"Federal officials on Thursday opened a path to temporary legal status for illegal immigrants whose spouses or parents died on 9/11, a step the families’ supporters called a breakthrough in the effort to allow them to remain permanently in the United States."
[...]

"The measure, which was prompted by a request by Ms. Steinberg [a lawyer representing several of the illegal immigrants] for help from immigration officials in resolving the legislative impasse, affects no more than two dozen immediate family members of 9/11 victims who have lived in limbo since the attacks. Their spouses, including those who were themselves illegal immigrants, were listed by name as heroes on memorial rosters of the victims. The families received payments from the Victim Compensation Fund, ranging from $875,000 to $4.1 million."

[...]


"Homeland Security officials will use the information to decide whether to give the immigrants a temporary humanitarian parole to allow them to live and work legally in the United States, Mr. Baker [Dept. of Homeland Security] wrote. The parole would not be granted to immigrants with criminal records, ties to terrorism or formal orders of deportation, he said."


So, let me get this straight...

Illegal immigrant survivors of illegal immigrants who were working at the World Trade Center and tragically died on 9-11, and have already been compensated between $875,000 and $4.1 million....again, this to illegal immigrants, will now be allowed to legally stay in the United States?

Oh, as long as they are not terrorists or criminals?

Excuse me, but aren't they criminals in the first place because they are illegal immigrants?

There are tragedies that happen in this country every single day, which include the murder of Americans by illegal immigrants.

Do we compensate those families with our tax dollars?

Do we give them special treatment because they have had a loss?

I'm just asking...

I pesonally believe the 9-11 Victim's Compensation Fund was a huge mistake in the first place. 

It was pretty obvious it was created by Congress to protect the airlines.

The trouble is, 9-11 was the fault of the terrorists, and they and their families aren't the ones who paid the compensation. 

We taxpayers did.



Read the complete article  in the New York Times


Steps Set for Kin of 9/11 Victims to Stay in U.S.  í   here

I'm very sorry the illegal immigrant families can't invest their compensation money because they don't have social security numbers.

Will we grant dual citizenship to families of all foreigners who lost a loved one here, also, because they feel a "connection?"

 

"There is a father, leading the way with a clear sense of urgency, bent at the waist. A mother, running behind him, despite the prim dress that hugs her knees. A little girl, holding her mother's hand, unable to keep pace, her feet barely touching the ground, her pigtails -- everyone knows the pigtails -- flowing behind."


In the 1980s, illegal immigrants were running across I-5 in California, as they entered the U.S.  The highway was very busy, and many of the people, usually the youngest or oldest, were getting hit by cars, and killed.

In 1990, John Hood, a Navajo, Vietnam Vet, and graphic artist, created the picture of the immigrant family, running, in order to help prevent these deaths of illegal immigrants.  It was put on a yellow caution sign.

Today, a photograph of the sign is hanging in the National Museum of American History, in Washington, D.C.

"In museums, we are constantly looking for objects that transcend their own history," said Peter Liebhold, chairman of the museum's Division of Work and Industry. "This is, without a doubt, an icon of the current immigration debate. It's taken on meaning that was never intended."


Read the story from the Los Angeles Times


The Artist Behind the Iconic "Running Immigrants" Image    í here

 

I blogged in January about the issue I have with our non-English speaking citizens who refuse to learn to speak English, and the way certain companies, businesses and government entities enable them, therefore forcing me, and you  to "press one."  My blog was chosen for the "Best of the Blogs" that week, although it was edited in title, and content. 

A reader in Hales Corners had this to say about it in an article in HalesCornersNOW:

Let's Celebrate Our Diversity and Not Only in English

By Jan Gorzalski
HalesCornersNOW.com user

Posted: Jan. 26, 2008

Your "BEST OF THE BLOGS" article in the January 24th issue, "No, I won't press one for English", prompted me to do what I don't normally do, and that is to write a response. Author, Janet Evans, expressed frustration in being "forced" to accommodate non-English speaking residents by making various language selections (Press 1 to continue in English; press 2 to continue .....) in many of our pre-recorded telephone messages. While I can certainly share her frustration in connecting to a recorded telephone voice in lieu of a "live" voice, I cannot understand her reluctance to accommodate all people in our multi-lingual society.

