Notes on the Border: A Hawkish Opinion

Capping it off at 12 million, living in the United States of America, illegally. For anyone who fails to be shocked enough, those numbers are from the year 2004. So honestly, the question has to be, has the nation had enough? Sure companies ship jobs overseas, but allowing more undocumented workers to come into the country doesn't solve that problem, even if they are deputized as American citizens. In reality, what we really need to do is stop selling governmental control to the Mexican border conflict and start where the real problem is: freedom of passage.

I've spoken at lengths beforehand about my blatant disagreement with President Obama's reckless decision to amend border security laws in a such a manner that cuts off general funding for the ever so necessary fence to protect American citizens, and in this piece my view is no different. Regardless of George Bush's election in the swing year of the change in centuries, it still took almost 60% of a decade for his party to address immigration reform, resulting in the slow start of a process to complete the line of defense against those disrespectful of the laws.

In the 21st Century however, we have to take a different approach. No longer are new immigrants simply pursuing the American Dream, as they might have years ago. With many states offering healthcare and social benefits as lucrative welcome presents, illegally entering immigrants now have more incentive than ever to break the rule of justice and decency in our good nation. Critics of my viewpoints often argue that these people just want new opportunity like my own ancestors who arrived in the States, yet they miss the huge elephant in the room that summarizes neatly their logic: the availability of government benefits. Perhaps there was less of a downside to immigrants arriving illegally generations past, as they could not waltz up and claim food stamps or unemployment--all while not paying taxes. And in the social democratic mindset of today, our nation must care for, first and foremost, all of its citizens.

For these reasons I can see no better policy than a hardened mentality which seeks to deport all discovered illegals for their crimes. Much like in the country of Italy, we should hold little regrets about doing what is right in the best interests of American citizens of all races and creed.

Of course these decisions may divide families, yet people must come to terms with their own actions in life. America is a melting pot; not a swine's trough, and her riches must be protected at all costs. To those who feel that tough immigration policy is discriminatory towards Hispanics, view this link, which explains how Latinos have become regular targets of crime from illegal immigrant hands.

People have the right to be angry that families are broken up, or that the legal immigration process takes so long, yet this does not justify their actions against international and American law. The end should certainly not justify the means, and the insistence by modern political scientists to apply the reverse of such a tenet to immigration policy is irrefutable evidence of confused logic over the issue.

Indeed we must stand together, and in the defense of something greater than ourselves.


Gene Schilling

Writer--Our America Blog

Notes on the Border: A Liberal's View

(Please note: this piece is part of a two section opinion series on America's solution to illegal immigration. Neither article forcibly represents the views of the National Alliance Foundation)

In the age of the Tea Party and the conservative revolution which it embodies, it's sometimes easy for us to be swept up in the moment, forgetting the hard facts and truths about where we as a nation have come from, and were we may go if we do so in a united fashion. To be clear, I'm not a Republican by a long shot; I dislike the policies that too often fringe on pro-corporatism and outsourcing of American jobs, which can be tied directly to the immigration issue, as will soon be covered. Instead, my registration is Democratic, and I favor a more realistic approach to immigration, and indeed one which I think even my red state friends can come to agree with me about.

Spend even a few hours with a family of South or Central American descent, and almost universally they display and incredibly noticeable pro-familial attitude towards life, which, strange as it may be, is very conservative! Many Latinos own the small businesses of our nation, harvest the produce for our organic markets, and provide wonderful environments for growth even for other Americans under lesser circumstances. Even in the poorest of conditions, Hispanic families cherish a warm and united feeling between their members, inspiring those around them and in the case of the small business owners, creating jobs.

This is why I cannot abide to the GOP's near insistence on not only alienating, but going so far as to demonize the immigrant community for being as they will. Of course assimilation is necessary, but does anyone really want to chase away the pro-family attitude of the majority of these immigrants? Considering the mounting divorce rates spreading across the land like a plague, how is it hurtful to to bring in a culture which predominantly is advocating monogamy in marriages and a close knit, conservative way of life?

Whenever he border security issue comes up, my good Republican friends are always ready to pounce, delivering a blistering tirade against the problem of the open border, and thus sidelining the countless Hispanic immigrants who have made the lives of others better in this country through their courageous openings of businesses and shops. And regardless of the hard right conservative mementos of the Spanish language as some festering virus, most second generation immigrants speak near flawless English while their parents may pass on still communicating in their motherland tongue. If this seems untrue, then I urge my conservative detractors to listen to a speech by their newly enthroned bastion of Reaganism, Senator-elect Marco Rubio of Florida, whose parents were Cuban immigrants, yet he today speaks flawless English.

