Feedback Box:

Congressman Steve King chairs the U.S. House Immigration Subcommittee, which means no immigration bill has much chance in the House without his approval. As an indication of what he will approve, his website still features his December 17, 2003 letter opposing President Bush's "Guest Worker" plan (to enable illegals to work legally for a limited time) which he got 35 other Congressmen to sign. Yet King takes his marching orders from the same Bible I do. How then have we marched in such opposite directions on this issue? Here is a record of my attempts to communicate with him.


1. King's December 17, 2003 letter, signed by 35 other Congressmen.

2. Notes on my March 2 phone conversation with Chuck Laudner, Congressman King's Chief of Staff.

3. My short January 18, 2005 letter to King, which Laudner explained never got to King, but was automatically forwarded to my own Congressman.

4. My long March, 2004 letter to King's press secretary Melissa McKay, asking detailed questions about King's December 2003 letter, which I mailed to her shortly after talking with her, and which was never answered.


#1: King's December 17, 2003 letter

Washington, D.C. Office, Office of Congressman Steve King, 1432 Longworth Office Building, Washington D.C. 20515

(202) 225-4426, Fax: (202) 225-3193, Contact:  Melissa McKay , Phone:  202-225-4426 , Fax:  202-225-3193

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, December 17, 2003

(Introduction on King's website:) Washington, D.C.- Taking charge as a leader on Immigration Reform, Iowa Congressman Steve King authored the following letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge in response to his recent remarks regarding legalization of illegal aliens and amnesty.  The letter garnered 35 additional cosigners:

December 17, 2003

Secretary Tom Ridge

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Washington, D.C. 20528

Dear Secretary Ridge,

We are gravely concerned about your remarks on December 9, 2003, regarding legalization of illegal aliens and amnesty.  We respectfully ask that you clarify and restate your position on these vital issues. 

 As Members of Congress, we strongly and unequivocally oppose mass amnesty for people who violate our immigration laws.

 Mere discussion of the possibility of amnesty encourages illegal immigration.  We must enforce the immigration laws currently on our books rather than dangle the prospect of citizenship in front of potential immigration lawbreakers.  We must increase immigration law enforcement, not only at borders but in the interior, making it more costly for lawbreakers to disregard our immigration laws.  The result would be similar to "broken windows" policing in New York City which not only reduced "minor" crimes, but also curbed serious crimes.  The same is true for immigration law. 

We must enforce existing immigration laws.  The law enforcement approach would reduce the migration of illegal aliens, reduce the ill-gotten net gain from illegal immigration, raise American wages, improve American working conditions, reduce the overall illegal population, and reduce the number of crimes committed by illegal aliens.  Once our immigration laws are consistently enforced, many illegal aliens will leave voluntarily, rather than face deportation.  A similar phenomenon was witnessed as a result of the NSEERS alien registration program.  When the government began to detain and deport people who were illegally in the United States, thousands more illegal aliens fled the country.

 Since 1986, Congress has passed seven amnesties for illegal aliens.  Clearly this is a short-term "fix" to a long-term problem.  Rewarding people who violate our immigration laws sends the wrong message, and encourages more illegal aliens to violate our borders and enter the United States illegally.  This influx places a strain on essential homeland security resources.  If an illegal alien is permitted to become a legal worker and obtain a green card by working in the United States for a certain period of time, this is sufficient enticement for millions upon millions more illegal aliens to flood this country.  We have learned the lesson of the IRCA in 1986.  At the time it was hoped that an amnesty would make it easier to enforce immigration laws by legalizing the illegal alien population.  However, the legalization of 3 million aliens backfired and the illegal alien population was quickly doubled in a decade-- and is estimated to have tripled it in less than a decade and a half.

 We are also concerned that a mass legalization would severely overburden the immigration bureaucracy.  It would strap the processing resources, lead to lengthy backlogs, and drain taxpayer resources.

 We are especially disturbed by the burden that would be imposed on taxpayers as a result of legalization. Americans will have to pay increased taxes as a consequence of the burden amnesty would place on our school systems, welfare and social service systems, roads and transportation systems, the sprawl and environmental degradation, the health care system, Medicaid, Social Security, and other programs.  Does Bush's plan make legal workers eligible for welfare? If so, does it HAVE to? Is there congressional will to cutting illegal children off from free education?

 It is unfair to reward people who break our immigrations laws with immigration status, while many potential immigrants outside the United States are waiting to be admitted to the United States lawfully.  If we allow the people who break the rules by entering the United States illegally to go to the front of the immigration line, it is a slap in the face to law-abiding immigrants.  [Ed: Are there no incentives with which we can reward those who waited? Such as the full rights of citizenship, which Bush's plan still holds at arms' length from current illegals?]

 Finally, we are concerned that amnesty by any name, be it earned amnesty or legalization, jeopardizes our national security.  Mahmud Abouhalima was granted amnesty in 1986 and was subsequently one of the terrorists that bombed the Trade Center in 1993. 

 We commend you for your commitment to protecting our homeland and hope you will carefully consider the impact of immigration policies on the war on terror. 


Steve King, John Sullivan, Tom Tancredo, Chip Pickering, Mac Collins, J.D. Hayworth, C.L. "Butch" Otter, Lamar Smith, John Carter, Bob Goodlatte, Gresham Barrett, Elton Gallegly, Michael Burgess, John Boozman, Natha, Deal, Phil Gingrey, Dana Rohrabacher, Donald Manzullo, John Duncan, Walter Jones, Sam Graves, Kevin Brady, Scott Garrett, Wally Herger, Jeff Miller, Cliff Stearns, Randy Forbes, Virgil Goode, Marsha Blackburn, Gil Gutknecht, Roscoe Bartlett, Joe Wilson, Gary Miller, Jo Ann Davis, John Culberson, John Kline

2. Communication with Chuck Laudner, Chief of Staff

(First, the email I sent him, translated; second, my phone conversation with him.)

Email sent Friday, February 25, 2005 to Chuck Laudner, Chief of Staff of the office of Congressman Steve King.

Hi! I met you Tuesday at the Christian Coalition meeting. I would like to present, for Congressman King's consideration, what I call "the perfect recipe for immigration policy" which would "detect every illegal, secure our borders, reduce INS caseloads, and fix Social Security, without driving down wages, taking citizens' jobs, straining welfare, or diminishing that quality of our character summed up in 'love thy neighbor as thyself'".

Te vi en la junta de la Coalición Cristiana el marte. Me gustaría presentar, a la consideración del Congresista King, lo que llamo "la receta perfecta para la política migratoria" la cual "podría detectar a cada ilegal, asegurar nuestras fronteras, reducir los casos tratados por el INS, y arreglar el Seguro Social, sin tener que reducir los salarios, quitarle a los ciudadanos americanos sus trabajos, extender el subsidio, o disminuar la calidad de nuestro carácter en aras de "amar a su prójimo como a ellos mismos".

The plan is available at www.Saltshaker.US/HispanicHope This link offers not only this plan, which is composed of details from last year's bills, but explains my previous efforts to communicate with Congressman King. My letter of last year questions numerous allegations of fact in his December 2003 letter. Does he still believe those things?

El plan está disponible en el sitio web http://www.Saltshaker.US/HispanicHope. Este vínculo ofrece no sólo este plan, el cual está compuesto por detalles de las leyes del año pasado, sino  que explica mi esfuerzo anterior para comunicarme con el Congresista King. Mi carta de hace un año cuestiona numerosos alegatos de su carta con fecha diciembre del 2003. ¿Aún cree él en estas cosas?

