Wanting laws for others against what they did themselves is the essence of hypocrisy. That describes the very top leaders of immigration policies that leave millions to die outside our doors and other millions in a bumbling bureaucracy that can’t make up its mind from one season to the next whether its applicants are “legal”.
By Dave Leach. Posted January 1, 2017.
President Donald Trump. Senator Ted Cruz. Pastor Rafael Cruz. Anchorman Rush Limbaugh. Columnist Michelle Halkin. Undocumented Anchorman Mark Steyn. Governor Bobby Jindall. Talk show host Simon Conway. Eight restrictionist hypocrites. All these are guilty of what they urge Congress to outlaw. This article offers summaries of the evidence and links.
Luke 11:46 And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.
The purpose of this evidence of hypocrisy is not to gloat, or to imply our moral superiority, or to put blame on anybody but ourselves, in order to excuse ourselves from taking the action needed to correct America’s bureaucratic terror. The purpose of this evidence is to equip ourselves to confront these leaders. It is to weaken their commitment to this madness by removing their ability to mask their own guilt behind brutal opposition to what they themselves have done. Not to make them feel even guiltier, but to remove their guilt over actions and circumstances of which they should never have been ashamed.
The purpose of this evidence is also to educate their followers that the principle of Leviticus 19:33-34 really is relevant still: all of our family trees really do include the very circumstances that trouble immigrants today. We should not outlaw the very opportunities which made our own existence possible!
President Donald Trump
Before we even begin looking at the evidence that Trump’s wife Melania worked illegally, and on that basis is here illegally and would be deported if the laws were enforced, we should note that as the husband of an immigrant whose coming was mostly legal, he should be sympathetic with the millions who must negotiate that bureaucracy from Hell who have less opportunity only because of their unwillingness to pose naked to get here.
In other words, Trump knows better. He knows the absurdities of immigration law. It would be charitable to theorize that he really doesn’t want to be so hard on immigrants but is only because the pressure of the ignorant would have blocked him from power had he talked sensibly, but if that is the case then his fear of that pressure will yet compel him, in his mind, to carry out his brutal threats. In other words, either way, our job is the same: to build up some counter pressure on the side of truth.
There is evidence that Melania worked for seven weeks before it was legal for her to work – if not for an entire year before. At the end of that seven weeks she was authorized to work under an H1B visa. Maybe. But Trump has vowed to end the H1B program without which his wife’s work here would not have been legal even after those first seven illegal weeks. Trump has vowed he will outlaw the very program which he says made his wife’s residence here legal.
Talk about immigrants taking jobs from citizens – jobs that citizens really do want to do! And for wages that citizens really would like to receive!
Fox News, November 5, 3 days before the election:
Melania Trump was paid for 10 modeling jobs in the United States worth $20,056 that occurred in the seven weeks before she had legal permission to work in the country, according to detailed accounting ledgers, contracts and related documents from 20 years ago provided to The Associated Press. …[she] has always maintained that she arrived in the country legally and never violated the terms of her immigration status …
…she first came to the U.S. from Slovenia on Aug. 27, 1996, on a B1/B2 visitor visa and then obtained an H-1B work visa on Oct. 18, 1996.
The documents obtained by the AP show she was paid for 10 modeling assignments between Sept. 10 and Oct. 15, during a time when her visa allowed her generally to be in the U.S. and look for work but not perform paid work in the country. The documents examined by the AP indicate that the modeling assignments would have been outside the bounds of her visa….The government can seek to revoke the U.S. citizenship of immigrants after the fact in cases when it determines a person willfully misrepresented or concealed facts relevant to his naturalization. But the government effectively [? what does “effectively” mean here?] does this in only the most egregious cases, such as instances involving terrorism or war crimes. …
The documents obtained by the AP included ledgers, other accounting documents and a management agreement signed by Mrs. Trump from Metropolitan International Management that covered parts of 1996 and 1997. The AP obtained the files this week after seeking copies since August from employees of the now-defunct modeling firm, after Mrs. Trump made comments earlier this summer that appeared inconsistent with U.S. immigration rules. …
Since questions arose earlier this year, Mrs. Trump has declined to publicly release her immigration records. ...