Solving our issues with the border is by no means about trying to marginalize and cut off one source of new American citizens in the form of the Hispanic community. Looser legal immigration restrictions, more protectionist job opportunities, and further investments in math and sciences are what will help us build a more united future as a true melting pot culture. This image does not need to be scapegoated habitually by the GOP, nor by the more traditionalist Democrats. As Americans we are not exclusive to one race or one party, but instead to a legacy of pride and honor as the last hope for freedom and enterprise in the world.

Let's work together; not apart.


Rick Mendoza

Adjunct Writer--Latino Coalition Blog

How to Fix the Budget Deficit

Even the most optimistic observers have to admit that America's present budget deficit is both an unsustainable and irresponsible creation of governments unwatched and unregulated by voters in the past 30 years. With national debt at a staggering $13.4 trillion, even the least engaged should wonder at just how further generations are expected to deal with the overwhelming challenge of negative intake versus spending for the depleted coffers of Washington.

Raising taxes is always a possibility, but one that hardly guarantees real change. Essentially Congress would need to raise income tax rates to 15% at the minimum, driving families into further destitution while failing to fully secure a change in revenue. And of course there is no mandate forcing Congress to use those taxes for the budget deficit; they might easily add it to their own means of extorting earmarks or championing district spending projects.

No, while taxes are an option, they aren't the first factor of the equation which we must consider. The real solution to America's troubling financial instability is the dramatic cutting of spending, across the board, to foster a steadily decreasing budget issue. Most figures show that the HHS Department and Social Security make up a massive majority of the total spending in America, trailed only slightly by the Department of Defense. These programs all promise good intentions, yet at east small fractions of their total cost could be eliminated in order to fix our revenue and spending dilemmas.

Initially, the closure of unneeded military installations in Europe would be a start for the Department of Defense. Several positions are generally unnecessary, and so shutting them down would benefit the country. In fact, transferring stationed troops to the border of Mexico would be enough to combat the rising drug problem between our countries, which could help eliminate casualties and save money from the largely less than stellar DEA. To be clear, no funding should be cut from the troops themselves, yet many of these bases are simply a drag on our budget clarity.

Some smaller alternatives also exist. The Department of Commerce has turned into a useless organization that makes plenty of briefs and presentations yet hardly has a beneficial impact on our nation's economy. Thus I would move to propose that Congress pass a 5-year mandate on the agency, allowing workers time to gain new employment or even start their own companies before its dissolving. In branching off of this, the departments of labor, personnel management, housing, environmental protection, and homeland security should all face similar mandates, thus cutting preliminary articles down to a more realistic budget condition.

Pushing forward, Congress must also make the hard decision of cutting parts of social security and Medicare coverage. As my colleague Ayla Samadi noted in her article Long-term Security, the government has a duty to create an umbrella factor for both those reaching retirement age and citizens of lower income levels in order to prevent a dramatic fallout from lack of support. Yet at the same time, the middle class should be transferred into 401K savings plans, which, while insecure in their own way, will draw off a huge section of the budget deficit by eliminating it largest spending target.

Finally, the government should cut the proposed healthcare plan of the Obama Administration, which promises to only add more jeopardy to our financial future, and certainly that of our children.

Difficult choices often seem like infectious diseases to the average politician; sending them running fear if one crosses their path. The truth is, we cannot continue to deceive ourselves over their dramatic issue of trust and financial security. Only a decisive move to curb spending will allow us to continue transferring prosperity to the generations to come, and it is the government's duty to do so.


John Lai

National Alliance Treasurer and Comptroller General

A Wiser Republic

The great philosopher Plato always spoke of the dangers of democracy, as he realized the unhealthy tendency for voters to choose as they so believe, regardless of hard facts or common sense. In an olden analogy, he uses the example of a ship floundering in the bowels of a tempest, led by a weak captain who represents the majority, and a crew of sailors, who show themselves to be as politicians, anxious to dismantle and then seize control. And even as this remains intensely applicable in the modern day, many seem to defend democracy as the only way, disregarding what could be a singular yet decisive change for the best in its clockwork: a prerequisite test for each registered voter. 

Of course this move brings immediate scorn and hate from members of the more socially liberal, who feel it would be disadvantageous to their average supporters, however a quick analysis of this past election campaign can prove otherwise, in states both in the east and west coast. 


To be clear, the following assessments of the Maryland, Oregon, and Washington races are not meant to be overtly partisan; on the contrary, they can be applied in 2008 to the Senate Race in Georgia, in which voters failed to elect a good man over a sleazy Republican insider. Depending on the circumstance, the disease of voter ignorance can permeate across both red and blue states, though for practical purposes it focuses on the blue in this election. 