As a decedent of immigrants myself, I know that "Lady Liberty" welcomed both our English as well as non-English speaking ancestors. America is a nation of immigrants and we "Americans" are blessed by its rich diversity. This multiplicity should be celebrated as a quality which makes our country unique.

In our busy lives, it often feels as though we cannot spare the extra minute or two it takes in order to accommodate people with diverse needs. That is precisely when we should pause for the moment, take a deep breath, and appreciate that America is home to all of its citizens-those that speak English and those that do not.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, Jan Gorzalski....

You don’t quite have my story correct. 

Yes, I was “forced” to press one.  In this instance I picked up the phone call from my insurance company, which is based in the United States of America, and a recorded message, in English, came on and said, “To listen to this message in English, press one.” 

I’m sorry if you don’t think that as an American citizen, that’s wrong.  Maybe that alternative should be given to Spanish speaking people instead of to those that speak the native language of this country.  My “frustration” that you speak of, in this instance, wasn’t that I couldn’t connect to a live person.  It was that I, an English speaking American, must make the choice of a language.

I also am a descendant of immigrants.  My grandfather came over on a ship, by himself, not speaking a word of English.  HE learned.  He did so to survive.  To make a living.  That is what Theodore Roosevelt preached back in those days.  He was staunchly against those immigrants who refused to learn English. 

Don’t give me this “accommodate people with diverse needs” business.  Why?  Should we print all of our road signs in Spanish in the name of diversity?  Every piece of literature?  Menus in restaurants?  Where does it end?

I say it’s all about the mighty dollar.  Those who are providing the option of “press one” or signage are those who are selling something, except for government institutions, who are enabling. 

The point of my blog was, if you want to be a citizen of this country it is your responsibility to learn English.  Period. 

In my view, in most cases it is laziness and the fact that it is easier to stick with your own language.  When your children are learning English in school and you are “forcing” them to speak another language at home because you refuse to learn English, you are lazy.  You are un-American. 

Period.

 

 

On January 3, 1919, just three days before his death, Theodore Roosevelt wrote in a letter to the American Defense Society:

"We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with every one else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birthplace or origin. But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American.

If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn't doing his part as an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all.

We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language here and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, and American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house; and we have room for but one sole loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people."

"Americanization" was a favorite theme of Roosevelt's during his later years, when he railed repeatedly against "hyphenated Americans" and the prospect of a nation "brought to ruins" by a "tangle of squabbling nationalities."

He advocated the compulsory learning of English by every naturalized citizen. "Every immigrant who comes here should be required within five years to learn English or to leave the country," he said in a statement to the Kansas City Star in 1918. "English should be the only language taught or used in the public schools."

He also insisted, on more than one occasion, that America has no room for what he called "fifty-fifty allegiance." In a speech made in 1917 he said, "It is our boast that we admit the immigrant to full fellowship and equality with the native-born. In return we demand that he shall share our undivided allegiance to the one flag which floats over all of us."




______________________________________


Today I picked up the phone and there was that silence...you know, when it is a telemarketer or a recorded call...and you do that "hello, hello, and you know what's coming next...so that's when I normally just hang up. 

Something told me to stay on the line this time. 

It was a recorded message from my mail-in prescription company. 

But I did not find that out right away. 

You see, FIRST I was informed that ....

IF YOU WANT THIS MESSAGE IN ENGLISH, PRESS ONE....

Alright......

Very, very, very UNGLUED here.....

I know I have said it in the past. 

I do not want to press one for English.

Why should I have to press one for English?

This is my country.

This is America.

I am an American.

If this wasn't my RX company....
and this company was selling me a product....
I would not be purchasing that product right now. 

I would not have pressed one.  

I refuse to PRESS ONE unless I am forced. 

By that I mean, if it is something for my health, or something the government is forcing me to do...let's say regarding taxes, etc.  These are things I feel I don't have much choice in, but let me say, after I "press one," someone on the other end, up in management, gets an earful from me.  And believe me, I do not like being forced to press one about as much as I like getting the runaround on the phone for ten minutes to try to talk to an actual human being.