Vox: Trump doesn’t care if WHITE people come and work illegally, and neither do his supporters:
So there’s really nothing so surprising about the Melania story. Trump doesn’t like immigrants who change the American cultural and ethnic mix in a way he finds threatening, and neither do his fans. Europeans like Melania (or, before her, Ivana) are fine. I get it, David Duke gets it, the frog meme people get it, everyone gets it.
August 6, 2016 Daily Mail: Trump ridiculed, and then vowed to end the H1B program.
Melania Trump, born in Solvenia, became a US citizen in July 2006, one year after she married Donald Trump in Florida
…But former Trump Organization immigration attorney Michael Wildes alleges she got her green card because she was married before 2005
…Melania also said she arrived in US in 1996 and returned home every few months to renew her visa
In conflicting account, modeling agency said it sponsored her with H-1B visa, which would have allowed her to stay for three years
,,,,Nude pictures published in the New York Post may indicate she worked in Manhattan in 1995, a year before she said she arrived, Politico reported
….have at all times been in full compliance with the immigration laws of this country,’ she said in a statement issued on Twitter
….one attorney stating she received her green card in 2001 ‘based on marriage’, four years before she wed Donald Trump.
…In March, the Donald said: ‘The H-1B program is neither high-skilled nor immigration: these are temporary foreign workers, imported from abroad, for the explicit purpose of substituting for American workers at lower pay. ‘I will end forever the use of H-1B as a cheap labor program, and institute an absolute requirement to hire American workers first.’
….Racy photos of Melania from 1995 also resurfaced in the New York Post this week, with Politico pointing out that they were taken in Manhattan a year before the former model claimed she came to the US.
….She told Harpers magazine in July: ‘It never crossed my mind to stay here without papers. That is just the person you are. You follow the rules. You follow the law.
‘Every few months you need to fly back to Europe and stamp your visa. After a few visas, I applied for a green card and got it in 2001.’
THE COMPLEXITY OF H1B LAW: ….Most models use H1-B3 visas. Models seeking H1-B3s must be ‘of distinguished merit or ability’ – they do not have to be graduates, unlike most other H1-B applicants. An employer needs to sponsor the application. They are issued initially for three years. But that time period clashes with her account of traveling to Slovenia every few months to stamp the papers. Some models come on H2-Bs which can be issued for a short period of time and are less onerous – but which only allow temporary or seasonal stays. They also need to be renewed abroad regularly, which could fit with her account of returning to Slovenia. Both H1-B3 and H2-B visas allow the holder to apply for a green card. She may also have gained an O-1B visa, for extraordinary achievement in the arts, but those are hard to get and an obscure model seems unlikely to have done so. Politico speculated that she could have used a B1 business visa, which prohibits employment, meaning that if she had paid work, she would have been committing fraud. If she arrived on a tourist visa for the same-sex photoshoot, she should not have worked. But it is also open to question whether a one-off photoshoot for a European publication, for which she would have been paid in Europe, qualifies as work which would breach visa conditions under U.S. law.
….Is there any concrete evidence of which visa she had?
….Is there any actual evidence of illegality?
No, there are only questions over exactly how she came to the U.S. and established herself as a model.
Trump’s Immigrant Wives CNN January 29, 2016
Trump’s parents and wives were immigrants. He is the leading attack dog against “birthright citizenship”, and accused Ted Cruz of being an “anchor baby”. Not mentioned: he surrounded himself with immigrant women when he owned the Miss Universe contest.