When Bob Ehrlich announced his bid for reelection in early 2006, he should have cruised to victory, even as a conservative in the Democratic haven of Maryland. Instead, voters moved to elect Martin O'Malley due to his party affiliation, letting Ehrlich leave office with immense budget successes despite his earning of a second term. But in 2010, as the former governor launched a comeback bid, Maryland voters, clinging desperately to their Democratic leanings, would not reelect him, regardless of O'Malleys blatant failures to keep the state;s fiscal house in order. All because of Baltimore, a haven for welfare recipients and the average ignoramus when it comes to politics, the entire state was forced to loose a hope for economic recovery. 

Democrats have argued that background is important in any election, and so they propped up failure ex-governor John Kitzhaber to battle the imposing Chris Dudley, who was bulleted  as inexperienced and unprepared to lead--notwithstanding the 28 years of Democratic rule in the state which has led to a budget shortfall and 25% of the state budget meant for public sector retirement pay. True Dudley was a novice, yet he swept the entire state, only losing because of Portland's strong Democratic lean, and equal lean away from sensibility. If thirty years cannot solve one's problems, is it not time for a change?

And to the north, Washington's vote, decided predominantly by King County, went to veteran Democratic Senator Patty Murray, ignoring her categorically corrupt associations with Wall Street lobbyists and special interests in the nation's capital. Never mind that her opponent, estate agent Dino Rossi, carried most every county of the state--it is only the population center which counts. 

So are these outcomes really sensible or fair? Should each race be hinging on the largest portion of the states, which according to studies are the least educated and intellectually deficient? There's no forcible right or wrong answer, yet this should not stop the country from adopting a test for would be voters before they may pass their ballots. Nothing extreme, but a quick test on constitutional law would be enough to encourage individuals to read up on the issues before going out to vote, thus resulting in at least closer or more logical election consequences. 

Melanie Bryant

National Alliance Vice President for Education

Analysis and Progress

The tidal wave is certainly subsiding, yet within its wake is a call not to sit back in temerity, but rather to step up and challenge the issues which we so desperately need to overcome in these next two years. After four years of painful eradication at the ballot box, the Republicans have returned to Capitol Hill in full force, led by a stronger grassroots effort than ever seen before, and a mandate to deliver fundamental changes to government. As the National Alliance Foundation made clear in an earlier piece, this must be a time for the GOP to truly work and complete its promises to the public. Winning a race is one thing, yet following through on campaign promises is another entirely, and this is the test of the Republican mettle for 2011.

In almost a saddening way, the Democrats have fallen prey to the mistakes of poor judgement, and they arrive at Congress in January lacking senior giants such as Ike Skelton, Jim Oberstar, Allen Boyd, and even Rick Boucher, who could not survive the swarm of opposition in rural southern Virginia. This leaves the Democrats with less senior members, and a reminder of how governmental folly punishes the arrogant of the mob with minority status. The House is gone, solidly rocked to the other side with a sixty vote swing, though some still believe it may go as high as seventy over the next few days.

Although the Senate was easier for the Democratic Party to survive in, their proximity to defeat in a number of races should also serve as something of a message of 2012 and their electoral hopes in that great contest. In the state of Washington, upstart Dino Rossi looks likely to lose, yet only by less than 1%, a sure sign of danger in the traditionally blue state which Barack Obama cruised to victory in during 2008. Michael Bennett may fend off Ken Buck, but only by a mere point as well, putting that state's loyalty in question for the president's reelection. Obviously the firmest results for the left were in Nevada, where Harry Reid survived the coup to remove him from power, and California, where Barbara Boxer crushed challenger Carly Fiorina by more than 600,000 votes.

Possibly a larger problem for the DNC to mull over now is the simple dilemma of state gubernatorial races, which seem destined to hand bellwether states to the GOP, swapping out only a choice few solid blue provinces of California and New York with confident liberals. Ohio will now have a Republican governor, as will likely Florida and Michigan, all key states for both redistricting and the next presidential contest. Even true blue Oregon, which has not elected a Republican for decades, seems destined to fall out of the center-left's hands as Chris Dudley leads his Democratic opponent.

As if the fall of the giants was not enough, countless freshmen Democrats have been soundly routed, most notably with the case of liberal bastion and take-no-prisoners Alan Grayson, whose distasteful ads landed him a double digit silencing as Republican Daniel Webster annihilated his chances at reelection.

Refuting claims of anti-minority standing, the GOP elected a number of African Americans, most notably Allen West in Florida and Tim Scott in South Carolina. And in statewide contests, Marco Rubio pummeled independent Charlie Crist and Democrat Kendrick Meek, followed by Susana Martinez's defeating Diane Denish, adding more Hispanics to the national Republican caucus. In short, the mirage of the DNC serving as some welcoming all party was shattered as voters turned to real leadership, not talking points.

