“Freindly Fire Zone”

New York Governor Eliot Spitzer is aggressively pushing a plan that would allow illegal immigrants to obtain drivers' licenses. As you might imagine, there has been quite an uproar.

But why?

The Governor, who is sworn to uphold the law, claims that roads will be safer, auto insurance rates will drop, there will be fewer uninsured drivers, and drivers' licenses for illegals will enhance law enforcement efforts.

Sounds like a plan. And its not like al-Qaida operatives will be flocking to the DMV to apply for legitimate identification credentials that would allow them to move freely---and legally--- throughout the country.

Oh, wait. The 9/11 high-jackers actually did do that, allowing them to open bank accounts, rent houses, and, yes, board planes.

Scratch that last one. But 9/11 happened eons ago. Its not like theyre planning to attack again.

Anyone opposed to the license plan is clearly racist, bigoted, pro-law enforcement, and doesn't like burritos, manicured lawns, or fair wages. Illegal invaders are such an integral part of our society that to limit their rights in any way does irreparable harm to these United States of Mexico.

Go Eliot!

One small caveat, Governor. If the brotherhood of Mohammed Atta decides to target the Empire State Building with weapons and explosives bought legally with their state-sanctioned drivers license, or, on the off-chance, they take a one-way joyride in a 767, you may have a few people knocking at your Mansion door.

In such a case, I am sure that if you explain the merits of safer roads and lower auto-insurance rates (even though they won't decrease), all will be well again. Of course, you may encounter some opposition when you invoke the enhance law enforcement line, but thats just a guess.

Why is this man not running for President? Hed definitely be in the 'driver's seat'.

It wouldn't be the first time we had a criminal in the White House.

You see, Spitzer's action is undeniably in violation of federal law. Any attempt to encourage or assist illegal aliens is against the law. Period. Since there is no gray area in this regard, Spitzer is committing a crime.

Where is the President Bush's Justice Department? Why have they not brought the hammer down on this proposal, as well as the other states that already have such a law on the books?

If only we had Alberto Gonzales to rescue us, but he's busy mounting his own legal defense for perjury.

And if a Democrat wins the White House next year, expect more of the same.

How is it that, since a clear majority of Americans oppose these policies (in a recent poll, 72% of New Yorkers are against the Governor's plan), and such action, by its very nature, violates the law, we continue to see programs solely designed to coddle illegal aliens?

Follow the money.

Republicans are in bed with big business, and these fat cats want the cheap labor. Democrats want the votes. There are already a significant number of illegals voting in our elections, and that number will rise as more of them can provide legally-obtained drivers' licenses. Since the majority of these invaders vote Democratic, the D's continue their push for these programs and ignore the destruction of America's sovereignty. What's the point of American citizenship when foreign nationals are participating in, and affecting the outcome of, our elections?

The most blatant example of this treason---and that's exactly what it is--- is that the Spitzer administration reversed a policy that would have prohibited the DMV from handing out motor-voter forms without receiving a Social Security number. So illegal alien and terrorist alike will now be able to obtain a license without a Social Security number, and use that license to vote. All of which is---let's say it again---illegal.

When our highest elected officials are so blinded by arrogance that they show open contempt for the oaths they took, the Republic is in serious jeopardy.

In the midst of the most dangerous time in our nation's history, our "leaders" go out of their way to aid and abet the enemy.

In case you're interested, the Governor's Mansion is in Albany.

I can't help but think that had the authorities done their job in the beginning, this might not have happened."

So said the cousin of one of the three soon-to-be college students who were ruthlessly gunned down, execution style, in Newark, N.J., last week.

She is wrong on one point. This definitely would not have happened.

Why? Because the alleged perpetrator was an illegal immigrant. However, he wasn't just any illegal alien. Jose Carranza had been indicted by grand juries twice already this year. Twice! And we're not talking misdemeanors. In April, the charges brought against him were aggravated assault and weapons charges. But it gets better. Last month, Carranza was slapped with a paltry 31 criminal counts, including child rape and endangering the welfare of a child. The child sexual assault began in 2003 when the girl was four, and it continued until he got arrested.

