5 Myths About Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants in Senate Bill

Jon Feere, Christian Science Monitor, May 13, 2013

President Obama and the Gang of Eight senators are repeating a number of talking points designed to elicit support for amnesty, or as they call it, “‘earned legalization,” for immigrants who have come to the United States illegally. {snip}

The current version of the bill provides immediate legal status and many benefits to illegal immigrants who pass a background check and pay some fees and fines. Applicants can meet additional requirements years down the road if they wish to switch this “provisional status” to green-card status and eventual US citizenship.

On close inspection, however, the hoops illegal immigrants are required to jump through do not amount to much. Each of the following five claims about the requirements for illegal immigrants to earn amnesty are not what they seem.

1. They must pay back taxes

Despite claims from amnesty advocates, the bill does not contain a requirement that illegal immigrants pay back taxes for the many years they have been working off the books. The only requirement in the bill is that illegal immigrants must iron out any existing problems they may have with the IRS. If the IRS has ever audited the illegal immigrant and requested payment of unpaid taxes, they would be required to pay them before receiving amnesty.

The reality is that the 45 percent of illegal immigrants estimated to be working off the books are not even on the IRS’s radar and are highly unlikely to have ever been audited. There simply aren’t any tax forms to audit. Of the remaining illegal immigrants, the number who have been audited by the IRS is also likely very small, simply because historically the IRS audits only about 1 percent of tax filers.


The bill also does not require employers of illegal immigrants to pay FICA taxes for the years they paid illegal immigrants under the table.


2. They must learn English

The 1986 amnesty also required some applicants to “learn English,” but in practice, attendance at a handful of classes was sufficient for the majority of them to meet this requirement. After the law’s passage, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) weakened the language requirements administratively, substantially reducing the number of people who had to meet the requirement.

The INS decided that illegal immigrants who were over 64 years old or under age 16 did not have to prove they could speak English, nor did illegal immigrants over age 50 who claimed to have been in the country for 20 years. Those with at least a high school diploma were also exempted.

{snip} While it is unclear how the Obama administration would interpret the language requirements in the current Senate immigration bill (which include exemptions similar to those found in the 1986 amnesty), it is unlikely that any illegal immigrant will be denied amnesty for not knowing how to properly conjugate a verb.

3. They must pass a background check

History suggests that the government does not have the capacity to carefully vet those who apply for amnesty. The 1986 amnesty resulted in the rubber stamping of hundreds of thousands of fraudulent applications. It also gave legal status to an illegal immigrant who would become the ringleader of the 1993 World Trade Center attack; his new status allowed him to travel freely around the world and pick up terrorist training. Certainly not all illegal immigrants are terrorists, but the government’s track record on keeping problematic individuals out of the country is not trouble-free.

Additionally, under the current Senate bill, crimes like identity theft and vandalism are not considered serious enough to deny a person amnesty, despite the fact that such crimes create real victims. {snip}

While illegal immigrants who have their amnesty applications rejected should be fast-tracked for deportation, history shows us that rejected applicants remain in the US, even if they pose a risk. Amnesties do not constitute a benefit to public safety.

4. They must pay a fee and fine

The bill calls for immigrants to pay both a fee and a fine. In a recent speech Mr. Obama used the word “penalty” to describe the fine illegal immigrants must pay. Fees, on the other hand, are meant to help cover the cost of administering an amnesty.

As to the fees, the bill does not outline what the fees would be–and there are waivers. The bill simply notes that illegal immigrants aged 16 and older who want legal status will have to pay a fee “in an amount determined by [DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano].” While it is unclear how much the fee would be, the bill says it should be enough to cover processing the applications. But in the next section, the bill gives Ms. Napolitano the power to limit the fee and to exempt “classes of individuals” altogether. With such broad authority granted by Congress, it is unclear whether this fee will even apply to most amnesty applicants.


As for the fine–or “penalty”–the current version of the Senate immigration bill requires illegal immigrants to pay $500 for the initial probationary legal status and another fine of $500 six years later. If a person wants to switch from this provisional legal status to green card status (and eventual US citizenship), he or she will have to pay a $1,000 fine many years down the road. But there are many exceptions.