Especially the argument that our land is already, or would become, too crowded, which is the argument of abortionists and population control types? I can't believe he would share such a worry! Steve is a committed champion of Biblically-defined Christian causes! (Since you don't know me, I will explain that I say this without sarcasm, but with appreciation, since I likewise have a reputation for taking up Biblically-defined Christian causes, though so far no one has called me a "champion" that I know of.)

Especialmente el argumento de que nuestra tierra está, o podría estarlo, demasiado poblada. ¿No es éste el argumento de los que están a favor del aborto y del control de la población? No puedo creer que él compartiría tal preocupación. Steve is un campeón comprometido con las causas cristianas. (No me conoces, pero explicaré lo que digo sin sarcasmo, sino con apreciación, ya que tengo una reputación de tomar en serio las causas cristianas, aunque esté lejos de que alguien me llame "campeón").

My letter of this year simply asks for SOMEONE on his staff to consider my ideas enough to give me some response. This has not yet happened. I have begun submitting my plan, which includes appeals to readers to contact Mr. King, in Latino newspapers. The first newspaper I have submitted it to will distribute in a couple of days, I am told. I have about 40 more newspapers on my list. I respect the fact that when a Congressman receives input which requires considerable study to digest and respond to, the only way open to getting a response may be to build grassroots energy behind the issue requiring response.

Mi carta de este año simplemente pregunta por ALGUIEN de su equipo de trabajo que considere mis ideas lo suficiente como para darme una respuesta. Esto no ha ocurrido aún. He empezado a dar a conocer mi plan, el cual incluye solicitar a los lectores que contacten al Sr. King a través de los periódicos latinos. El primer periódico al que lo he distribuido, lo dará a conocer en un par de días. Tengo cerca de 40 nombres más de periódicos en mi lista. Respeto el hecho de que, cuando un congresista lo recibe, requiere de un estudio concienzudo para poderlo digerir y, de esta forma, responder, y la única manera de abrir un camino es obteniendo una respuesta posiblemente construyendo una energía enraizada detrás del tema que requiere una respuesta.

So I have begun this process, by God's Grace, and by God's Grace I will continue, without any resentment or diminished respect for the Godly stands King has taken. I still cannot believe that with our mutual subjection to the Word of God, that disagreement between him and me can be irreconcilable, if he can just see the information. I realize that since my conclusions are more like Bush's plan than his, that natural human resistance to changing one's position may be a factor. But Bush's plan is so void of detail, that a wide range of plans could fit under his umbrella; nevertheless the plan I see is not quite his. And I trust Steve King, the Christian, to not be long limited by his natural human resistance to correcting any misconceptions. He is no fool who will not take correction, but a wise man who welcomes it, Proverbs 1, I trust. In Jesus' Name (Col 3:17) Dave Leach

Así que he empezado este proceso, por la gracia de Dios, y por ella continuaré, sin ningún resentimiento ni falta de respeto para los posiciones que King ha tomado. Todavía no puedo creer que con nuestra mutua obediencia a la Palabra de Dios, este desacuerdo entre él y yo pueda ser irreconciliable, si él puede simplemente ver la información. Noto que desde que mis conclusiones son más parecidas a las del plan Bush, esta resistencia humana y natural para cambiar la posición de uno pueda ser un factor. Pero el plan Bush está vacío de detalle porque un ancho rango de planes podrían caber bajo su paraguas; sin embargo, el plan que veo no es parecido al de él. Y confío en Steve King, el cristiano, que no estará limitado por su natural resistencia a corregir alguna de mis incomprensiones. No es tonto quien no corrigiera, sino un hombre sabio, Proverbios 1, confío.

In Jesus' Name (Col 3:17)

En nombre de Jesús (Col 3:17)


Notes on phone conversation

Wednesday, March 2, 2005, I talked with Chuck Laudner at about 9:30 am. He said the protocol for a letter to King from outside the district is to forward it to the congressman in the sender's district! Of course, my first letter was co-addressed to Melissa McKay, so one would think it would still have gotten to her; but it should have been addressed just to Melissa.

Chuck said I was doing it the right way, by communicating with someone on King's staff.

Chuck said King agrees that population density is not the problem. He even agrees, and strongly so, that we would not have the shortfall of labor, which is causing our social security problem, if we had not slain 40 million babies. To put it another way, he agrees there is a shortfall of labor which is causing serious problems. (From that point, I tried to find out why he objects to filling that labor shortfall by allowing willing immigrants to work legally.)

He also agrees that they do not drive down wages, at least not universally. In Storm Lake and Dennison there was initial economic stress when a wave of immigrants hit, made difficult by so many people not speaking English, Chuck said, but now the immigrant population has stabilized and the people have "assimilated". However, Chuck would still be very concerned about a huge influx of immigration into this country too fast for y notthis "assimilation" to be comfortable. I pointed out that every immigration bill has already made legal immigration incremental, in that employers must first advertize for citizens, and still have unfilled jobs, before filling them with immigrants. Although he didn't say why this wasn't enough control over the problem, he didn't seem quite satisfied. The reason for the "stress" is immigrants not knowing English, or our laws or form of government. I pointed out that the S1387 point system would solve that. Without explaining why not, he didn't seem to take comfort in these points, or even to fully absorb them.

He said an issue with drivers licenses is illegals voting. He said illegals and dead people voted in the last election! (Dead "voters" are the brainchild of the corrupt Mayor Daily Sr. -- his son is mayor now -- of Chicago. Social security numbers of dead people are entered on absentee ballots and sent in as votes.)

(I checked out the allegation that drivers' licenses, given to illegals, would enable them to vote. Joyce McCarthy, secretary for the Hidalgo County (Texas) Republican Party, tells horror stories of that happening. So I am sure it happens, especially there, known as one of the most corrupt counties along the border. I called Gary Ash, computer wiz for the Polk County Election Office here in Des Moines. He said no ID is required to register to vote! He said voter registration forms ask for either a driver's license number or a social security number, but "some people refuse to give either", in which case a computer-generated "Voter ID Number" is entered. The only thing keeping illegals from registering to vote is that they have to check "yes" on a box by "Are you a U.S. Citizen?" To check "yes" when you are not, is a federal offense. Of course they still have to be caught, but one wonders what intense interest in our political system would motivate unauthorized immigrants to expose themselves to additional unnecessary risk, when all their lives are spent avoiding risk? Gary can't imagine it is much of a problem. Chuck thinks it was, though he didn't mention any numbers, or any evidence. But the point is that to this day, 2 years after drivers' licenses are made unavailable to illegals, it is still just as easy for illegals to vote as before then, if they are that determined. And this will be still just as true after January 2006, when the whole state will move to a system requiring either a driver's license number or the last 4 digits of a social security number. When only the last 4 are required, we know there can be no more computer verification of whether the holder of that number is a citizen, than with a voter ID number.)

So if King's objection to "The Perfect Immigration Policy" is not population overcrowding, or driving down wages, what does that leave?

That leaves national security. (Well, OK, the subject of "illegals on welfare" didn't come up.) We went in circles on National Security. Chuck would list the problems, I would summarize the solutions from my article, he would partially address what I said, then go to another subject, then when I talked about lifting quotas for those who qualify he would return to national security again and I would summarize the solutions again and he would respond only partially again and go to another subject again. Talk of lifting quotas seems to make him almost angry. He talked about failed amnesties of the past; I said they were doomed because they provided no legal process for new immigrants. They were only retroactive. They never lifted quotas. Therefore, while they stabilized conditions for the people covered, they encouraged waves of additional immigrants who were not covered and whose only way of coming was illegally.