Trump’s first and second wives were immigrants. His mother was born in Scotland. His father’s parents were German citizens. He married his first wife in 1977. She wasn’t a citizen for another 11 years. Yet she said “It’s a beautiful process when it works.” How can she not know how poorly it works? She had to marry an Austrian ski instructor to get out of Communist Czechoslovakia. Then she went to relatives in Canada.
Trump has raised the issue of “anchor babies” in the United States more than any other candidate, regularly suggesting in his stump speeches that children born on U.S. soil to undocumented parents should not be U.S. citizens, as they are today considered under the law.
The GOP front-runner also has repeatedly raised Cruz’s Canadian birth to suggest that Cruz may not be eligible to serve as president of the United States. Trump and a handful of legal scholars have suggested the Constitution’s “natural-born citizen” requirement requires the president be born on U.S. soil, and the issue has never been adjudicated in federal court.
Senator Ted Cruz did not miss being our next president by much. Up through about half way through the primaries he and Trump were neck and neck. Of all the candidates, Cruz was the most committed opponent of immigrants; although Trump made statements about immigrants that sounded very mean, he made other statements that seemed very friendly. His statements were ambiguous enough and general enough that he could do that. Not so Cruz! Cruz’ legislative agenda was laser-focused, and backed up by a record of knowing how to make legislation happen.
Yet Cruz’ own citizenship was not quite clean-cut enough to escape questions. Trump even called him an “anchor baby”. The charge stuck longer than Cruz would have liked. But Cruz’ only brush with the uncertainties of immigration law leave him without the excuse that he doesn’t really understand the bureaucratic Hell it maintains.
Trump, reported January 29, 2016 on CNN:
“Ted Cruz may not be a U.S. citizen, right? But he’s an anchor baby. No, he’s an anchor baby — Ted Cruz is an anchor baby in Canada,” Trump quipped in a speech to supporters in Nashua, New Hampshire.”
…Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban father and an American mother, who were both living legally in Canada at the time, making him an American citizen by birth.
Factcheck, March 24, 2015 Cruz is a “natural born citizen” according to “the weight of legal and historical authority”, which is not the same as certainty. Is Cruz a “natural born citizen”? Practice over two centuries acts as if he is, but the Supreme Court has never ruled, and the law is a bit ambiguous.
“Indeed, the Naturalization Act of 1790, passed three years after the U.S. Constitution was written, said that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.”
“But as the CRS pointed out in its report, the 1790 law was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which changed the language from “natural born citizens” to just “citizens.”
“So there is still some lingering uncertainty about Cruz’s eligibility. That’s because the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on the meaning of “natural born citizen,” which the Constitution doesn’t define.”
Ted Cruz’ father who frequently campaigned with him
“In my opinion, if we allow those who are here illegally to be put on a path to citizenship, that is incredibly unfair to those who follow the rules,” Cruz has said.
And the example he frequently points to is his father, 74-year-old Rafael Bienvenido Cruz.
“I came to this country legally,” Cruz’s father says. “I came here with a legal visa, and … every step of the way, I have been here legally.”
….In an interview near his home outside Dallas, the elder Cruz says that as a teenager, he fought alongside Fidel Castro’s forces to overthrow Cuba’s U.S.-backed dictator, Fulgencio Batista. He was caught by Batista’s forces, he says, and jailed and beaten before being released. It was 1957, and Cruz decided to get out of Cuba by applying to the University of Texas. Upon being admitted, he adds, he got a four-year student visa at the U.S. Consulate in Havana.
“Then the only other thing that I needed was an exit permit from the Batista government,” Cruz recalls. “A friend of the family, a lawyer friend of my father, basically bribed a Batista official to stamp my passport with an exit permit.”
Rafael got to leave Cuba by bribing an official. Is that the kind of “rules” following that Cruz wants to reward? With an ICE bureaucracy that takes years to figure out its own rules, as they ought to apply to millions of individuals, who can know if they AREN’T following at least some of the “rules”?
Ted Cruz/ own father wasn’t a citizen for 48 years.