For example, a person of any age who claims to have entered the US before age 16 and has a high school degree or GED does not have to pay. Finally, people under 21 years of age are also exempted. {snip}

5. They must go to the back of the line

Most illegal immigrants who claim to be eligible for this amnesty will be allowed to stay in the country and will be given time to apply. Those approved for provisional legal status under the amnesty (i.e. those who have passed the background check and paid the provisional $500 fine) will be immediately entitled to a work permit, a Social Security account, travel documents, drivers’ licenses, many federal public benefits, and many additional state-level benefits.

While the green card may be delayed for a period of years and would require–to the extent described above–payment of the remaining fines, resolution of any pre-existing problems with the IRS, and proof of learning some English, it is undeniable that those who receive legal status through the amnesty are in a much better position compared to those overseas who have applied to come to the US legally.


Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • The__Bobster

    This article and the CIS article below need to be shouted from the rooftops.


    Like all CIS work it is very thorough. Below are my extracts of their responses to Rubio/Zuckerman’s lies.

    RUBIO: “Anyone who thinks what we have now in immigration is not a problem is fooling themselves. What we have in place today is de facto amnesty.”

    “Rubio is trying to help President Obama fulfill his campaign goal of keeping all illegal aliens in the country and giving them benefits reserved for legal residents. If Rubio was actually troubled by the de facto amnesty being advanced by the Obama administration, Rubio would side with the ICE officials who are suing the Obama administration over the president’s effort to prevent them from doing their jobs.”

    ANNOUNCER: “Conservative leaders have a plan, the toughest immigration enforcement measures in the history of the United States.”

    “The so-called “Gang of Eight” senators who wrote the bill aren’t all “conservative leaders”, unless you consider Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Sen. Robert Menendez (R-Ill.) to fit that description…. No immigration bill in the history of the United States has ever permitted previously deported illegal aliens to return to the United States to receive citizenship, so it is difficult to see how this news organization concluded that the bill is the “toughest” our country has ever seen.”

    RUBIO: “They have to pass the background check, they have to be able to pay a registration fee, they have to pay a fine.”

    “Within six months of the bill’s passage, illegal immigrants would become immediately eligible for legal status…It is likely that any illegal immigrants who simply claim to be eligible will be able to avoid deportation, even if they’re already in detention. This is exactly what is already happening under President Obama’s deferred action program. ICE agents are being instructed to release any illegal aliens who claim to be eligible, even if they haven’t filled out an application form. ..

    Absent from Rubio’s list is the requirement that illegal aliens pay back taxes. The reason he is no longer citing it is because that provision never made it into the bill.”

    ANNOUNCER: “Border security on steroids. Tough border triggers have no giveaways for law breakers.”

    “DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano simply has to submit a plan for border security and a fencing plan within six months of the passage of this bill. As soon as she submits the plans, illegal aliens become eligible for work permits, Social Security accounts, driver’s licenses, travel documents, and countless state-level benefits… In other words, there really aren’t any border security triggers at all.”

    RUBIO: “No federal benefits, no food stamps, no welfare, no Obamacare, they have to prove that they’re gainfully employed.”

    “Rubio is simply wrong with these assertions. Illegal immigrants are already receiving federal benefits and this bill would do nothing to stop that. This bill would actually extend greater amounts of benefits to illegal immigrants by giving them legal status.

    We estimate that 71 percent of illegal immigrant-headed households with children use at least one welfare program. Illegal immigrants generally receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children, but they, not the children, are collecting the benefits, which support the entire family.

    Illegal immigrant households with children primarily use food assistance and Medicaid, making almost no use of cash or housing assistance. In contrast, legal immigrant households tend to have relatively high use rates for every type of welfare program. It is undeniable that if the amnesty bill becomes law, the legalized illegal immigrants will have greater access to the welfare state.”

    ANNOUNCER: “Bold, very conservative, a tough line on immigration.”

    “Considering all the exemptions and waivers already laid out above, it is difficult to conclude that this bill is bold with a “tough line” on immigration.”