Chuck said he would forward my letter to King, which is a blessing because otherwise I would have no access to him.

On March 3, 2006, I wrote the following to Chuck Laudner:

Dear Chuck,

Thank you for talking with me yesterday. As a result of better understanding Congressman King's positions, may I send, through you, one more letter to him, that is more focused on his concerns?

If the following letter to Congressman King does not reflect our conversation as you remember it, or your meaning, please let me know.

Letter to

Honorable Congressman King:

Now that Chuck Laudner has helped me better understand your thinking about immigration, please allow me to offer a few ideas that are more focused on your concerns.

Chuck assured me that you firmly share my conviction that concern for "overcrowded population" does not drive your policy, but almost the opposite: that the 40+ million babies we have slain has created the worker shortage that threatens our social security. In other words, you believe, as I do, that we still have a worker shortage, which is serious. So as I talked with Chuck I wanted to understand what objections you have to raising quotas sufficiently for willing, working immigrants to fill that shortage for us, and save our retirement system, among other things.

Chuck also assured me you do not believe the myth that immigrants, working for low pay, drive down citizen wages, except in isolated temporary circumstances. However, where they flood in too quickly, there is temporary economic stress. He mentioned Storm Lake and Dennison, where there was initial stress, partly from so many workers and consumers who did not speak English, but things are more settled now; they have "assimilated".

But if those are among your concerns, aren't there solutions for them?

In the interest of motivating immigrants to quickly learn English and learn our laws, wouldn't the point system of last year's S1387 be effective, which conditions Legal Permanent Residence on *fluency in English, *education in general, (this should include Bush's vision of learning our political principles) *staying out of jail, *earning a solid work history as measured by pay raises and promotions, and *staying off welfare (which was not in S1387 but was in S1645)? Haven't you seen such hunger to taste of our opportunity, and not just economic opportunity but our freedom, that immigrants are willing to do anything to get here, and once here, to be here legally? Can you doubt that if quotas were lifted high enough to receive every applicant who is emminently qualified to live here legally, that virtually every illegal already here, and every immigrant on his way, would do anything they could to become emminently qualified, as quickly as possible?

In the interest of keeping immigration incremental, and not greater than the number of available jobs, what is insufficient in existing law, and every present and past immigration bill, in requiring employers to first advertize for citizens before they may offer a job to an immigrant? Well, of course with present quotas as low as they are, these measures fail simply because they legalize only a small fraction of the available jobs and willing immigrants, while the hope in Congressional mercy they inspire brings a flood more of immigrants to take those jobs which are still waiting for them, but which our low quotas have kept illegal.

Low quotas are not the only barrier to making this system work. The other barrier is the rigidity -- the red tape -- which bars many employers from the system. (Quick examples from last year's bills: small businesses who need one or two employees couldn't afford a high application fee based on hiring hundreds; employers needing people with personalities as opposed to the most menial farm labor can't hire strangers they can not meet in a face to face interview, and they can't afford to send agents across the border; and almost no employer can survive the current USCIS requirement of certifying not only that they can't find a US Citizen right now, but that the industry as a whole can't find enough employees -- a process that can take years of waiting for sluggish USCIS bureaucrats, besides a lot of money!)

However, IF we made the system flexible enough that all employers could participate, so that no employer was forced to go underground to hire workers; and IF we lifted quotas high enough that all emminently qualified applicants (both here and on their way) could come and work here legally; and especially IF our system were so honorable and trustworthy that prospective immigrants would know that if the USCIS says there are no available jobs, there really aren't, THEN wouldn't you agree immigrants would want to come ONLY through legal channels, which would manage the flow so that there are not pockets of workers in excess of legal jobs, and no economic stress anywhere?

Wouldn't you agree that if employers could get legal workers, and if S1387's provisions for workers reporting employers were law, that employers would stop offering illegal jobs? And wouldn't you agree that if every qualified worker were allowed by law to work, that they would not want an illegal job? Therefore wouldn't you agree that with a wise package of incentives, illegal jobs would dry up?

(Examples of unwise incentives: HR2899 would make employers criminals for not filling out papers right, which would bloat the USCIS bureaucracy to catch violations. S1645 would enforce job management by encouraging immigrant workers to sue employers, bloating judicial bureaucracy! S1387, on the other hand, helps workers who report oppressive employers, requiring minimal bureaucracy.)

National Security. Don't you agree that, with a wise package of incentives and opportunities, all illegals whose only crime is an honest day's work will come out of the woodwork to sign up -- and that no new honest immigrant will want to replace them in the shadows when working in the open is allowed? How can this not solve our national security problem? If 10 million illegals suddenly start reporting to the USCIS voluntarily, leaving only a few thousand drug runners, terrorists, and common criminals, won't the latter be a lot easier for the USCIS to find?

And if our immigration policy seems human to all, won't we finally see an end to the sheltering of illegals by church service agencies, and even by government services who don't want services to citizen children to be denied because the illegal parents are afraid of being reported? And even by congressmen who order certain government services not to ask for citizenship papers, for that reason? Imagine Hispanic and Catholic organizations cooperating vigorously with the USCIS to gather evidence about prospective immigrants, to clear the innocent and identify the sinister, in return for speeding up USCIS processing! Imagine cooperation from all elements of society, instead of obstruction, just because our laws inspire allegience because of their fairness!

Critical to a workable immigration vision is the S1387 point system, and lifting quotas for all who qualify. If we just let millions in who can work, without caring whether they know English or understand our government, we create something like the Roman Empire where only a minority could actually participate in their government. Of course, we already have 10 million in that category!

I praise God that you have proved through your public stands that you take your marching orders from the same Bible I do! That gives me hope that disagreement between us cannot last. Here are just a couple of Biblical points I have made elsewhere:

* God has spoken as clearly for the humanity of immigrants, as He has for the humanity of the unborn. Just as prolifers can quote Luke 2, Psalm 139:13-16, Jeremiah 1:5, and passages about Molech worship, pro-immigrants can quote verses about having "one law for the stranger [foreigner] as for yourselves, for "ye were strangers in the land of Egypt"; or, we might say today, "you would be the children of illegal aliens yourselves, had your fathers, when they came to America, been forced to climb over the quotas you impose on your Southern neighbors today." Minnesota Congressman Mark Kennedy's website has an article that says it this way: "Like it or not, Americans will have to live with the fact that while these newcomers are here illegally, they're not going to be deported. They are not fearsome aliens, just the latest iteration in an ongoing immigration drama in which, not too long ago, our parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents were the protagonists."

* Our reaction to immigrants, like our reaction to our own offspring, is a litmus test of our longing for Heaven. Matthew 5:43-48 explains that even the wicked love those who love them, but the test of love is when you love your enemies, as God does, sending rain on the just and on the unjust. But when we can't even love those whom God has sent us to care for us in our old age, how can God expect us to be comfortable in Heaven? In Matthew 25, Jesus says the way we treat "the least of these my brethren" is how God sees us as treating Him.

It is interesting that the 14th Amendment makes our Constitution agree with Exodus 22:21 et al. It requires the "equal protection of the laws" for all "persons" within the jurisdiction of any state. (If no state had jurisdiction over illegals, where would they get authority to arrest and deport them?) I believe a strong case can be made that quotas themselves are unconstitutional, because they don't even apply laws equally between immigrants. I think Point System-type criteria are permissible by the 14th Amendment because they only require immigrants to meet the same standards which citizens already do. But quotas serve no "legitimate state purpose". We have it within our means to craft laws which can serve every legitimate state purpose, and yet to obey Exodus 22:21 and our Constitution.