Our businesses and our government need to stop catering to the indolence of our immigrants just so they can make another buck.

The non-English speaking parents of children who are learning English in school need to be responsible and get off their asses and learn English too.  They need to stop speaking their native language at home with their children until everyone in the family is proficient in English.  They are hurting their children's progress at school.

    To quote Teddy Roosevelt….

“The human body has two ends on it: one to create with and one to sit on.  Sometimes people get their ends reversed. When this happens they need a kick in the seat of the pants.”

LEARN ENGLISH!

Statement of Michael Kirkpatrick, Attorney, Public Citizen

In a decision released Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston has given air carriers a license to discriminate against passengers based upon their race or ethnicity.

In writing that safety takes precedence over civil rights, the court put its stamp of approval on racial profiling. We believe this decision opens the door for airlines to arbitrarily violate the rights of passengers.

The case, Cerqueira v. American Airlines, was brought by a passenger who was removed from an American Airlines flight, detained and questioned by the police, and refused service even after the police cleared him for travel.

In January 2007, a jury found that the airline had discriminated against John D. Cerqueira because of his “Middle Eastern” appearance and awarded him $400,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. The appellate court set aside the jury’s verdict, holding that a federal statute granting airlines the discretion to refuse passengers for safety reasons immunizes airlines from liability under the nation’s civil rights laws, even if the airline’s safety concerns are the product of racial profiling.

As Cerqueira’s counsel, we argued that there is no conflict between safety and civil rights because decisions based on racial profiling are irrational and cannot provide a legitimate basis for concluding that a passenger might be a security threat.   The court of appeals disagreed, holding that “[r]ace or ethnic origin of a passenger may, depending on the context, be relevant information in the total mix of information raising concerns that transport of a passenger ‘might be’ inimical to safety.”

During the trial, a jury was asked to determine the motivation for the airline’s decision. The airline argued that had it acted out of a legitimate concern for safety; Cerqueira, a South Florida resident of Portuguese descent, argued that none of this would have happened had he not looked Middle Eastern. The jury sided with Cerqueira. We believe the court of appeals, in setting aside the jury verdict, essentially legalizes racial profiling in commercial air travel.

About Public Citizen:

"We fight for openness and democratic accountability in government, for the right of consumers to seek redress in the courts; for clean, safe and sustainable energy sources; for social and economic justice in trade policies; for strong health, safety and environmental protections; and for safe, effective and affordable prescription drugs and health care."

---------------------------------------------------

Read the Opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston    ! here

From the Opinion:

Congress mandated air carriers to refuse to transport passengers and property where a passenger does not consent to a search of his person or property for dangerous weapons, explosives, or destructive substances. In addition to mandating that some passengers be refused transport, Congress also authorized, at subsection (b), air carriers to engage in "permissive refusal": Subject to regulations of the Under Secretary, an air carrier, intrastate air carrier, or foreign air carrier may refuse to transport a passenger or property the carrier decides is, or might be, inimical to safety.

In turn, the Under Secretary has not promulgated regulations limiting the airline's discretion directly under 49 U.S.C. § 44902(b). However, one other regulation is directly pertinent, as it states that:

The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to the operation of that aircraft.

____________________________


What do you think?

 

Undocumented immigrants can't get Michigan driver's licenses, Michigan Attorney General says.  "Attorney General Mike Cox's opinion is legally binding on state agencies and officers unless reversed by the courts. It was not immediately known how soon any changes would take place or what the opinion means for illegal immigrants with currently valid licenses." AP, Dec. 27, 2007.

Read the article from the Examiner.com Illegal Immigrants Can't Get Michigan Drivers Licenses  ◄ here


Permanent Residency Requirement for Driver's Licenses

"Only a resident of Michigan may be issued a Michigan driver's license. A person who is not a lawful resident of the United States cannot be a resident of this State for purposes of obtaining a driver's license under sections 51a and 303(1)(h) of the Michigan Vehicle Code, MCL 257.51a and MCL 257.303(1)(h)." Opinion No. 7210, Dec. 27, 2007.


Permanent Residency Requirement for Driver's Licenses  ◄ See the Opinion here