    CIS points out these descriptions come from Treason Lobby fanatic Jennifer Rubin and Professional Hispanic Ruben Navarrete whom the ad neglects to name.

    RUBIO: “It puts in place the toughest enforcement measures in the history of the United States, potentially in the world and it once and for all deals with the issue of those that are here illegally but does so in a way that’s fair and compassionate but does not encourage people to come illegally in the future and isn’t unfair to the people that have done it the right way.”

    “….the American people have been told this before. The 1986 comprehensive amnesty, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was sold to the public as a one-time plan that would not have to be repeated because the bill contained sanctions against employers for hiring illegal immigrants, and other enforcement provisions. But after IRCA legalized about three million illegal aliens, the enforcement provisions never materialized…

    The amnesty applicant is only in the “back of the line” in the sense that the green card — and eventual U.S. citizenship — would allegedly be delayed until after all existing green card applications are processed. But the fact is, the genuine back of the line is in the illegal alien’s home country.”

    ANNOUNCER: “Stand with Marco Rubio to end de facto amnesty, support Conservative Immigration Reform.”

    “Again, Rubio wants to turn the de facto amnesty we’re currently experiencing as a result of non-enforcement of immigration laws into a de jure amnesty for millions of people who do not belong here. Rubio asks you to “stand” with him, but Rubio himself is standing with Obama, Napolitano, La Raza, the ACLU, and many other amnesty supporters who cannot be described as “conservative” in any sense of the word.”

    • Nathanwartooth

      I’ve heard ads on the radio for the amnesty bill and they are barf worthy.

      Just lie after lie after lie.

      Shouldn’t it be a federal crime to lie about a bill that you have proposed?

    • NeanderthalDNA

      Nice encapsulation, Bobster…

      I’m not so sure this thing is a done deal after all. Regardless we’ll see.

  • The__Bobster

    As for the fine–or “penalty”–the current version of the Senate immigration bill requires illegal immigrants to pay $500 for the initial probationary legal status and another fine of $500 six years later. If a person wants to switch from this provisional legal status to green card status (and eventual US citizenship), he or she will have to pay a $1,000 fine many years down the road. But there are many exceptions

    Hell, the squat monsters paid their coyotes more than a grand to sneak them into the country.

    • JDInSanDiego

      Why in the world is the fine only $500? I’d like to ask the Senators if they would sell their citizenship for $500.

      And the first myth is that Illegals are immigrants. What they are is Illegal criminal aliens who have committed a serious crime by exposing a major weakness in our border security to our “other” enemies. And

  • Bobbala

    So, who do we have on our side?


      Peter King and Steve King are the only two I know of.

      • Stentorian_Commentator

        Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Kris Kobach in Kansas, but our list of allies is thin.

        • mobilebay

          Glad you mentioned Kris Kobach. He’s been my choice for some time as one who could get us out of this mess ,especially if he’d run on the “America First” ticket. (That’s my dream party). Also. Sen. Sessions, who is from my birth state, would be a good VP. Then, surely, we could round up a few more patriots, unlike the ones running Washington now. When I read yesterday, that Luis Gutierrez was on the House committee for their own immigration bill, I figured we’re doomed. That man would gladly hold the gate open for the rest of the inhabitants south of the border to waltz though. He has no right being in office.

          • Paleoconn

            Good party name. How about America First, Second, and Last. How about the Flyover Party. Or the Heartland Party. I’m in a dreaming mood, now. Nobody wake me. But I think this dream can become reality. I am encouraged by sites like this and commenters in these patriotic sites.

  • JackKrak

    How about a much simpler “comprehensive immigration reform” –
    1. They Must Get the Hell Out
    The end.

  • And you fools thought it would’ve been different if McCain was now in his second term as President, or Romney was getting down to business in his 4th month in office as President #45.

    • Bill

      I don’t recall ANYBODY here saying it would be better under McCain or Romney.
      In fact, many here probably stayed home or voted for a third party candidate. It’s been said for a long time here there IS NO difference any more between the Republicans and the Democrats anymore. Everybody here knows we would have only been replacing a man who absolutely HATES whites with a man who is willing to replace whites as a voting block to retain power.