I trust you to give prayerful attention to these issues, and for this I thank you and praise God.

In Jesus' Name (Col 3:17)

Dave Leach


137 E. Leach

Des Moines Iowa 50315

515/244-3711 work, 256-0637 home.


3. My January 18, 2005 letter to Congressman King

January 18, 2005 AD, 137 E. Leach, Des Moines Iowa 50315, www.Saltshaker.US <> Leach@Saltshaker.US

Office of Congressman Steve King, Washington, D.C. Office, 1432 Longworth Office Building, Washington D.C. 20515, (202) 225-4426, Fax: (202) 225-3193

Honorable Congressman Steve King:

May I discuss with you my recipe for the perfect immigration policy, whose ingredients Congress has scattered across several bills?

The perfect immigration bill would: detect every illegal, secure our borders, reduce INS caseloads, and even fix social security -- all without driving down wages, taking citizen's jobs, straining welfare, or diminishing that quality of our character summed up in "love thy neighbor as thyself."

But how will you have time to review my findings? My condensed version is a 3 part newspaper article of 3,000 words. When I sent you some questions a year ago, (co-addressed to Melissa McKay), to better understand your thinking, your office didn't have time to respond, and I can appreciate that. Can you refer me to someone whose judgment you trust, who I can communicate with and who can report to you? Someone who loves the Lord, loves Hispanics, loves America, and really wants a solution?

Your letter of December 17, 2003 identifies you as a leader of the opposition to Bush's agenda. But as nearly as I can determine, Bush has not said which details, of those proposed in several Congressional bills, he favors. Such details are capable of being assembled in a variety of ways, with a variety of results from horrible to not bad.

I admire you as a fellow outspoken Bible believer, whose ultimate authority is the same as mine, so I cannot imagine agreement between us, about its agenda, can be far off. (If enough time can be found for communication.) My solution, I think, does most of the things you want, and most of the things President Bush wants. And yet it really does meet all the above goals.

The plan, which I would not be interested in if I did not think it gives a glimpse of God's plan, is enclosed, condensed into a 3 part article suitable for publication in newspapers. Part one gives a thumbnail of the recipe for a perfect bill. Parts 2 and 3 deal with myths that send critics barking up imaginary trees.

My complete findings, which analyze many more details of the three bills, showing what will work well compared with the fatal flaws that will defeat the law's purpose, are found at They are arranged in a 21-part series suitable for newspapers. The final part is "The Spiritual Stakes", which shows how the number of Hispanics who have attempted to join our work force is about equal to the number we have removed from our work force by murdering them -- by abortion, and how if we can love these Southern neighbors any better than our own sons and daughters, and just let them do legally what they are determined to do one way or another -- work, their legal entry into our work force will save our Social Security system.

Will you please put me in touch with others thinking constructively about these issues, so that what I have found may be shared, and so that I may refine my own understanding so that I may become more helpful?

In Jesus' Name (Col 3:17)

Dave Leach


My letter about March, 2004 to King

Dave Leach <> 137 E. Leach, Des Moines Iowa 50315, 515/244-3711w, 480-3773c, Leach@Saltshaker.US

Honorable Congressman Steve King, (Or Melissa McKay, press secretary), 1432 Longworth Office Building, Washington D.C. 20515

Honorable Congressman Steve King,

Though we apparently differ on illegal immigration we have common ground. Your bold stands for Our Lord have been a great personal encouragement to me -- that God would allow a man to publicly stand for Him and yet win an election in these Godless times. Since my understanding of this issue rests on my understanding of God's Revealed Will, I can't imagine a congressman I would have more hope of approaching on this important issue than you. And as God has ordained it, it is you who have led 35 other Congressmen in your thinking on this issue. What a great favor God has done for me, what a new experience for me, that the very Congressional leader of the opposition to the views I hold, is the very Congressman with whom I have the greatest common ground! What a delight to look forward to the response of such a man!

How I hope to use this information.I hope to write about illegals in a future series in which I am collaborating with a former reporter living in Mexico City, Gabriela Buenrostro. My immediate project is a submission to American Legion magazine in response to this month's article by Michelle Malkin. (I haven't approached them yet.) But publication for a mass market will be a new venture for me. Although I am listed in Marquis' Who's Who in Media and Communications, it was for my self-published miniscule-circulation efforts: the Prayer & Action News (since 1989) and The Uncle Ed. Show on cable access TV (since 1995).

But you may already know me enough to know that what motivates me is not the hope of money, but passionate conviction. That is why I would personally, more than professionally, deeply appreciate your responses to the following questions; far more for the benefit of my own understanding, than for what prospect I have of selling articles.

The Issues. A. Sending them back where they came from. In your December 17 letter, you wrote: "We must enforce the immigration laws currently on our books...making it more costly for lawbreakers...The result would be similar to "broken windows" policing in New York City which not only reduced "minor" crimes, but also curbed serious crimes." In other words, you would like our roughly 10 million illegals to leave us, and preferably quickly.

1. If 10 million illegals quickly left the U.S., do you think that would improve our economy? Would the economic impact differ from that of quickly losing one of our largest cities? I read a speculation that fruit prices would rise only 2-3%. But the roughly 10 million illegals hold a variety of jobs, and many are in business for themselves. The loss of each one would have an impact on the employers who depend on their work, and the merchants who depend on them as consumers, wouldn't they? How could their loss, which is the only goal of strict enforcement, benefit our economy (not to mention theirs, Mat 22:39 ­ 2nd Commandment)?

2. Wage competition. Wouldn't Bush's plan help support higher wages than present policy, and wouldn't sending Hispanics back where they came from drive wages farther down? Which scenario do you think most threatens to drive down wages because illegals will work for less:

a) the current situation, where illegals get fake ID's and take jobs at $5 an hour or less where their ID's won't be scrutinized?

(b) Bush's plan, where illegals will be able to work legally, so they can safely ask for $10 an hour?

(c) Buchanan's plan, where illegals will go back to Mexico where they will work for an American factory making auto parts for $5 a day? (I saw an American auto parts factory in Reynosa last month.)

3. Welfare. How would Bush's plan burden welfare programs? You wrote, "Americans will have to pay increased taxes as a consequence of the burden amnesty would place on our (a) school systems, (b) welfare and social service systems, (c) roads and transportation systems, the (d) sprawl and environmental degradation, the (e) health care system, Medicaid, (f) Social Security,..."

(a) I understand how determined the Supreme Court is to offer "free" K-12 education to illegals. (Plyler v. Doe (457 U.S.202 (1982)). But don't all illegals contribute to it, through property taxes (renters pay even higher property taxes because their landlords have no homestead exemption), sales taxes, and aren't all wages subject to income taxes and SSI?

("Social Security Benefits for Noncitizens, Current Policy and Legislation", CRS Report RL32004, says "Noncitizens (aliens) who work in Social Security-covered employment must pay Social Security payroll taxes, including those...who may be working in the U.S. without authorization.")

(b) How would Bush's plan put them on welfare? I don't see any place in HR 2899 or S1387 that would give a social security number to a nonimmigrant worker, and without that the worker could not even get food stamps. Are you assuming that if Bush's plan goes through, politicians will amend it to make workers eligible for welfare?

Is it your understanding that some illegals are on welfare currently?(I talked to a food stamp caseworker who has seen all the news articles alleging illegals are on welfare, but she hasn't seen it, and can't imagine how. Food stamps require a valid social security number, she said, and if she gets a phony number, the match comes back in about a month and the fraud is stopped. If very much money is fraudulently gotten, the food stamp people refer the case to local law enforcement.)