“The elder Cruz says he renounced his Canadian citizenship when he finally became a U.S. citizen in 2005 — 48 years after leaving Cuba. Why did he take so long to do it? “I don’t know. I guess laziness, or — I don’t know,” he says.”
Rafael Cruz, father of presidential candidate Ted Cruz, became a citizen 10 years after his son graduated from Harvard Law School, 6 years after his son was Associate Deputy Attorney General at the United States Department of Justice, and two years after his son became Solicitor General of Texas, representing Texas before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Even with all those advantages, and with all those political pressures from his son who certainly didn’t want to build his immigrant fighting career while his own father wasn’t a citizen – 48 years!
Rafael started with his “or”, we may presume, to explain the nightmare that millions of Immigrants experience, which adds to the decades of waiting for human rights. But for the sake of his son’s political career, he caught himself.
It’s expensive. It’s uncertain. Status is unpredictable and changes back and forth unpredictably, which makes it dangerous to stay in touch with immigration bureaucrats!
It isn’t as dangerous for later Cubans, or rich Canadians like Mark Steyn or rich Brits like Simon Conway, but for almost everybody else.
How can Pastor Rafael Cruz fail to speak up for fellow immigrants he knows are still going through the USCIS sausage grinder? How can he harden his heart to their prayers? How can his son, seeing the hardships his father faced, being Cuban, personally knowing thousands of others still going through them, demand laws that will further terrorize them?
Not judging. Maybe they have good reasons. 1 Corinthians 4:5. Just asking.
Redstate, January 30, 2016 mixes issues, and gets both issues wrong. Redstate mixes Rafael’s exit from Cuba with the emigration of refugees under much easier laws that came later. Redstate also shows little sympathy for refugees from other nations just as oppressive as Cuba. Redstate says Cubans SHOULD be treated better than other immigrants:
“I think there’s also a subtle dig at the fact that Rafael Cruz is a Cuban refugee who became a naturalized US citizen. It never fails to aggravate me when people try to treat the situation with Cuba the same as our situation with the other countries that border us. Our policy of leniency toward Cuban migrants and refugees is an entirely legitimate anti-communist and anti-Castro* measure and is vastly different from those who try to enter this country illegally elsewhere. Opposing communism used to matter to the kind of people Trump is courting, but I suppose nativism trumps even that.”
Although Rafael did not come under the current open door for Cubans, ALL immigrants Rafael’s age came under much easier laws than those facing immigrants today. Because laws were easier in the past, it is hypocritical for any older immigrant to boast “I came through a relatively open legal door; so I have no patience with you young ‘uns who won’t come through today’s slammed shut legal door.” It is hypocritical for the same reason for rich immigrants from nations with short waiting lines to boast “I came legally” over poor uneducated immigrants who “won’t” “get in line” from nations whose lines are 130 years long, on average.
Rafael’s position on immigration is as stern as his son’s. It is not a matter of widespread public record. I know them because I heard him speak several times at the Des Moines rallies of his son Ted, and because I appealed to him once, speaking to him personally, appealing to Scriptures since he is a pastor, and he flicked me off as quickly as a horse flicks a fly off his butt, and with as much friendliness. He is as determined as Ted to be severe with immigrants, and not to allow a little Scripture to stand in his way.
Current laws for Cuban refugees welcome all Cubans without numerical limit, no questions asked, no vetting whatsoever if they can just get here.
Vetting of refugees from other nations, by contrast, is strangled not only by numerical limits, and it doesn’t just exclude people who want to kill us: it excludes the uneducated, the poor, the old, the sick, the lame. Cubans who make it to the Florida sands can come in any condition. (Although if the Coast Guard finds you at sea, it takes you back to Cuba’s torture chambers.)
Rafael, and his son Ted, have to know lots of Cuban refugees. Can they be ignorant of the terror from which they fled? Can they have no gratitude that our laws let them all come at least if they can get here? Can their hearts be absolute zero against refugees from all other nations, including the “economic refugees” whom our laws won’t even count as refugees even though people die just as dead from starvation as they do from government torture?