    • Nathanwartooth

      Um I actually watched the debates with Romney and Obama.

      You know what the difference was between them? Not anything worth mentioning, that is for sure.

      I think the most uttered line in the debates was “I agree with Mr. President/Senator Romney”.

    • Texas will looked like El PAso D.B. Cooper and you will moved to Alaksa.

  • crystalevans

    What a joke! I guess border security will be a joke as well.

    • Bill

      After Eisenhower, it always HAS been a joke. Why do you think we have 30 million or more illegal squat monsters among us? It is not 11 million. They were saying THAT 30 years ago. THIRTY years ago!

      • Nathanwartooth

        Yeah if you do an internet search or articles from 10 years ago they have been using that 11 million number for a really long time.

        • crystalevans

          I know that there are more than 11 million illegals in this country. I think it could be as many as 30 million. I guess we will find out if that thing passes and the illegals start to apply.

          • Non Humans

            Lying government, the government is less trustworthy than that crack-dealing nonhuman down on the corner.
            If they want us to believe that it is really only 11mil of these squat monsters, then why don’t they write in a quantifiable cap of 11 mil? Or hell, give them a margin of error at a 12 mil cap. Then the rest need to go!
            Or better yet, how about they enforce the laws on the books and send every last one of them packing! What is it about illegal that they don’t understand?

          • Greg Thomas

            We have 10 million illegal invaders currently squatting In California alone. I’m sure the nationwide number is closer to 25 million, if not more.

        • Homo_Occidentalis

          It wouldn’t surprise me in the least of the state of California alone has 11 million + of these illegal Mexcrements.

  • Anon

    I hate the whole discussion about back taxes. It is a lie based on a lie. They are saying that the immigration bill will offer a carrot (legal residence) to get people into compliance. This is disgusting – the IRS doesn’t use a carrot to get taxpayers to comply. It uses a set of extremely painful sticks. No other group of taxpayers gets a reward for complying with the tax code.

    Illegal immigrants owe back taxes. Even if they have never filed. Even if the IRS doesn’t know about it. Even if they are deported. Even after they are deported. Even if they are dead. The tax code has no exemptions for people based on lack of legal status. Non-filing doesn’t excuse a taxpayer from needing to pay; in fact non-filing results in penalties. Being paid under the table doesn’t excuse the need for payment, along with penalties. Even worse, being paid under the table doesn’t excuse employers from the enormous penalties that come with failing to withhold.

    Making any connection between this bill and taxes is insanity. Right now the IRS has the authority to investigate, and even file criminal charges, anyone who has not filed. That the IRS seems to have a policy of ignoring massive tax non-compliance for illegal immigrants and their employers is a criminal level of favoritism. I wish the IRS would give me a pass like that, where I can ignore the entire tax code for years and pay no taxes and have no consequences, while still getting access to government services like emergency medical care, school for my children, our legal system, roads, heavily subsidized public transportation, and all the other stuff we get for “free” here.

  • bigone4u

    This bill is a fraud, just like everything associated with Obongo. What else is new? All we can do is talk to our friends, neighbors, and family, armed with the facts about what a fraud the bill is.

  • If the IRS has ever audited the illegal immigrant and requested payment of unpaid taxes, they would be required to pay them before receiving amnesty.
    How would they “audit” an illegal immigrant?
    2. They must learn English –Those with at least a high school diploma were also exempted.
    A new line of product for Alderman Munoz’s father, selling fake Mexican high school diplomas.
    3. They must pass a background check.
    Can’t do a background check on someone that just snuck over the border (and bought a high school diploma from Papa Munoz).
    4. They must pay a fee and fine
    There are already charitable organizations raising money to pay this for them.
    5. They must go to the back of the line
    This sounds like “back of the line” to me:
    Most illegal immigrants who claim to be eligible for this amnesty will be allowed to stay in the country and will be given time to apply. Those approved for provisional legal status under the amnesty (i.e. those who have passed the background check and paid the provisional $500 fine) will be immediately entitled to a work permit, a Social Security account, travel documents, drivers’ licenses, many federal public benefits, and many additional state-level benefits.

