THE PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." These words were once ingrained in the hearts and minds of every child in America -- remembered and revered throughout life, even by a young fellow of 33 like myself. However, one year after my birth, the United States passed a law that has promoted a growing number of people that live within our borders who do not pay allegiance to America. The result is a boiling undercurrent of social, racial, economic and political turmoil that could erupt at any time to divide and potentially lead to the break up of our country. In 1965, Senator Ted Kennedy pushed through Congress a new immigration bill that started an explosion in the number of immigrants and illegal immigrants coming into this country. It also switched preference to third world and Latin American countries over European countries. At the time, Kennedy said, "First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually...Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset." He was right about the first prediction. We don't have a million new immigrants every year. According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, we are flooded with a million and a half immigrants a year. This is roughly equivalent to the entire population of the State of Nebraska. During the 1960's, 3.3 million legal immigrants entered the United States, 4.5 million during the 1970's, and 11.9 million in the 1980's. At the current rate, this will be equaled or surpassed during the 1990's. At the same time, illegal immigration has skyrocketed at similar levels. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the correlation between the two. The nations with the highest rates of legal immigrants also have the highest rates of criminal aliens subverting the law and sneaking across our borders. Over a million of these criminals are caught every year, but there is very little deterrent effect because of bone-headed policies like the Family Reunification Act that allows untold numbers to come into the country if they can legally get one family member into the country. During the 1980's, almost 12 million were caught. The number of illegal aliens who come into the country each year varies by the source. Conservative estimates say that half a million enter the country every year. Liberal estimates say that it's two million. This is further magnified by the selective enforcement of the law by the INS. For example, this past year a bunch of illegal immigrants were caught in Nebraska by local law enforcement officials. The INS said they didn't have the personnel to handle them, so they ordered local authorities to turn them loose. There was no reason they couldn't have had the local law enforcement hold the criminals until they could be taken them off their hands. Heads should have rolled in the Omaha INS office, but it was treated like "business as usual." Furthermore, an internal audit by the State Department found that many Mexicans, who were granted legal status, originally entered the country illegally. That clearly sends the signal that it pays to break the law. The average American sees the absurd negative aspects of this policy, but a certain powerful bunch of elites from both parties continue to ignore the facts. Back in 1965, the people were opposed to changing immigration policy by a two-to-one margin. Today, 80% realize that both legal and illegal immigration need to be reduced. This holds true for a majority of citizens across the entire demographic spectrum of race, class and geographic location. Even the Wall Street Journal's polling data shows 75% support for immigration reductions. This is significant because their editorial staff is the number one apologist for today's wrongheaded, potentially destructive immigration policy -- despite no creditable evidence to support their claims. I think they must go out and bow down to the graven image of the Statue of Liberty everyday before coming back and spewing their utopian philosophy that unlimited immigration is the best thing for America. In typical response to polling data a couple of years ago, Bill Clinton made a big deal of appointing one of the most respected civil rights leaders in the country, Barbara Jordan, to lead a commission to study the issue. This commission found that both legal and illegal immigration needed to be reduced because they were both creating negative social and economic costs to the nation. Clinton claimed to support the finding; but in a typical flip-flop, he joined with Republican Senator Spence Abraham to defeat any real reforms. This was a real slap in the face to the wishes of the nation's people, and it ignored the facts. Instead of taking advantage of Clinton's subverting the will of the people, the Republican leadership ignorantly and arrogantly rewarded the elitist Abraham by making him Chairman of the Committee on Immigration. There, he can dictatorially squash the will of the people. Abraham is either too stupid to understand the facts or he willfully distorts the truth. I think the latter is the case, as it is with Bill Clinton. Clinton's famous bill "to end welfare as we know it" limited non-citizens from receiving welfare benefits. Then, he turned around and is still trying to reverse this essential provision of the bill. With help from unprincipled Republicans like Abraham, he might get his wish this year. Welfare is just one of the great economic costs to citizens imposed by the high rate of immigration. Some free market apologists for immigration say that it brings money into the country, but this is simply not true. The overall economic costs are conservatively estimated at 20 billion per year. Even the rosiest economic claims of any credibility can only claim minor economic benefits. Even pro-market economists like Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman have rejected these economic arguments. Friedman said in a recent issue of Forbes magazine, "It's just obvious that you can't have free immigration and a welfare state." However, the proponents continue to succeed because they resort to name-calling by claiming that anyone that opposes them are un-American, racists, bigots, xenophobes, nativists, or Neo-Nazi's. These allegations are all absurd, boldface lies, but it doesn't matter to them. They have already thrown reason and principle out the window. So, what difference does it make to slander your opponents? We are a nation of immigrants. My father and I just completed a book about my great-great grandmother coming to America in the 1850's. The difference is that prior generations demanded that immigrants assimilate into America by paying allegiance to the United States, the Constitution and other commonly shared beliefs. Many of today's immigrants don't want to learn the language or accept the values or responsibilities of being an American. They want to enjoy the economic benefits while still paying allegiance to another nation. In California, Latinos send delegations to the Mexican government. The Mexican government has proposed allowing duel citizenship and opposes any restrictions the United States places on immigration. There were even groups that actively recruited hundreds and possibly thousands of non-citizens to illegally vote in the '96 election. There is more than enough evidence for Congress to unseat Congresswoman Sanchez, but they cowardly refuse to do the right thing and seat the candidate elected by the citizens. The census bureau estimates that, by 2050, the U.S. population will reach 400 million, with 130 million being post-1970 immigrants and their descendants. This rate is too high to assimilate into our culture. If we continue to fill our children with the anti-American distortions of our history, culture and law (caused by the multicultural mandates forced on them in school), combined with a bigger percentage of the population giving no allegiance to being an American, the future of our nation is at stake. It is time to restore the right and responsibilities of citizenship. Our borders need to be protected from illegal immigration. Mexico should be forced to control its borders one way or the other, which would give the added benefit of reducing a major source of drug smuggling. All illegal immigrants should be immediately deported. Illegal entry into the United States should result in the denial of any future legal entry into the United States. Legal immigration shouldn't be completely stopped; however, the amount should be greatly reduced. America is still the envy of the world, so we should pick and choose the best candidates -- those willing to take care of themselves and pay allegiance to the United States, if they want to live here. If they want the benefits of voting or government assistance, then they can apply for citizenship. Any taxes paid by non-citizens should be the payment for the right to enter our borders. Abraham Lincoln once said that a house divided against itself cannot stand. Unless most United States residents can have commonly shared beliefs (at least at some minimal level), we will face the danger of being torn apart (as we did with the issue of slavery, which took a bloody civil war to solve). We are still trying to heal the wounds. The continuation of the current immigration policy is headed for this kind of confrontation. Most people realize this. It is time that politicians realize it and do something about it, or be held accountable for not taking action. |