The hypocrisy is that Rafael Cruz was glad to come that way, and Ted Cruz is glad to be here as a result, but they do not want other refugees to have the freedom and safety they received.
Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana was a Republican Presidential Candidate for a little past the Iowa primaries. He tweeted, “We need to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants.” But had that standard been applied to his own birth he would not have been a “natural born citizen” and hence would not have been eligible to run for president. Because, as he even says in his speeches, he was 3 months in his mother’s womb when his mother came here on a student visa.
He was, in the terminology of “birthright citizenship” opponents, an “anchor baby”. His birth as a citizen likely made it easier for his parents to secure their own citizenship, and to receive benefits for baby Bobby’s care.
As one tweeter pointed out: “That means you would be deported, Bobby! Hahaha! You’re an anchor baby.” Marlen S. Bodden @marlenbodden Aug 18 11:07 AM
Another said: “Aren’t you only able to run for president as a result of being a birth-right citizen to immigrant parents?…would you sacrifice your citizenship status to commit to this opinion?” Teresa Rusin @TeresaRusin Aug 18 Another: “except for in your case … Just the ‘Jindal exception’ we’ll call it ” myopinion @RightonCarl Aug 18 8:59 am
Actually the “birthright citizenship” opponents aren’t talking about depriving babies of legal immigrants of birthright citizenship; just the babies of undocumented immigrants. However, their support is a quote from 14th Amendment manager Senator Howard, which they twist to say birthright citizenship is not for “foreigners – aliens”, without any distinction between those who came legally vs illegally, since in 1868 it was impossible to come here illegally because there was no law against coming here.
In other words, by the only authority cited by anyone for thinking Birthright Citizenship is not required by our Constitution for babies of “illegals”, it should not be allowed for babies of legal immigrants either.
If “birthright citizenship” is ever ended, all parents would have to have their own citizenship confirmed by expensive lawyers before their children could receive citizenship. Current laws that would govern them are an ever evolving, complicated tangle. No one knows what would replace our current simple practice. Rick Santorum’s version is one of many.
Rick Santorum’s theory of what should replace our existing “birthright citizenship is that “Only children born on American soil where at least one parent is a citizen or resident aliens is automatically a U.S. citizen.” The grammar is choppy: he would allow Birthright Citizenship “where at least one parent is a citizen or resident aliens”. Can one parent (singular) be “resident aliens” (plural)? A “resident alien” is anyone who has lived here for a portion of the last 3 years, whether they are documented or not. We may guess that he meant to say Birthright Citizenship should be only for babies with at least one citizen parent, or where both parents are legal “resident aliens”. However, if that is what Santorum meant, Jindal would not be a citizen under that standard either; since his parents were here on student visas, through which Green Cards are unavailable; and having a green card is the only other test of whether you are a “resident alien”. (However, Jindal’s office said his mother came as a “permanent resident” – with a “green card” – not as a student, even though she came here to study.)
Silk Roads September 4, 2014
I find it ironic that Michelle Malkin, who was born to Philippine immigrants in Philadelphia, would be so vehemently against “anchor babies.”
She was an “anchor baby”.
Her parents were in America on a work visa when she was born. She was automatically a US citizen by virtue of having been born in America.
Yet, she condemns the right for others.
I understand concerns such as terrorism and criminals crossing our borders to do harm and wreak havoc within the borders of America. Yet, these folks are a minuscule minority. The majority of folks who come to America do so for the exact reason the Michelle’s parents came to America.
Michelle should think about her own heritage and fortune. She is exactly that which she rails against. She is a citizen of the United States despite having parents who were citizens of another nation.
The Pondering American, July, 2006. Summary of this article:
Would Michelle Malkin be an anchor baby if the law were applied to her that she wants applied to future babies?