    • Anon

      How would they “audit” an illegal immigrant?

      They have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM auditing an illegal immigrant. Let me spell it out for you:

      1. Anyone who has US sourced income, or is a US resident with income, is a taxpayer. Immigration status is irrelevant to status as a taxpayer. Think about it: if a tourist comes here and wins the lottery and goes home, do you think he is free of US tax liability? Of course not! If he wins the lottery the day after his visa expires, does that change his US tax liability? Of course not!

      2. The tax code is unique in American law in that the taxpayer is guilty until proven innocent. If the taxpayer can’t prove something, the IRS gets to make the assumption that is least favorable to the taxpayer!

      3. In a situation where the taxpayer has had income and no documentation of this income, the IRS can make up whatever assumptions it thinks are reasonable, and the taxpayer is stuck with it!

      4. Most tax violations have no statute of limitations! Not filing for 20 years doesn’t mean the obligation to file is any less, and doesn’t decrease the penalties. No, the penalties keep piling up.

      Putting these together, the IRS can easily audit Jose. He needs to document when he came to the US (became a resident). Jose didn’t get a receipt from his coyote? No problem, the IRS can make whatever assumption is least favorable to Jose!

      Jose has lived here for a certain number of years. No documentation of his income over that time period? No problem! The IRS can estimate what his likely living expenses were over that time, based on living costs in the area, an inspection of his home, and even interviews with neighbors.

      Auditing Jose is very possible. In fact what I described above is exactly what the IRS does when they want to make a tax case against criminals. Imagine a semi-successful drug dealer. He’s got fancy cars and a fancy home and little or no on-the-books income. Does that stop the IRS from auditing him? Absolutely not! They go in and look around and make lots of assumptions, all highly unfavorable to the taxpayer, and then when the taxpayer can’t show any deductions, they have arrived at their tax liability figure. Illegal immigrants are criminals and can be audited just the same way.

      I am so sick of hearing about an “incentive” for illegals to comply with the tax code. No one else gets any reward or incentive for complying with tax laws. The only benefit we taxpayers get from complying is avoiding pain. But Jose is going to get rewarded with citizenship, which unlocks a torrent of taxpayer-funded benefits? And his employers get exempt from massive failure to withhold? I’m an employer and by Jove, my withholding payments are due within 72 hours of writing the paycheck, and if they are a day late, the IRS INSTANTLY slaps me with hefty penalties which are nearly impossible to waive (they give a one-time pass for innocent mistakes).

      No one, but no one, gets privileged treatment from the IRS. Except illiterate criminal illegal aliens apparently. Whose country is this?

      • I understand the tax code. But you can’t audit someone without a unique SSN, you can only audit the business that employed him to find out how much the worker earned.
        And that is only if they are keeping auditable records. For all I know, they are paying the workers in cash daily as contractors under a different name so that there is no 1099 required.

        • Anon

          Not having an SSN does not in any way alter a person’s tax obligations, including obligation to file and report income. Think about it: imagine a tourist comes here for a week, and buys a lottery ticket, and wins a million dollars. That tourist has no SSN but he most certainly has a US tax obligation and will need to file a US tax return for the lottery income!

          They can still audit Jose without an SSN. I’m not sure how that works but they certainly can do it. As I pointed out above, auditable records are not required to perform an audit.

          They do this all the time for tax prosecutions of criminals, who generally do not keep normal auditable business records.

          Paying cash and using someone else’s name does not release anyone of the obligation to file a 1099! If the IRS suspects that this is happening they can go ahead and file.

          Your assumptions there are totally wrong. The IRS assumes the worst and the taxpayer must prove otherwise. Think about it: if it were not like that, taxpayers would simply not keep any records and would tell the IRS, “sorry, I don’t have any bookkeeping files, so I don’t owe any taxes!” No, it’s the opposite. The IRS says, “you don’t have any bookkeeping files? Ok, we’ll create them for you!” They can do the same for Jose, including prosecuting him for not filing, finding out where he worked and going after them for not withholding.