Illegal aliens never deserve bail, for reasons too obvious to state. However, when the judges did grant him bail, Carranza should have been thrown into an INS detention center the minute it was posted. Period.

This is yet another case where American citizens lost their lives at the hands of criminals who were in this country illegally - and whose status was known (or should have been known) to the authorities. One only has to flash back to Virginia Beach this past March, when two young girls' lives were snuffed out by an illegal immigrant driving drunk. An illegal who, like Carranza, had numerous prior arrests. For drunk driving, no less. How illegals get drivers' licenses is altogether incomprehensible.

By definition, anyone who is known to be an illegal alien should be immediately deported, no questions asked, no considerations given. Any illegal who is accused of a crime should be held until trial with zero possibility of bail and, if found innocent, immediately deported.

Which brings us to a key point. How is it that we do not give our law enforcement personnel a database whereby they can determine, in an instant, the legal status of someone they have reason to question? I do not advocate random searches and interrogations of people on the street just because they "look illegal." However, checking one's citizenship status should be mandatory procedure in all police actions. Should it be found that an individual is an illegal, he should be remanded to a holding facility until deportation can occur. And eliminate the bureaucracy -deportation should be within days.

Of course, we will have the bleeding-heart "America Second" corps sounding off that this New Jersey incident, while unfortunate, is not about illegal immigration at all but violence and murder. Geraldo Rivera led the chorus with the Virginia Beach tragedy, minimizing it to "just being about drunk driving."

It is time the American people stepped up on this issue.

The president, Congress and some local officials have let us down time and again, choosing political correctness and self-interests over enforcing existing law. Yes, existing law. Why not, for a change, try to execute the laws already on the books rather than legislating from the bench or throwing the burden of identifying illegal aliens on ill-equipped U.S. citizens? The government has made clear that it has willingly abdicated its responsibility of protecting the physical and economic well being of its citizens.

The threat of "terrorists" coming across our borders is not just from the likes of al-Qaida. The much more real threat is criminals coming to our shores with the lure of easy money. And what could be easier than robbing, and executing, three bright young minds?

Thank God the fourth victim lived to identify her attacker. Otherwise, Carranza would be continuing his reign of terror - with the full knowledge of our government.

Enough is enough.

It is ironic that, at a time when Americans are celebrating their unique freedoms, a war still rages in this country concerning illegal immigration. There is fiery debate about amnesty, deportation and the building of a wall on the border. In the spirit of Independence Day, I thought it would be interesting to take a step back from the fray and gain the perspective of someone who emigrated to the United States and became an American citizen - legally, and with requisite blood, sweat, and tears.

Danny Cachuela hails from the Philippines, but he calls Pennsylvania home. Utilizing his resourcefulness and education, he held various positions throughout his corporate career, including serving as CEO of an international corporation. Danny now leads a successful real estate team at Prudential Fox and Roach in Newtown Square.

These are his thoughts:

Freindly Fire: When did you and your wife, Vickie, become United States citizens? What made you decide to leave your native land to do so?

Danny Cachuela: We applied in November 1986, and we became U.S. citizens in September 1987. Why? Because we believed in the unlimited opportunity in the United States, and we wanted to live the American Dream.

FF: How long was the process?

DC: It took as about 10 years to become permanent residents and another five to become U.S. citizens.

FF: What was entailed?

DC: The process was really easy; the difficult part was the wait. Vickie came in January 1970 as an exchange visitor nurse and petitioned to become a permanent resident in December 1970. At that point, she was classified as a "petitioner." I came from Canada in 1971 as a Canadian tourist (but as a Philippine citizen). Vickie and I decided to get married. Thereafter, I sent a letter to the immigration office and applied for permanent residence as well. At that point, I was also classified as a "petitioner." As such, both Vickie and I were allowed to work but not allowed to leave the U.S. Our turn to become permanent residents did not come until September 1981, 10 years later (due to quota requirements), when both Vickie and I received our so-called "green cards." Additionally, because we were required to live continuously in the U.S. for five years before we could apply for U.S. citizenship (and could apply only after receiving the green card), we opted not leave the country for the next five years, either. We applied for citizenship in November 1986 and were naturalized in September 1987. In summary, we had to stay in the U.S. a total of 15 years before we received our citizenship.