Is there some other welfare which illegals currently receive?(The closest I could determine is that if illegals have a baby born here, who then becomes a U.S. citizen, the baby is eligible for food stamps and many other services; so the illegals can apply for services for the citizen, but not enough for themselves. Of course other shoppers at the grocery store see illegals with food stamps, not knowing they are only enough to feed the baby.)

Other than that, illegals can attend our schools courtesy of determined politicians, and get stitched up in hospital emergency rooms as can anyone ­ although nonemergency care is denied them. Is there any more than that available to illegals now, or available under Bush's or any other plan?

("CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report to Congress" 97-542 A concludes, "the 104th Congress did pass a major new welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193) that directly denied illegal aliens most federal, state, and local benefits...upheld by the courts....")

(c) Why do you even mention "roads and transportation systems" as an area burdened by illegals, when roads are maintained by gasoline taxes, which no illegal can escape paying, who drives on the roads? (I know Democrats like to mix funding streams, but that is why we elect Republicans.)

(d) "sprawl and environmental degradation", you say, is another area burdened by illegals. By "sprawl", do you simply mean to find a pejorative word for "increased population density"? Do you mean illegals contribute to "environmental degradation" any more, person for person, than any citizen? In other words, is this only your way of saying illegals add to our population density, and this is not a good thing?

But you are a prolifer, and the "we will run out of space" argument is the whine of population-control abortionists. Is it not true that there is enough land area in California for the entire world population to live in their own duplexes on standard sized house lots (based on a family of four per duplex) and still have enough room left over for Disneyland? (Obviously lifestyles would have to change, just as New York has changed since it was traded for 24 beads. But most New Yorkers, for some inexplicable reason, like it better now than then. New Yorkers back then would have said of today's population density, "physically impossible"!)

Population paranoia promises that poverty increases proportionate to population. Have you seen evidence of that anywhere? Is the world poorer now than it was 100 years ago?

It isn't population density that makes anyone poor. It's corrupt government, and religions of hate. Where there is freedom, and love of neighbor, technology flourishes, enabling us to use space better. Mexico has about the same density and resources as the U.S., yet Mexicans flee here. Part of our solution may be to acknowledge the blessings we have, and share them.

But you are a Bible-believing Christian conservative. I'm not saying things you don't already embrace, am I?

(e) the "health care system"would be burdened, you say, by Bush's plan. How? Under current law, "Although the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) barred unauthorized aliens from receiving most Medicaid benefits, they are eligible for emergency Medicaid services. Unauthorized aliens are also eligible for emergency medical services provided by the states." ("Federal Funding for Unauthorized Aliens' Emergency Medical Expenses", an unattributed article sent me by Senator Grassley's office.) How much does this cost? "It is extremely difficult to ascertain...since most hospitals do not ask patients their immigration status." But "The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-173) signed into law on December 8, 2003" appropriates $250 million a year to reimburse states for emergency care for illegals, based on estimates. That's about $25 per illegal. This would seem very small compared with the added revenues generated by bringing the jobs up to at least minimum wage, and getting full taxes paid.

(f) How will illegals ever raid our Social Security? Under present Social Security law, illegals only under special, rare conditions ever receive anything back from what they put in. According to "Social Security Benefits for Noncitizens, Current Policy and Legislation", "The Social Security Act does...prohibit the payment of benefits to aliens in the United States who are not 'lawfully present'." HR1631 in the current congress (108th) would more absolutely prohibit social security payments from even being credited to any illegal who made them. Bush's plan would make nonimmigrants "lawfully present", but would send them back after 6 years ­ not long enough to retire, and after they are across the border 6 months current law bars SS benefits!

However, Bush said January 7, "I will work with foreign governments on a plan to give temporary workers credit, when they enter their own nation's retirement system, for the time they have worked in America." S 1387 proposing some sort of trust fund that would take the SS taxes paid by the nonimmigrant and create a retirement fund. But no scenario that I can find contemplates taking anything out of the SS fund for the benefit of any noimmigrant or illegal.

The future of Social Security is indeed precarious, because of 50 million slain who would otherwise swell our population's 0-30 age bracket, the very same age bracket "illegals" long to fill but we won't let them! If we were seriously concerned about the future of our social security, wouldn't we be serious about giving young "illegals" the legal right to work and plug into our ailing system?

4, Rewarding those who waited. You wrote, on December 17, 2003, "It is unfair to reward people who break our immigrations laws with immigration status, while many potential immigrants outside the United States are waiting to be admitted to the United States lawfully."

President Bush wrote, on January 7, 2004, "Fact Sheet: Fair and Secure Immigration Reform", Office of the Press Secretary, "The program should not connect participation to a green card or citizenship. however, it should not preclude a participant from obtaining green card status through the existing process. It should not permit undocumented workers to gain an advantage over those who have followed the rules." This was one of Bush's "Principles of Immigration Reform."

Does this mean your concern on this point has been satisfied?

You also wrote that you oppose "amnesty" of any kind. "As Members of Congress, we strongly and unequivocally oppose mass amnesty for people who violate our immigration laws." President Bush responded "President Bush does not support amnesty because individuals who violate America's laws should not be rewarded for illegal behavior and becauseamnesty perpetuates illegal immigration." Are you satisfied with Bush's answer?

B. Incentives for Following the Rules. You wrote: "If we allow the people who break the rules by entering the United States illegally to go to the front of the immigration line, it is a slap in the face to law-abiding immigrants." Which provisions of either HR 2899 or S 1387, or any other bills you know of, (those were the only two I found) would favor current illegals? I see provisions that would give current illegals equal footing in the citizenship line, but not favoritism.

(But would you accept that, conversely, if the case can be made that U.S. treatment of Hispanics falls very much below Biblical standards, that favoritism would not necessarily be unmerited, but might function as a sort of apology for mistreatment? In the same way that when you realize you have been unfair to one of your children, it is that child you then favor over the others for a little while to make it even?)

"Following the rules" is not just a problem for illegals, but for the employers who hire them illegally! For that reason, do you share my admiration for the incentives in S 1387 for employers to completely stop disobeying the law? Please tell me if you see the incentives differently than this: under the present laws, employers are tempted to hire illegals for peanuts, and to risk being caught by the INS because of so much money saved, as well as because not enough citizens will do the work. But under the new policy, employers can get all the workers they want, legally, but must pay them a federal minimum wage. The minimum wage will certainly eliminate all incentive to prefer illegals, and the red tape will cause employers to prefer citizens.

(The draconian fines, reporting requirements and waiting periods of HR 2899 would not only strangle business, but would make the INS (or DHS) one of the largest bureaucracies, just to monitor compliance on all those details of 10 million jobs! S 1387 creates natural incentives for employer compliance, including protection of nonimmigrants from employer backlash for reporting employer violations.)

C. Bureaucracy. Your letter mentions backlogs for processing the papers proposed by the president. I see what you mean, if HR 2899 is adopted! The INS would turn into one of our largest bureaucracies, with little practical power to enforce its regulations against illegals, but only the power to destroy employers. The INS will be so busy destroying employers that it will have few resources for its current work of finding and deporting illegals. (My list of burdens which it places upon the INS, upon employers, and upon workers is at the end of this letter.) But would you foresee too great an INS workload if S 1387 is adopted?