          Also, as for 1099s, it’s unlikely that Jose is a 1099 independent contractor. Work that is under the close supervision of the employer, on the employer’s location, with the employer’s equipment, and where the employer sets the work hours, is almost certainly employment, not contracting, and the IRS can also hit them for misclassifying an employee as a contractor. All of this can happen regardless of Jose’s immigration status, lack of a SSN, cash payments, and any other factors. You don’t get out of tax filing obligations by being under the radar or not keeping records! No, those things only add penalties and criminal risks.

          I’m an employer. If I don’t have a receipt to match up with every expense… if I fail to file my return on time, or fail to make an electronic withholding payment within 72 hours, or … any of this stuff, I don’t get exempt from it, no, what I get is a massive penalty, and the less records I have, the more I’m going to get bashed on the head.

    • crystalevans

      I thought that they were required to have American high school diplomas or GED certificates.

      • If it is “American high school diplomas or GED certificates“, then how come they need a “pass” on being able to speak English?

  • OlderWoman

    Pardon me but this is off topic. I’m having to sign in everytime I want to post a comment. Is anyone else experiencing this or am I being targeted to discourage me from coming here?

    • Clear your cookies and cache, close your browser, then reopen and try again.

      • OlderWoman

        Cleared. Still having to sign in. This is discouraging. It’s occurring on all discus sites I visit.

        • I had the same problem with one browser(I think it was SeaMonkey), but all other browsers worked fine. I don’t remember what I did to fix the problem, but it was definitely a browser/cookie problem and not a Disqus problem. Try using a different browser and see if there is still a problem.

          • OlderWoman

            I think the problem is solved. I had to go to the discus page and sign in again. This was infuriating to say the least.

            Thanks for your help Celestial Time.

    • lily-white

      mmmm… no… no problem here… that is if you are referring to disqus…

    • bigone4u

      I’ve experienced the same problem with disqus in the past, not just here but on other sites. It seems as I recall to have had something to do with me cleaning out my temporary Internet files. You might try restarting your PC and then log in to disqus. I vaguely recall doing that and it working. Also run your virus checker to make sure you haven’t picked up a virus.

      • OlderWoman

        Thanks, I had to go to the discus home page and log in from there. It was frustrating and infuriating.

        Sorry for interrupting the train of thought here.

  • Tannhauser

    These traitors have bought a lot of advertising for this bs. On talk radio station where I live, you here this bull about every commercial break. They use “conservative and tough” about a million times and now Paul Ryan is on there with Reconquista Rubio spreading these falsehoods. Rubio and Ryan are nothing more than opportunistic weasels like most of the Repub elite.

  • So if I’m getting this right, even “the guys on our side” would be fine and dandy with the illegals if only they would pay some taxes, learn English, not have a record for any crimes they might or might not have committed, pay a small fine, and go to the back of the line—a line that is made up of other non-White people ready to flood the country?

    This is why I hate modern politics. Even when you cut through the fog of lies with a few nuggets of sanity and reason, you’re still an idiot an idiot trying to make a different set of lies work for you.

    • Guest


      “The laws that are enforced are either those that extend or entrench the power of the state and its allies and internal elites … or else they are the laws that directly punish those recalcitrant and “pathological” elements in society who insist on behaving according to traditional norms—people who do not like to pay taxes, wear seat belts, or deliver their children to the mind-bending therapists who run the public schools; or the people who own and keep firearms, display or even wear the Confederate flag, put up Christmas trees, spank their children, and quote the Constitution or the Bible—not to mention dissident political figures who actually run for office and try to do something about mass immigration by Third World populations”

    • lily-white


      “What we have in this country today, then, is both anarchy (the failure of the state to enforce the laws) and, at the same time, tyranny—the enforcement of laws by the state for oppressive purposes; the criminalization of the law-abiding and innocent through exorbitant taxation, bureaucratic regulation, the invasion of privacy, and the engineering of social institutions, such as the family and local schools; the imposition of thought control through “sensitivity training” and multiculturalist curricula, “hate crime” laws, gun-control laws that punish or disarm otherwise law-abiding citizens but have no impact on violent criminals who get guns illegally, and a vast labyrinth of other measures. In a word, anarcho-tyranny.”

