Sunday, January 20, 2013

Contra Marco Rubio’s Big Lie: It is Impossible to Do Background Checks on Any of the 24 Million to 44 Million Illegal Aliens (Not Counting Illegal Anchor Babies)

Republican Reconquista? Sen. Marco Rubio (Stupid-FL)

Posted by Nicholas Stix

Documenting illegals
COMMENTS (0) [The censors must not have permitted comments.]
By Mark Cromer
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
The Washington Times

Those who bristle at the American people's refusal to support yet another mass amnesty for illegal immigrants frequently cite the need to bring them into the sunshine of the system in order to determine the true identities of the millions who, as the cliche has it, live in the shadows.

We're going to document the "undocumented," they say.

Background checks, we are told, will be conducted on all comers who step forward and essentially turn themselves in for having broken into the country. Once illegal immigrants are properly vetted and determined to have committed nothing more egregious than violating laws that govern American sovereignty, the logic goes, we'll all sleep easier.

This pitch is now universal in the movement that favors amnesty and mass immigration; from the ethnocentric Latino activists who see unchecked migration as the fast-track to demographic hegemony, to the corporatists at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Wall Street Journal who represent those intent on importing indentured servants into their Company Town.

It is virtually certain that whichever of the senatorial triad of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or John McCain wins the White House this fall, they will make background checks a centerpiece of whatever security elements they claim to support.

Yet the prospect of actually conducting legitimate background checks on illegal immigrants is, in fact, the absolute pinnacle of the bald-faced lies that typifies the security assurances offered by the proponents of amnesty.

Journalists who have conducted investigative research into the background of individuals know that it is a time and resource intensive enterprise — one that can be incomplete if reliable data is lacking on a person. And these are background checks that are conducted into the lives of people who have legitimate, discernable footprints in our society: credit histories, educational backgrounds, property records, employment references, family history, civil litigation and, sometimes, criminal records.

The vital connective tissue that runs through a real background check is an authentic primary identification. An incorrect spelling of a name, the lack of a middle name, no date of birth or the absence of other corroborating identifiers can render any resulting profile of a person useless.

Even under the best of circumstances, it's not hard to miss something.

Thus, if researching established citizens can pose significant challenges, then putting together a factual background on people who use multiple aliases that are based on counterfeit documents obtained throughout a highly transitory life while in the United States illegally is all but impossible.

When considered on the scale of a national amnesty, it becomes a cynical joke.
Yet proponents of immigration reform insist that the tens of millions of illegal immigrants who will step forward to claim a chance at legalization can indeed have their histories adequately researched. Some have even suggested that background checks on illegal immigrants could be conducted in a similar fashion to the so-called instant background checks that are used to screen potential gun buyers.

This fiction slips into the public discourse so easily simply because too many reporters have become stenographers, transcribing comments by rote and declining to challenge or analytically explore such sweeping claims.

Fundamental questions about these proposed background checks remain unanswered because they are not asked: What agency will conduct them? What universe of source material will be researched? What is the scope of the search? What's the criterion for approval or denial of the immigrant's application? What is the budget for this mammoth undertaking? And here's the biggie that presidential candidates Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain are all loathe to answer: Will illegal immigrants whose background checks are flagged and applications for legalization denied face immediate deportation?

Should the American people be asked to believe that Mexico — the corruption-riddled narco-state that is responsible for seven out of every 10 illegal immigrants in the United States today — will provide adequate information about its citizens that may result in their deportation home? Or is it more likely the Mexican government will do whatever it takes to ensure they stay in America and continue wiring billions in hard cash back to Mexico?

At the end of the day, those pushing immigration reform would be better served if they just dispensed with the nonsense about background checks and admit that we have no way of knowing who these illegal immigrants really are, whether we legalize them or deport them.

Deporting them is to choose caution; legalizing them is to hope for the best.

Pretending we can determine just who they all really are is as phony as the Social Security numbers on file in the HR Departments at food processing plants, general contractor offices and hotel chains across the nation.

Mark Cromer is a senior writing fellow for Californians for Population Stabilization.

[A burning Mexican flag salute to Paul Nachman.]


ai said...

This is all about destroying Western civilization and setting up a jew world order that will look like the Soviet Unions for those allowed to survive. As we know, jews think there are too many people on the Earth and we know what they did to the Ukrainians and Russians.

They certainly don't desire to have Nordic Whites or Christians around and it would be a waste of food for us to survive. After all its not civilization they want.

This list of quotes is shocking but true. A must read for every American.

Chicago guy said...

Add to that the phony numbers that proponents of amnesty use in making their arguments. They always use the low number of 11-12 million illegals, which is a number they've been using for the past 10-12 years as if nothing has changed since the year 2000. Millions have been turned away, how many have gotten through? This article uses the figure 24-44 million which would be more likely, probably the higher end being more accurate. Hard to gauge since they aren't really counted and can't be kept track of. Of course, the anchor babies add to the overall numbers.
One has to do their own anecdotal research to get a sense of what's taken place. Look at the sudden explosion of Hispanic children in all public schools; the expansion of bi-lingual services at the welfare departments; how some neighborhoods have become Hispanic in the past twenty years, even in suburbs and other areas where they weren't seen previously; proliferation of Spanish language radio and television as though there were a parallel society living here; walk through a Hispanic neighborhood and see how dense the population appears. Draw your own conclusions.
The amnesty people's arguments are mostly based on lies and deceit.

Anonymous said...

Yes, it's all about that secret Jewish conspiracy that aspires to total control of the world and the mass extinction of Christian whites.

Stormfront called, they said they found your tinfoil hat in the command bunker.