I am concerned that the bureaucracy necessary to send workers back where they came from at the end of 3 years, according to S 1387, or 6 years, according to HR 2899 and Bush's speech, will mushroom if the incentives to leave the U.S. at the end of the authorized time are not strong. If the incentives are weak, and the INS as weak as currently, these laws will only delay the hiding for 3, or 6 years. I acknowledge that the powerful natural incentives of S 1387 would disinterest employers in employing any unauthorized worker, which would dry up a lot of jobs currently available for illegals, sending many back home. But without incentives for the Hispanics, I anticipate many more would find some way to stay, and I think sympathetic churches and Hispanic organizations would help them.

However, if the point system for citizenship envisioned by S 1387 is coupled with lifting existing immigration caps high enough for almost every Hispanic meeting those excellent standards to have a hope of a green card at the conclusion of their trial work period, (Bush's 1/7 speech calls for raising them, but he doesn't say how high), I think every Hispanic would work passionately to obey every law, master English, and study the ideals and mechanisms upon which our freedom is founded. I think such a system would turn the 6 years' work into a trial and training period for the highest quality citizens America could hope for! It also seems clear that this mix of natural incentives would create compliance with our laws with the minimum of INS bureaucracy.

(S 1387, Sec. 218A(j)(2) creates "an evaluation system...that gives priority for adjustment of status to aliens who are applying for legal permanent residency" using "a point system that rates an alien based on (A) whether the alien has an employer sponsor; (B) whether the alien received promotions or pay increases during the alien's employment periods; (C) whether the alien paid taxes; (D) the proficiency of the alien in speaking English; (E) the education of the alien; and (F) whether the alien has refrained from illegal activity.")

Likewise the natural incentives to obey the law would virtually eliminate lawbreaking if all immigrants were allowed to stay and work indefinitely, provided only they submit to a criminal and terrorist screening and carry ID cards which do NOT entitle them to welfare, not being SS numbers. While this sounds like heresy to politicians in denial of reality, it is better than the current system in which they enjoy a defacto right to stay and work indefinitely, WITHOUT submitting to a criminal OR terrorist screening OR carrying real ID cards capable of being monitored by government.

With this change in our law they would nave no remaining incentive to hide, but every incentive to come forward. The Hispanic community would have every incentive to cooperate with the INS in its screening for criminals, if their cooperation would speed processing; and the INS would have NO paper to push except to hand out ID's to illegals standing in line for the privilege, and plenty of resources to track down the handful of criminals and terrorists who would then stick out like sore thumbs with their now much rarer fake ID's.

Therefore, would you favor coupling the natural incentives to score well on the point system of S 1387, with lifting immigration caps high enough that nearly everyone scoring high on the point system could reasonably expect approval for a green card on the road to citizenship? OR would you favor allowing our current "illegals" the right to legally work?

In Jesus' Name (Col 3:17)

Dave Leach


Appendix 1 Biblical and Historical Perspective.

Our Heritage. America began with all the right ingredients for prosperity: a heritage of religious persecution like that suffered by the Israelites in Egypt. Throughout Biblical history, periods of prosperity and promise were preceded by periods of oppression and slavery.

We came to a Promised Land. As with every entry into a promised land, it was already inhabited. Some of the Native Americans thought it a crime for our ancestors to possess land which they had assumed was theirs, but our ancestors did not think so. The Native Americans did not think there was enough land for them and us. While there might not have been, had everyone remained in the stone age, advancing technology made greater population density not only possible but so comfortable that to this day, citizens are still fleeing rural areas to live in the largest cities.

While there were many abuses of Native Americans by our ancestors, God placed his stamp of approval on the general program of migrating here, by miracles such as the evacuation of the land upon which the Pilgrims first settled, by pestilence, only a couple of years before the Pilgrims landed; just long enough for the disease to die out, but not long enough for the neighboring Native Americans to develop the courage to settle the area. Another great miracle of God's provision for those first migrating Pilgrims was the preparation of Squanto, captured from that same decimated tribe years before the pestilence, trained in Spain and England, and then brought back to his empty homeland just before the Pilgrims arrived ­ just in time to show them how to live ­ in English, and as a Christian!

God has made a habit of helping people migrate to new lands. Amos 9:7 "Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel? saith the LORD. Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt? and the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians from Kir?"

For many generations the migration continued, from all over the world. There were temporary ghettos and occasional prejudice with new waves of arrivals, but there were no laws restricting anyone from coming, and certainly no laws against anyone working! They assimilated quickly and were identified as "Americans first".

In the beginning, our ancestors remembered their roots, which made them sympathetic with those who followed in their footsteps. It was very natural for them to remember and revere the Scriptures which said, Exodus 22:21 "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger [foreigner], nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." 23:9 "Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." Leviticus 19:34 "But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God." Deuteronomy 10:19 "Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." Luke 3:11 "He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise."

Our ancestors readily obeyed God's commandment to place no legal burden, through discriminatory laws, upon fresh immigrants which were not borne equally by their own second, third, and more settled generations. Exodus 12:49 "One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you." Leviticus 24:22 "Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God." Numbers 15:16 "One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you." Numbers 15:29 "Ye shall have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance, both for him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them."

That did not change until after the Civil War through which America paid a terrible price for its irreverence for fellow human beings created in the Image of God. As if the price had not been great enough; or as if the irreverence which could no longer be vented fully on Blacks was now vented in smaller measure towards many races.

"Between 1860 and 1885 8 million immigrants arrived in America. [At first they came mostly] from Northern and Western Europe. [Then from] Southern and Eastern...Europe....this resulted in...A law passed in 1875 [that] brought to an end almost 100 years of open borders. The first racial law, The Chinese Exclusion Act, was enacted in May 1882 to bar Chinese laborers....Japanese immigrants...were forbidden to buy or lease land in California and Texas. ...Later...they were excluded by law from entry as immigrants. ...Chinese were at first welcomed as unskilled laborers. ...As their numbers grew, however, they were perceived as a threat to native labor...racist sentiment increased. Chinese were subjected to various discriminatory laws..." (Immigration and American Life Graphing Immigration Data, by Mary Elizabeth Jones, Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute.)

What irony that about this time, France gave us the Statue of Liberty. Years in preparation before the 1982 act, it was presented to the Minister of the United States in Paris, on July 4, 1884, brought to the U.S., and unveiled October 28, 1886. (World Book Encyclopedia, 1958.)

The "Immigration...Data" report continues: "In 1908 the San Francisco Board of Education attempted to place all Japanese children, native and foreign born, in a segregated Oriental school in Chinatown. A protest from the Japanese ambassador led the school board to rescind the order. However, a Gentleman's Agreement obtained by President Theodore Roosevelt caused Japan to pledge that it would halt further immigration of its citizens to the U.S."

The picture for black immigrants, whether from Africa or the Caribbean, was not so rosy.

1908 was also the year "The New Colossus", by Emma Lazarus, was inscribed on the pedal of the Statue of Liberty:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"


But despite the barriers our later ancestors placed in the road of immigrants following in their very own footsteps, immigrants jumped our hurdles and helped make our nation strong, as President Bush pointed out January 7, 2004: (he may have exaggerated how much America "welcomed" its immigrants, but compared with the rest of the world, Lady Liberty still shone brightest here):

"Every generation of immigrants has reaffirmed the wisdom of remaining open to the talents and dreams of the world. And every generation of immigrants has reaffirmed our ability to assimilate newcomers -- which is one of the defining strengths of our country.

"During one great period of immigration -- between 1891 and 1920 -- our nation received some 18 million men, women and children from other nations. The hard work of these immigrants helped make our economy the largest in the world. The children of immigrants put on the uniform and helped to liberate the lands of their ancestors. One of the primary reasons America became a great power in the 20th century is because we welcomed the talent and the character and the patriotism of immigrant families.