Yes, according to this article. “Michelle Maglalang was born to Filipino immigrants in Philadelphia on October 20, 1970. Her parents had arrived in the U.S. earlier that year. Her father was a doctor in training with a visa sponsored by an employer. Her mother was a schoolteacher.”
Malkin’s own book, “Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores”, reports this interview:
LAMB: You said that your parents became citizens in `89. When did they come to the United States?
MALKIN: In 1970. …And they left 1970, right before Ferdinand Marcos became dictator. …
LAMB: So how did they — what — what kind of a visa did they get to come here?
MALKIN: My dad came on a — he was — like I said, he was a doctor, so he was training here and had an employer sponsor and then — you know, and then, you know, went on their way, like most people do who have green cards, and then eventual American citizenship.
When did her parents come? That determines whether, by Malkin’s definitions, she is the very “anchor baby” she so despises.
Did they come after January 20? If so, then Malkin is an “anchor baby”; her parents came here after mom was pregnant, to have their baby on American soil in order to provide for themselves an “anchor” in the “line” that “everybody else” is supposedly “in”.
Ferdinand Marcos became dictator by declaring martial law September 23, 1972, so Malkin’s statement that her parents came “right before Marcos became dictator” doesn’t pin down the time very well. But Wikipedia reports that beginning January 30, 1970, there were a series of violent Communist/student attacks on President Marcos, including “more than 15 bombing incidents” which he later used to justify martial law. So it seems very likely from what we know that Malkin is indeed an “anchor baby”, a widespread speculation to which she has not responded. She is what she herself describes as “an American by accident” or “an American on paper”.
But even if she was conceived after her parents came,
“Can we ask if [benefits available to parents of citizen babies, which Malkin rails against] played a part in the decision to conceive? IS it not correct that by having Malkin here that they themselves suddenly had all the benefits of those avenues that Michelle Malkin rants against now and wants to close down without exception? That she herself because of [her citizenship] received the benefits [of] a nice life style and had the opportunity for wonderful private education from grade school to college? That if we follow Malkin proposals to the logical conclusion [and applied them to Malkin herself] that Malkin’s own children would be denied basic state services such as education and health care?….There are a lot of questions. Did her dad overstay his visa? Did he apply for new avenues of benefit because he had a “American” by accident(those are Michelle’s words and use of quotes not mine). Did her dad get to come over here by what is really a H-1 visa today? Something that she rants about in that same interview. Also as noted above a friend of the Court brief was submitted in the Hamdi case asking if this guy was even a citizen because he was born of parents that were at the time of his birth were foreign nationals that had no feality to this nation. How legally is this different from Malkin’s case. No fear Michelle if the radicals wish to deport you, I will hide you and give you shelter. I am serious about that by the way. By the way aren’t you a dual citizen. Have you renounced that?
There is even a Comment Argument about whether it even matters that Michelle is what she calls an “anchor baby”: In her defense, it is said How is her birth, which she could not help, relevant to her positions? If she is right she is right.
I agree that if she is right she should receive credit for that, even if her position prevails and deports her back to the Philippines. But she is wrong; so the marvel, and the hypocrisy, is that her own status has not been enough to open her eyes to the fact that she is wrong; that the problem is not babies, but stupid laws. In fact, such intelligence as she exhibits in her attacks on others who are exactly like herself, points to a heart hardened by desperation and fear of having this terrible crime, in her mind, that gobbled up her heritage, exposed; the same motivation any traitor has who fears his people’s enemies more than he trusts his people’s resources to protect themselves, so he or she lives to appease his enemies. Similarly, Judas thought Jesus was self destructing, so he sought to appease the Pharisees.
In a July 2012 debate with immigration attorney Michael Said, hosted and moderated by myself, [video] he spoke eloquently about outrageous experiences he had through 7-1/2 years of immigration bureaucracy.
He said “Immigration law is an absolute nightmare. It has to be changed. It has to become much easier to come into the United States legally.”