FF: It's incomprehensible to most Americans to leave your family and homeland for a decade and a half. That is a tremendous sacrifice.

DC: It was extremely difficult, but it was worth every tear.

FF: What are your thoughts on the immigration debate in the U.S.?

DC: I believe that each issue should be decided separately. I agree with neither blanket amnesty nor mass deportation.

The way I see it, most of those who came illegally did it in order to survive, although there may be some who came with criminal intent. I understand that the end does not justify the means. However, if the United States did not implement its own laws, such as strengthening border security, we have only our government to blame for that. If you open the door, it must mean it's okay to come in. Many times we have laws that we do not enforce, so how do we expect others to follow it? The word "illegal" is only a word unless the law is actually implemented.

However, I do believe that those who came illegally should not be allowed to get away with it so easily. They must be given the chance to earn their "residence" as well as "citizenship." One suggestion I heard is to make them pay (or perhaps "contribute" is a more suitable word) a fine that is commensurate with what they earn and use that money to fund strengthening our borders.

I believe that illegal immigrants should be required to apply for residence and citizenship in the same process that others had (and have) to go through, including the same time requirements. However, I do not believe in mass deportation because most of these people also contribute to our society. In fact, I don't know what the economic impact would be of a mass deportation. Many of these people are doing work that our citizens are not willing to do (for such a low pay rate) and at a rate that our businesses enjoy. If you think about it, who in the United States today are really the "natural" Americans? Remember that our forefathers were immigrants who forced themselves into this country. I also strongly believe that the so-called illegals should be required to learn how to speak English. To me, that's just common sense.

FF: What message do you feel an amnesty program sends to both Americans and foreigners?

DC: It becomes an open justification to ignore the law and that crime pays. Many who did not do what these illegals did will feel that they should have done something similar, sooner, to have taken advantage of the amnesty. And we don't want that. Again, blanket amnesty just does not make sense.

FF: A wall on the southern border has been funded for some time but not built. What does that say to you?

DC: That is what I was referring to when I say that our government is to blame due to neglect. So, why penalize others now for our own government's fault? We do many things (using security guards, building security fences, etc.) to deter the commission of a crime, not necessarily to catch those who commit crime. Why did we not do it? Between the immigrants and our government, I would blame our government more.

FF: Have you seen evidence that illegals working in the U.S. depress U.S. workers' wages?

DC: Numbers wise, I don't know how I could say that it does not - but probably not to any significant degree. My first reaction is to say that it did not depress U.S. worker's wages. However, if the illegals were not here to accept low wages, and our citizen workers are not willing to do the same job for the same low wage, I guess it would force employers to pay higher wages. However, I do not believe that the impact is anything significant. This is especially true today with our allowing jobs to be outsourced overseas to achieve the same result.

I believe that these are people who are willing to do the work that we are not willing to do. So, why not let them do it - but as legal, documented immigrants. I do not believe in job protection; I believe in being competitive. I came to this country knowing that I will be at a disadvantage because I am a foreigner. Meanwhile, citizens see it differently, meaning that I have an advantage for being a minority. I don't think so. I am always willing to compete by making myself better. In fact, I remember asking my employer when I first joined Sunoco if he was offering me the position just to meet their EOE quota. [i]I told him that if that were the reason, I would not join the company because I wanted to be hired for my capability.[/i] Of course, today I probably will not ask that question and will be happy to be given the opportunity to prove myself once I'm in. That was my youth then, but it showed the kind of principle, thinking and mentality I had as a foreign worker. Again, I felt I was at a disadvantage - not the other way around.

FF: Are illegals a threat to national security?

DC: I would not go that far to generalize this, although it certainly presents some threat. I say this because we have had illegals for years, but we feel this way now only because of recent events and conditions. Also, those who compromise our national security have the sole purpose of committing terrorist acts; I would not link them to the so-called "illegals."

FF: Turning back the clock, and given what you know now, would you do it again?

DC: Absolutely!