While these are all causes for celebration, they must serve as a warning to the GOP to not repeat the disaster of 1995, which was simply a smearing of President Bill Clinton. Indeed, Mitch McConnell's unwise quip that the GOP's focus is only unseating Barack Obama was hardly prudent, and should disqualify him from the leadership post. This Congress needs to represent action, not political gains. Republicans have a duty to build reasons for their taking of the executive branch in 2012, not simply a platform. That is the test of leadership for the GOP for the next two years in the lower house majority.


Jordan Wells

National Alliance Vice President for Policy

Beneath Contempt

As the election twilight so readily approaches, some candidates have come to a point of utter desperation in order to hold on--or win, seats in the House and Senate. These moves are justified to them based off of circumstance, but they truly diminish everything which our nation is by supplanting a civil arena of debate and argument with a pathetic catering to fearful and uneducated voters. 


Take for example a new DCCC ad which is running in the Fairfax County area--itself a news broadcast sponsored by the Democrats that ends with the reporter noting "Keith Fimian opposes a woman's right to choose, even in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother." Not only is the committee only scantily mentioned, but the entire attack is read by a news reporter, as if it is an objective current events report. 

Then, Attorney General Jack Conway seems completely capable of adding bitter icing to the election cake, with his ploy in an advertisement accusing his opponent, Rand Paul, of not maintaining Christian values in life. To Conway, the sleaze is far game, despite the cries from his party when Republicans used negative tactics to defend their own seats in 2006. 

Negativity has its uses, and in no way does the National Alliance Foundation believe it should be suppressed, yet the angle of the attack is always an issue. Elisabeth Dole's low blow ad questioning Kay Hagan's faith did not help her or the state of North Carolina in 2008, and most believe it led to her humiliating defeat as Obama swept to victory in the southern province. Similarly, Mike DeWine's use of Osama bin Laden to smear Sherrod Brown backfired dramatically in 2006, costing him his seat to the Democrat. 


And despite all of this, campaigns cannot seem to get by the reality that said ads are both ineffective and unhelpful to the political process. They fail to educate or present solutions, rather just blurring the lines between truth and partisan disparagements. 


Democrats need to stand up for the morality and civility for which they claimed to advocate for in 2006 and 2008, or they will lose the trust of the people to be mediators who can rise above the vicious fray and help fix the problems facing America. It is not enough for them to simply complain that the Republicans are not helping--they must show the leadership for the nation based on what the country desires and feels is necessary  in this day and age. Being above the radicalism and furor will help the Democrats to succeed, otherwise determining a minority fate by 2013, including within the Whitehouse. 

Ayla Samadi

National Alliance Vice President for Domestic Affairs

A New Voice for Washington

Generally speaking, we tend to avoid endorsements as an organization, but in an election which has so many improbabilities yet so much at stake, the National Alliance Foundation is committed to helping certain key candidates with their attempts at election, especially to the United States Senate. Since 2001, the state of Washington has lacked any representation within the upper house other than firebrands for the Democratic Party. Even Slade Gorton's strong constituent services were not enough to overturn Maria Cantwell's momentum, resulting in his sacking by the people in the race of 2000. And after nearly eleven years of such partisan leadership, the state is in trouble, most critically with its economic condition.

For this reason, the National Alliance Foundation is stepping forward to endorse Dino Rossi for the United States Senate in 2010. Despite serving only six years as a state senator, Rossi managed to successfully balance a massive state budget even while a reigning Democratic governor sat in anguish over it all. And while his two runs for governor came up short, first due to a largely unfair recount and then due to a Democratic sweep, Rossi has stuck to a firm pro-business career to deliver jobs for the Evergreen State through his real estate ventures.

On the other side, Senator Patty Murray is simply a disappointment for the state, and even for the nation. Her election successes largely the result of poorly prepared opponents and swing election years, Murray has not worked tremendously on small business legislation in the Senate, instead preferring to be a lap dog to Wall Street's benefits within the higher chamber. A recent report by CQ Politics even suggests that Washington's lady channeled about 20 million in taxpayer money to her lobbyist friends, which should be enough to disqualify her from reelection.

But even more glaring is Murray's voting record, which sadly fails to ever move from anything but a poster for the socialists and social democrats of American political interests, avoiding the qualms and difficulties which average Washingtonians face on a daily basis. Removing her from the senatorial throne is the first step in cleansing America of elitism and corruption, forming a base from which prosperity can grow once more. There is no doubt that filth remains from the years of Republican rule, yet part of that mire was also age old Democratic senators such as Murray, so their elimination as viable political figures is part of the cleaning process.

The year of 2010 is not just any other election; it is an opportunity to hold Washington D.C. accountable to the American people. If voters send a strong message by defeating Murray and other incumbents, thy will pave the way for a better future in which the capitol is directly answerable to the public--not the special interests. Wasting such an opening would be disastrous to say the least, and everyone must vote for what is sensible, not the usual.


Cate Ashton

National Alliance Vice President for Operations