He wants to “simplify legal entry into the United States” and “secure the border” at the same time. But he later said that he wants “enforcement first” before we “reform the system” because we “don’t want to reward lawbreakers”, and he sees no need to raise the Numerical Limitations that only allow a few to come legally, because “there are no jobs that citizens don’t want.” He also wants much stiffer penalties for coming here illegally.
Questions for Simon:
- How can you be so horrified by the relatively light burden of lucky people like yourself whom the Liberty Lottery granted one of its few legal slots, and so determined to increase the burdens for your fellow immigrants whose legal slot you were able to grab?
- Whether or not it is true that citizens want every job, what does that have to do with anything? Everyone who comes here and takes a job, creates a job because he requires the services of others to stay here. Thus the number of jobs available is always proportional to the population. Back to the question you were asked July 26: won’t securing the border be a lot easier if nonviolent, hard working immigrants are allowed to come through the legal checkpoints, leaving very few motivated to cross between them? In the same way that raising the speed limit from 5 mph, which makes “speeders” of 99% of drivers, to 50, will reduce the need for highway patrolman from more than anyone can afford to a manageable level?
- If you want legal immigration to be easier, without raising numerical limitations, how do you process Michael Said’s statement that “most undocumented immigrants have an application pending”? Most “illegals” ARE the folks you want to help who are coming legally but find themselves out of status from time to time as the processing of their forms is held up to avoid exceeding Numerical Limitations. Said said, “People have been waiting 15 years for their papers. I have people with nervous breakdowns in my office, the green card so close, but not there” in violation of the government’s own procedures.
- Isn’t “enforcing existing laws because we don’t want to reward lawbreakers” an argument for never fixing our broken immigration laws? Whenever you fix a dumb law, that changes who the law classifies as a lawbreaker. Reforming any complex code will make some who violated the dumb law innocent by the fixed law, and vice versa. Don’t lawmakers have enough trouble fixing broken laws already, without us forbidding them from even trying?
Michael Said challenges people who say his client should “get in line like everybody else”: he will give them his annual salary if they will tell him HOW his client can come legally!
Mark Steyn fills in for Rush Limbaugh. He is a wealthy commentator whose articles appear in most of the world’s newspapers. He lives 20 miles from the Canadian border, in New Hampshire. He is a Canadian citizen.
He calls himself “America’s Undocumented Anchorman”. I can’t find out how he can legally live here or work here. Perhaps as a wealthy investor who employs others.
But he takes jobs that Americans would love to have, especially at the salaries he earns! He is better informed than most talk show hosts about the insanity of immigration law. And yet he shows little empathy for immigrants less privileged than himself.
New York Daily News, August 19, 2013
Where is Donald Trump when you need him?
Conservatives are rallying around pundit Mark Steyn, a popular fill-in for bombastic radio host Rush Limbaugh, to run for Senate in New Hampshire.
There’s just one small problem: Steyn isn’t even an American, he’s a Canadian citizen.
….Though he now lives in New Hampshire with his brood of three children, he still pledges his allegiance to the Queen and has never become a naturalized American.
So how does he live legally in New Hampshire, and get paid to host the Rush Limbaugh show?
We the Peasants by Steyn implies that he has some kind of legal status.
….The President’s drive-by amnesty for however many bazillion fine upstanding members of the Undocumented-American community is particularly revolting to those of us chumps who were suckered into going through what passes for the legal immigration process in this country.
One example of Steyn’s unusual grasp of immigration details: Steyn points out that immigration judges already deport children who are citizens by birth, along with their undocumented parents: http://www.steynonline.com/7118/the-party-of-why-nothing-can-be-done However, that doesn’t mean he favors birthright citizenship for anybody. He is just saying it shouldn’t take a law to drive out children of undocumented parents, since we do that already.
Limbaugh does precisely what he wants Congress to outlaw: giving jobs to immigrants which citizens want. He employs Mark Steyn.