"The contributions of immigrants to America continue. About 14 percent of our nation's civilian workforce is foreign-born. Most begin their working lives in America by taking hard jobs and clocking long hours in important industries. Many immigrants also start businesses, taking the familiar path from hired labor to ownership."

The Present. Immigration, Abortion, Social Security. Since 1973, irreverence for fellow human beings created in the Image of God found a vent even wider than the slavery of a century before. From that time to this, Americans have slain roughly 50 million of the most innocent among us. (We have to rely for most of our figures on the killers themselves.) As a direct result of this dramatic population reduction in our 0-30 age bracket, the generation that allowed this to happen faces retirement with the likelihood of a Social Security collapse unless decisive steps are taken soon, which is by no means a certainty.

(Current Social Security taxes are enough to pay for social security benefits with enough left over to bail out a nice chunk of our out-of-control budget. But as our median population ages (because 50 million youth have been subtracted from the American population) excess Social Security funds are reduced. 2018 is the projected year Social Security payments will equal Social Security taxes. After that the burden of the elderly upon the too few younger taxpayers will become prohibitive. Dick Armey, former House Majority leader and chairman of Citizens for a Sound Economy, said: "As the Chief Actuary of the Social Security administration has shown, [in the just-released Social Security Trustees Report], with Personal Retirement Accounts it is possible to pay promised benefits without raising taxes, while allowing today's workers to build a reliable source of income and wealth for their retirement years." March 23, 2004.)

God in His Mercy was willing to replace those unloved slain infant souls with an equal number of ready-made workers ­ not helpless babies so "hard to love" because they can't take care of themselves, but workers ready and anxious to plug right into those social security siphons and start building up those "reserves".

God created a win-win solution for everyone. To the bloody generation, He said "You have slain the generation I had created to care for you in your sunset years. But I have raised up souls to replace them who are easier to love because they work hard for low pay so you can make a lot of money off them! Love them, and you may still live!"

Meanwhile, to the Hispanics living in poverty and oppression, He said, "I give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not, And houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not; [I]...the Lord...brought thee forth...from the house of bondage. [Deuteronomy 6:10] I bring you to a land where you are needed to fill the empty cities, lands, and furnished houses of its own choicest sons, slain by their own fathers and mothers!"

So the Hispanic population in the U.S. grew from 9.6 million in 1970 to 35.3 million in 2000, 58.5% of whom were Mexican. (Pew Study: "Immigration and American Life Graphing Immigration Data", by Mary Elizabeth Jones. Also,

But the Hispanic population in the U.S. could not grow to replace all those slain, as God had provided, because the bloody generation posted guards along its borders to keep Hispanics OUT! That's right, ready-made hard-working taxpayers were not easy enough for the bloody generation to love, after all! Americans made sure the would-be workers could not get welfare (while accusing them of mooching off welfare) and even made it illegal for them to work! In fact, Americans even called them "illegals"!

The Americans said, "Behold, the people of the children of the Spanish are more and [are growing politically] mightier than we: Come on, let is deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any election, they join also unto our enemies, and vote against us, not caring about our great heritage." (Adapted from Exodus 1:9-10)

Though Americans had the wealthiest civilization in the world, which one would think would give them understanding of what creates wealth, they imagined that additional wage earners would only compete with their own ability to earn, forgetting that every wage earner is also a consumer, and that civilization is the personification of cooperation, consisting of citizens sharing little bits of their talents with their neighbors in exchange for a share of their neighbors' talents! They imagined that if they could artificially depress the wages of their Hispanic neighbors below their actual value, that they themselves could be wealthier. They forgot how the same mentality a century and a half before had actually impoverished the South by allowing neither reward nor opportunity for human ingenuity and invention, artificially depressing the output of human beings to nearly that of animals.

Yet God put within Hispanic hearts such desire to come and save the generation that slew its heirs, that they came in droves, at great risk to their own lives, many losing their lives in desperate, cruel border crossings. That is the only way the Hispanic population could grow as God had provided. And grow it did! By 25 million in 30 years. That was only half the number of native babies slain, but in order to get even 25 million here, about half of those had to come and live as "illegals".

Nevertheless the 25 million were only half enough to save the bloody generation, and half of those were tragically restrained from benefiting the economy by being classified as "illegals" which reduced their opportunity to share their talents and realize their potential to nearly the level of the slaves which preceded them a century before.

But God was merciful again. He prepared Hispanics already here to grow to the numbers needed, since the required numbers were not able to cross the border. He gave Hispanic families more children than other demographic groups. (Abortion, after all, is still illegal in Mexico.) 59% of Hispanic households were given at least one child under 18, and by 2000, 31% of Hispanic households numbered five or more persons. (

God said, "Love these. I give you children which others will love and nurture since you don't want to. There, I give you all the delight of children, and none of the responsibilities! Can you love these? Allow these to live among you, and when you are old you may still live."

But the Americans fought back against their own salvation! They fought great battles in Congress to drive back the half of the new Hispanics called "illegals", not minding the harm to their immediate economy, not to mention the future economy of their sunset years!

What therefore shall the Lord of the nations do unto them? He shall come and destroy these leaders, and shall give the nation to others. And we who hear this warning pray, "God forbid!" (Adapted from Luke 20:15-16.)

"Some time between 2005 and 2010 Hispanics will surpass blacks and become the dominant minority...according to The Official Guide to Racial & Ethnic Diversity." (Immigration and American Life Graphing Immigration Data, by Mary Elizabeth Jones.)

In almost the same proportion that the retired bloody generation will become an impossible burden to the relatively few younger taxpayers supporting them, Hispanics will become an important voting block. Their votes will affect the level of patience of younger taxpayers with the bloody retired generation. Their votes will influence the point at which the young will tire of killing themselves for old "useless eaters" who might, after all, have more "dignity" if they were "euthanized".

Will Hispanic sympathies lie with the American voters who made it a crime for them to work ­ who called them "illegals"? With a generation which has done everything in its power to avoid sharing its blessings with the countrymen of the new Hispanic majority? With the cruel elderly here whose votes shed so much blood and created so much oppression of the poor and downtrodden South of the border? With the masters of the ruthless foreign policy based on irreverence for fellow human beings made in the Image of God? With those who counted God's blessings as "just for us", haughtily refusing to share?

Or with their own elderly back in Mexico and farther South, to whom they still send support?

It is not only concern for the poor that prompted Jesus to warn Luke 3:11 "...He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise." Jesus was also concerned for the giver. Because Jesus, the creator of ourselves and the universe, and our savior, constructed all things in such a way they are held together by our love for each other. Without love, things fall apart.

Luke 6:38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.




Appendix B: The Burdens of HR 2899

Some bureaucrat wrote this.


The burden on the INS. The INS will have to make sure millions of employers do all the following:

1. pay $500 with application for hiring somebody ($1,000 if more than one); (Sec. 3(a))

2. apply to the INS only after advertising 14 days for a citizen; (Sec. 3(a))

3.use the "employment eligibility confirmation system" to make sure the alien is eligible;

4. inform the alien if the "employment eligibility confirmation system" fails to confirm him;

5. give the alien time to correct errors in the "employment eligibility confirmation system";

6. after hiring the alien, give him "the same benefits, wages, and working conditions" as citizens;

7. make the worker work the same hours as citizens;

8. does not require the alien to refuse to work for a competitor;

9. comply with every federal labor law! The INS will have to become the Department of Labor!