      -Samuel Francis

  • rick

    I find it surprising that the Christian Science Monitor would publish something critical of so-called comprehensive reform and actually use the word “amnesty” too. wowsers.

    • NYB

      CSM has been doing a sympathetic series on a Congolese refugee family living in Georgia. They do no have the best interests of the U.S. in mind.

      Not worth patronizing until they change direction.

  • bebe

    The Republican talking heads and politicians make me ill. They are as bad as the Democrats when it comes to anything that concerns the nonwhite RACES. They are traitors and cowards of the White race, period. Don’t forget it is the Republicans who take all the credit for the Civil Rights nightmare they foisted on us and how their idol, of all time is MLK!

    All I hear them say is that they just want them(illegals) to come here LEGALLY and they could care less if all of Mexico came here as long as they do it legally! They are even pushing to make it EASIER for these 3rd world hordes to come legally and want to add another couple million a year on top of the 2 million they already allow to come legally. Their minds are completely gone.

    Don’t forget they are always so concerned about the “children”and how we cannot deport all these little angels….Rand Paul is even on board with this insanity. He is another traitor.

    I have made up my mind that I will never vote for any Republican nor Democrat again. EVER! I will vote the Constitution Party even though I know my vote will do no good, but I will never vote for these White traitors in our two party system. They are bought and paid for and sold their souls.

    • George White

      Get on the phone and call Senators and Congressman. Send them emails and letters and faxes. Join Numbersusa, Caps, Fair, and Alipac. We have to fight this.

  • ImTellinYa

    Well of course our “leaders” are lying scum. They have no choice given the insane, self-destructive agenda that they are pushing.

    At this time in our history and because of the victory of Leftist tyranny, to be loyal and supportive of the government, as it is currently constituted, is to be a traitor to the U.S.

    Our government, presided over by the affirmative-action parasite, common criminal, homosexual, corrupt power-broker, liar, cheat and thief Obama, is now openly the enemy of its own country and every White person in it.

    Obama’s henchmen are, if anything, worse than Obama himself. Holder is actually an accessory to murder. Obama’s Supreme Court appointees are perverted imbeciles who have joined with the traitor Ginsberg to destroy our body of law. To be supportive in any way of this criminal gang masquerading as a government is to be complicit in the destruction of the U.S.

    We have had nothing but Left-wing criminals in the White House for the past 20 years and the latest treasonous scum is the most destructive yet. Amnesty, gun control, the destruction of the economy, the arbitrary enforcement and non-enforcement of laws means we are RIGHT NOW living under an illegal tyranny. That’s been true for quite some time as the Democrats have increased their power; as the Republicans have become cowardly, deluded traitors and as the U.S. has become overrun with a hostile invasion of third-world savages, but there is no more room for compromise. No where to run. No where to move. Right now is the end game. One way or the other.

  • Texas willl looked like Shitty El Paso, which half of the state does already.

  • T_Losan

    I have some very decent white non-American friends interested in immigrating to North America. I’ve helped them with their paperwork and they have had to produce plenty of it, including authenticated copies of university degrees, bank statements, birth certificates, letters from their current employer, etc–just to get a student visa. I’ll be advising them to look into overstaying their visa and hiring a good lawyer instead of jumping through all the hoops like schmucks.

  • kenfrombayside

    The American people don’t want this bill. You have to do all you can do to stem the third world assault:
    – Contact your 2 US Senators and rep in congress.
    – after biz hours, leave a message on your DC rep’s voicemail. All US Senators have multiple offices so it would be a good idea to hit all of the. Remember, be civil and don’t threaten
    – go to NUMBERSUSA then go to the take action button. You will be able to send faxes to your 2 US Senators and congressional for free. (I also gave a $50 donation.
    – use Business Reply envelopes to state your opposition to America’s insane immigration policies and the proposed amnesty. Don’t give the parties any money.
    – join an immigration group like FAIR. Strength thru numbers!
    – go to the RNC & DNC sites to email them.
    – Use the media: call a talk radio program; write a letter to your local paper. If the media outlet is liberal, then talk about economic impact of massive third world immigration.