Supporters of the proposed immigration reform bill say that it does not provide amnesty to the 12 million illegal aliens currently residing in the United States.

Not being all that smart, I decided to look up the definition of "amnesty."

New Webster's Dictionary defines it as "a general pardon of offenses against a government."

Great. Now everything makes perfect sense. At least in Bizarro World.

Under the proposed system, illegals will be allowed to stay in America indefinitely, and they would be eligible to receive Medicare and Social Security benefits (even though they have paid no taxes into the system).

Oh, and of course, they would be immune from deportation, since they would be here - let me stress this - legally.

How was it possible for a country to grant legal status to illegal aliens (who willfully broke United States law), yet not call that "amnesty"? Perhaps more disturbing, how is it that any high school civics student can see the inherent contradictions therein, but presidential contender John McCain cannot?

If one broke the law of this country, that would be classified as an "offense against a government." If said lawbreaker was then given rights and privileges (legal status) with no fear of reprisal for breaking the law, that would be considered a "pardon" by the offended government.

In other words, "amnesty".

So there we have it - it is an amnesty bill, by any reasonable definition. Note: Geraldo Rivera's opinion doesn't count, given that he continually refers to illegals as "law-abiding people." Geraldo, I love you, but some day you're going to have to realize that you're a complete moron, not to mention a coward.

The preposterous bill does not end its damage with simple amnesty, however. It gets worse.

As stated, it allows the former illegals to automatically be eligible for Medicare and Social Security benefits, which is quite interesting given that they haven't paid taxes in the past, and would not be required to pay any back taxes. It's bad enough that both of these systems are already on the verge of bankruptcy, but when the newly legalized workers are factored in, the additional cost becomes an incomprehensible $2.5 trillion (that's trillion with a "tr").

These individuals will have walloped American citizens with a triple whammy. First, their numbers in the workforce have already driven down American worker wages and benefits, and that downward pressure will increase exponentially with this bill. Second, virtually all state governments will provide education, medical and welfare benefits to the newly-minted 12 million, not just the current states that currently administer such insane policies. Last, the American taxpayer will be forced to pay mammoth tax increases to cover the federal systems once the former illegals start retiring. That makes sense - the newest beneficiaries will have contributed squat, but will collect benefits, while hardworking Americans will be forced to postpone retirement, and live perilously close to the edge when they do. And forget the future for young Americans entering the workforce now - they are contributing to a system that simply won't exist when they want to retire.

This bill is so off the mark that those who wrote it should be thrown into an asylum for stupidity. Perhaps the most ludicrous provision is the one requiring illegal immigrants to pay a $5,000 fine as part of the amnesty deal. $5,000? In many cases, this amounts to more than half an illegal's yearly income. If they can't afford to pay that now, they certainly won't be able to do so once they become part of America's onerous tax system. Given this knowledge, how many illegals will actually register?

Unless you're a U.S. senator, you intrinsically know the answer is "very, very few."

What about enforcement of the new regulations? The United States can't even enforce the laws on the books now, yet we expect the government bureaucracy to efficiently process 12 to 20 million more people?

How about efficiency? Congress approved funding for a wall along the southern border, yet it has not been built. Two years ago, the Border Patrol was authorized to expand to 20,000 agents, yet it continues to languish, hopelessly overworked, at only 60 percent of that goal. The government has absolutely no idea who is actually in this country because it violates political correctness if we ask.

And as far as requiring English proficiency, and English being declared the official language, forget it. What's the point when we have already accommodated illegals by becoming a bilingual country, with even voting ballots being printed in English and Spanish. What a fantastic way to assimilate immigrants into the English-speaking American society!

The biggest travesty of all is the body blow to all the individuals who, seeking a new life in America, chose the lawful and moral path to legal immigration and citizenship. All of their blood, sweat and tears will be effectively wiped out by granting avowed law-breakers amnesty.

The message is plain and simple: if you are loud enough in crying "victimhood," bold enough in breaking U.S. law and disrespectful enough regarding the sovereignty of America, you will get what you want. Law-abiding legal immigrants be damned!

At some point, a country that refuses to protect its borders ceases being a sovereign nation. America's clock is ticking.