans are Jobless.” 22 May 2012.

[22] Benjamin Powell, An economic Case for Immigration, 7 June 2010.

[23] Powell, Case for Immigration, 2010.

[24] Powell, Case for Immigration, 2010.

[25] Powell, Case for Immigration, 2010.

[26] Borjas, George J., Jeffrey Grogger, and Gordon H. Hanson. 2010. “Immigration and the Economic Status of African-American Men.” Economica 77, no. 306: 255-282.

[27] Diana Furchotgott-Roth, “The Path Forward for Immigration”. Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. 12 December 2012.8.

[28] Furchotgott-Roth, The Path Forward, 2012, 12.

[29] Harrison, Immigration and Economic Growth, 2012, 28.

[30] Harrison, Immigration and Economic Growth, 2012, 28.

[31] Furchotgott-Roth, The Path Forward, 2012, 9.

[32] Furchotgott-Roth, The Path Forward, 2012, 9.

[33] Harrison, Immigration and Economic Growth, 2012, 28.

[34] Peri, Giovanni. “IMMIGRATION, LABOR MARKETS, AND PRODUCTIVITY.” CATO Journal 32, no. 1 (Winter2012 2012): 35-53.44.

Bibliography

Asen, Bernhard, “From Acceptance to Inclusion: The Stranger (גֵּר /gēr) in Old Testament Tradition, in Christianity and the stranger: historical essays. ed. Nichols, Francis W. Atlanta, Ga: Scholars Press, 1995.

Baker, D. L. Tight Fists or Open Hands?: Wealth and Poverty in Old Testament Law. Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans Pub, 2009.178.

Beir, David, “Obama’s Secret Anti-Immigrant Campaign.” Real Clear Politics.com, 9 July 2012, (16 April  2013).

Borjas, George J., Jeffrey Grogger, and Gordon H. Hanson. 2010. “Immigration and the Economic Status of African-American Men.” Economica 77, no. 306: 255-282.

Bruno, Andorra, “Immigration of Temporary Lower-Skilled Workers: Current Policy and Related Issues,” Congressional Research services.2012.

Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS), “Press Release: Memorial Day TV Ad Ask why President Obama is admitting millions of Immigrant Workers when 1 in 3 Young Veterans are Jobless.” 22 May 2012.

Carroll R., M. Daniel. Christians at the Border Immigration, the Church, and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Pub. Group, 2008.

Furchotgott-Roth, Diana ,“The Path Forward for Immigration”. Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. 12 December 2012.8.

Grudem, Wayne, Politics According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for understanding Modern Political Issues in the Light of Scripture, Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 2010.

Harrison, Gordon H.,  Immigration and Economic Growth, CATO Journal. 32, 1 (2012): 31.

Immigration Works USA, “Reduced Access: New Regulations Aimed at Temporary Worker Visas.” (2009):1.

Nowrasteh, Alex, The Economic Case against Arizona’s Immigration Laws, Cato Policy Analysis No. 709. (2012).1-20.

Peri, Giovanni. “IMMIGRATION, LABOR MARKETS, AND PRODUCTIVITY.” CATO Journal 32, no. 1 (Winter2012 2012): 35-53.44.

Powell, Benjamin , An economic Case for Immigration, 7 June 2010.

Rushdoony, Rousas John. The Institutes of Biblical Law 2, Law and Society. [Nutley, N.J.]: Craig Pr, 1982.

Thomas, Robert L.  ‘1481aגּוּר   gur.” New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries : Updated Edition,Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998.

United States citizen and immigration services, “Cap Count for H-2B Nonimmigrants,” 17 April 2013, (21 April 21, 2013).

Wright, Christopher J. H. God’s People in God’s Land: Family, Land, and Property in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 1990.

This was originally published on Thomas’s personal Blog Arizona Seminarian

####

Editors note: as with all blog postings that appear with a by-line, the opinions presented are the author’s and not necessarily the positions of Cafe Con Leche Republicans.

Thomas Salazar

Thomas Martin Salazar is an Arizona leader of the Café con Leche Republicans. Thomas was born and     raised in Arizona. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in History from Grand Canyon University and is currently working on obtaining a MDiv in Biblical Communication from Phoenix Seminary. Thomas has also served as the Grand Canyon University College Republicans Vice President and interim President (February 2007-April 2008) and as a Maricopa County Republican Precinct committeeman (August 2009 – August 2012).

The post Freer Labor: A Biblical Concept for Immigrant Labor appeared first on Cafe Con Leche GOP.