10. When an employer hires an alien the INS will have to compare the alien's qualifications with that of available citizens, not just for the first 3 years but again before renewing the final 3 years! Sec. 3(c)(2)(B)(ii)

11. Make sure employers pay transportation back over the border if employment runs out in 3 years. Sec. 3(d)(1).

12. Create a new jobs website and make sure the information is separately available to state employment agencies and the "interstate employment service". That means posting 10 million jobs and updating it when the jobs are filled. Sec 3(i)(3)(A)

13. Create an "employment eligibility confirmation system" and man toll-free telephones to answer inquiries for 10 million jobs! Sec 3.(j)(1)(A)

14. Create a system of codes so every inquirer can keep track of a code given him when he inquires, to prove he has complied with the law! Sec 3.(j)(1)(B)

15. Create a system capable of determining when an employer does NOT call in with a request! Sec. 3(j)(4)(B)

16. Create a system capable of determining when employers use the system illegally to check on an alien BEFORE offering the alien work! Sec. 3(j)(4)(D)(ii)


The burden on the employer:

1. The employer has to file a $500 form for permission to hire an alien, along with advertising 14 days for a citizen first, and checking with the "employment eligibility confirmation system" to see if the alien is eligible, and then WAIT for a bureaucrat to approve it! 10 million jobs will be handled that way! 10 million! Take any 10 million jobs in our economy, put those shackles around them, and see what that does to our economy!

2. If work runs out in less than 3 years, the employer has to pay the worker's transportation back across the border, and may not receive compensation from the worker. Sec. 3(d)(1).

3. The employer faces a $5,000 fine for failing to pay the alien for transportation back if work runs out in less than 3 years! Sec. 3(d)(2)(b). But not if the alien finds other work within 45 days. But that means the employer has to monitor whether the immigrant has gotten work; and of course the employer will not be able to buy a couple of months ahead and get the best air rates, since the immigrant will not go if he can get a job on the last hour of the last day, so he will have to pay premium rates and do so in the last hour of the last day. But what if the immigrant, as will be likely, lies to the employer saying he has a job when he doesn't? Or what if the immigrant doesn't even know, but was given encouragement that a job will soon start? Must the employer hire a private detective to shadow the immigrant to make sure he is really working, or pay the $5,000 fine?

4. Work permission lasts 3 years, and then the employer has to go through almost the whole thing again to renew, and then for 6 years max. It doesn't matter how valuable the employee has become, or how much money he is earning (in order to keep from competing with citizens' salaries). It doesn't matter whether the work lasts another 6 days, or another 20 years. Back he goes on the day appointed. Try doing THAT to any other block of 10 million jobs in our economy and see what that does to our economy! Of course we do that to elected officials routinely, but that's different: in that case, we TRY to interrupt them from being able to accomplish -- or get away with -- too much.

5. The employer has to not only go through the monkey business of inquiring whether a worker is "eligible", but keep track of a secret code he receives every time he inquires! Sec 3.(j)(1)(B) Do you understand what it is like to have your computer crash, and then have to reload all your programs and find all your misplaced product codes? Now take that mess, and multiply it by a fine of thousands of dollars every time you forget a code!

6. It is a crime for the employer to check on an alien's eligibility BEFORE offering him work! Sec. 3(j)(4)(D)(ii)

7. Sec. 3(k)(1)(A) Am I reading this right? A $10,000 fine against an employer if he (1) doesn't use the "employment eligibility confirmation system" (or forgets his secret code), (2) doesn't advise the alien when there is a "nonconfirmation", (3) doesn't give the alien time to correct errors by the government, (4) doesn't provide the alien the same benefits as citizens, (5) doesn't provide the alien the same wages as citizens, (6) doesn't provide the alien the same working conditions as citizens, (7) allows the alien to work different hours than citizens, (8) pressures the alien not to work for a competitor, (9) hires an alien when he could have hired a citizen, or (10) fails to obey ANY federal, state, or local labor law! A $10,000 fine? And then the next paragraph, Sec. 3(k)(1)(B), authorizes the "secretary of labor" to jump in with a whole additional layer of penalties from the federal code!

8. Oh, Sec. 3(k)(1)(B)(2), ANOTHER $10,000 fine for accepting money from the alien to offset hiring expenses!

9. Oh, Sec. 3(k)(1)(B)(3), ANOTHER $5,000 fine PER INCIDENT for forgetting to use the "employment eligibility confirmation system" (or forgetting the secret code).


The burden on the alien:

1. Work runs out. If you can't find another job and actually start working within 45 days, you get shipped out of the country on the 46th day. How many unemployed citizens could meet those conditions and remain sane? In the last day, the immigrant doesn't know what to do with his possessions; pack some, of course. Sell the rest? What if work comes in the last hour ­ then the forced sale of things he now needs to continue working causes financial hardship and stress as he attempts to purchase replacements.

2. Of course, temporary work will not be possible, since the new employer has to pay another $500 and go through the same procedure. Sec. 3(e)(1). No spot labor employer will, or even can, go through that expense and waiting period, to get someone to dig a ditch this morning.

3. Sec. 4(b)(2) The alien has to submit $1,500 just to have his application REVIEWED! Do you realize how much that is to a poor Mexican? That's $15,000 in pesos! At $5 a day, a good wage in Mexico, that's 10 years' wages! But anyone making a whopping $5 a day in Mexico may be content with that. Likewise, any Mexican with $1,500 U.S. isn't going to spend it just for a CHANCE to work here for 3 years! Oh. Next paragraph, the fee can be garnished at 10% of his future wages. That's more reasonable.


The burden on common sense: Aliens will have the same motivation as before to hide, and Hispanic communities will have the same motivation as before to cover for them; the only difference is that the motivation to hide will be delayed for 6 years.

The INS will be even worse off than before in its capacity to find and deport illegals because they will be preoccupied with pushing unenforceable paper. Unenforceable, that is, except against employers.

Let aliens stay and work indefinitely. Give them ID cards which do NOT entitle them to welfare, not being SS numbers; but allow them the right to work, the only requirement being that they submit to a criminal screening and get proper ID. Then they will have no incentive to hide but every incentive to come forward, the Hispanic community will have every incentive to help the INS screen for criminals since their cooperation will enable speeding processing, and the INS will have NO paper to push except to hand out ID's to people standing in line for the privilege, and plenty of resources to track down the handful of criminals and terrorists who now stick out like sore thumbs with their now much rarer fake ID's.



Feedback Box

This web site is part of Uncle Ed.'s search for truth. God didn't make any man able to find the truth by himself. Proverbs 15:22 says only in a "multitude of counsellors" are purposes established. And counsel can come from anybody: 2 Chronicles 35:20-24 says God can speak even through your generation's representative of Antichrist! (Isaiah 30 for perspective.)

So if you see errors here, and you don't warn poor Uncle Ed.,, their continued presence here will be your fault! (Ezekiel 3:18-20) (If you don't want your email address posted when we post your comments or criticism, SAY SO!)

Join our FORUM on any article posted here. The discussion board set up at is designed for you to respond to any article on this website. (Or start a discussion on your own topic.) To respond to any article on this website, just copy enough of the beginning of the article to let everybody know to what you are responding, along with the url of the and then have at it.

If your comment would be appropriate inserted in one of my articles, email your comment to me, with a little of the text on either side of where you think it should be inserted, and I'll try to post it there, along with any response I may have (to which you are invited to respond further.)

Would you like us to email new articles or forum "threads" to you? Let us know!