Immigration

The DCI position is that the borders should be secured to stop drug/sex/weapons trafficking as well as terrorist infiltration. Widespread Democrat voter fraud necessitates eVerify. Remittances should also be taxed. However, such changes should be accompanied by commonsense reforms as well, including at a minimum a national apology for the Mexican Repatriation and citizenship for military veterans.

Need for Securing the Borders
The drug cartels are killing thousands on both sides of the border, and drug overdoses take thousands more lives every year. For purposes of national sovereignty a nation must have defined borders. Securing the border is essential to stopping weapons/drugs/sex trafficking as well as terrorist infiltration. Millions of American youth have their lives destroyed as they become enslaved to drugs.

Nationwide Drug Epidemic
Over 70,000 Americans die each year from drug overdose. Furthermore, most drugs cross illegally in the form of Marijuana, a gateway drug that leads to other addictions; between border checkpoints rather than at them. Nor is it just Americans who are suffering. Mexico reached a record high in murders in 2018, driven by drug cartel violence. It is in the best interests of both countries and their people that the border be secured.

Terrorist Infiltration
Since 2001, 157 people on terrorist watch lists have been apprehended attempting to cross the border illegally. It is a matter of national security that the border be secured for the protection of the American people.

Fair Treatment of Immigrants
People who hate immigrants cannot call themselves Christians. God repeatedly said throughout the Bible to treat immigrants (KJV strangers) fairly. It is one of the clearest teachings in the Bible.

Exodus 22:21 Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

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.

Deuteronomy 24:17 Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, nor of the fatherless; nor take a widow's raiment to pledge:

Deuteronomy 24:19 When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hands.

Deuteronomy 27:19 Cursed be he that perverteth the judgment of the stranger, fatherless, and widow. And all the people shall say, Amen.

Jeremiah 7:6 If ye oppress not the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, and shed not innocent blood in this place, neither walk after other gods to your hurt: 7 Then will I cause you to dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers, for ever and ever.

Ezekiel 22:29 The people of the land have used oppression, and exercised robbery, and have vexed the poor and needy: yea, they have oppressed the stranger wrongfully.

Matthew 25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

See Exodus 12:49; 22:21; 23:12; Leviticus 19:10, 33-34; 23:22; 24:22; Numbers 15:16, 29; Deuteronomy 1:16; 10:18; 14:29; 16:11-14; 23:7; 24:14-21; 26:11-13; 27:19; 31:12; 1 Chronicles 16:19; 29:15; 2 Chronicles 6:32-33; Psalms 39:12; 94:6; 146:9; Jeremiah 7:6; 22:3; Ezekiel 22:7, 29; Obadiah 1:12; Zechariah 7:10; Malachi 3:5; Matthew 25:35-44; Luke 17:18; Acts 13:17; Ephesians 2:19; 1 Timothy 5:10; Hebrews 11:13; 13:2; 1 Peter 2:11; 3 John 1:5; and James 5:1-11.

Israelites Were Immigrants
GOD reminded the Israelites that they themselves were immigrants in the Egypt. (Ex. 22:21; Lev. 19:34; 25:23; De. 10:19; 16:12; 23:7; 26:5) The Israelites were an unusual people which throughout their history ended up as immigrants in foreign lands, and have continued that trend to the present day; having become dispersed throughout all nations following the Babylonian Captivity. (1 Chr. 29:10; Psalms 39:12) Christians themselves are described as foreigners, pilgrims in the Earth since Earth is not their home. (Heb. 11:13; 1 Pe. 2:11) Furthermore, a number of major patriarchs in the Bible were immigrants:


 * Abraham: Abraham was a stranger or foreigner in the lands he traveled through, and stated as much when asking the people of Heth for a place to bury his relatives. (Genesis 23:3-4) Abraham was also told by GOD that his descendants would be strangers in a land not theirs, Egypt, for 400 years. (Genesis 15:13)
 * Isaac: Isaac described himself and Jacob as strangers in the land, or foreigners/migrants. (Genesis 28:4-5; 37:1)
 * Jacob (Israel): See previous.
 * Joseph: Joseph was sold into slavery in Egypt, spending his life in a foreign land. (Genesis 37:28,36)
 * Moses: Moses, born a prince in the land of Egypt, was forced to flee after killing an Egyptian slavemaster, and lived his life in exile in the land of Midian. For that reason he called his son Gershom 'for he said, I have been a stranger in a strange land.' (Exodus 2:22; 18:3; Acts 17:29)
 * David: David stated that he and the Israelites, like their forefathers, were all immigrants and travelers through foreign lands. (1 Chronicles 29:10; Psalms 39:12) David also reiterates that he is a stranger or foreigner in Psalms 119:19. David was forced to stay in neighboring lands while in exile from Saul, including Moab (1 Samuel 22:3-5) and Gath. (1 Samuel 27)
 * Ruth: She was a stranger in Israel who migrated after her husband died. (Ru. 2:10)
 * Jesus: Jesus's parents, Joseph and Mary, fled with Him to Egypt when He was young after Herod attempted to kill Him, where they stayed until Herod died. (Mt. 2:15; Ho. 11:1)

Genesis 23:3-4 ¶ And Abraham stood up from before his dead, and spake unto the sons of Heth, saying, I am a stranger and a sojourner with you: give me a possession of a buryingplace with you, that I may bury my dead out of my sight.

Genesis 28:4-5 And give thee the blessing of Abraham, to thee, and to thy seed with thee; that thou mayest inherit the land wherein thou art a stranger, which God gave unto Abraham. And Isaac sent away Jacob: and he went to Padanaram unto Laban, son of Bethuel the Syrian, the brother of Rebekah, Jacob's and Esau's mother.

Exodus 2:21-22 And Moses was content to dwell with the man: and he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter. And she bare him a son, and he called his name Gershom: for he said, I have been a stranger in a strange land.

Exodus 18:3 And her two sons; of which the name of the one was Gershom; for he said, I have been an alien in a strange land:

1 Chronicles 29:10 ¶ Wherefore David blessed the LORD before all the congregation: and David said, Blessed be thou, LORD God of Israel our father, for ever and ever... For we are strangers before thee, and sojourners, as were all our fathers: our days on the earth are as a shadow, and there is none abiding.

Psalms 39:12 Hear my prayer, O LORD, and give ear unto my cry; hold not thy peace at my tears: for I am a stranger with thee, and a sojourner, as all my fathers were.

Hebrews 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

1 Peter 2:11 Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;

Stricter Language Requirements
While a Biblical basis exists for treating foreigners fairly, there is also precedent for expecting foreigners to integrate into society, adapting to the culture. Foreigners or strangers staying in Israel were expected to:


 * Have all male children circumcised. (Ex. 12:48)
 * Keep the Passover. (Ex. 12:48; Nu. 9:14) They first had to be circumcised before they could eat it and be treated as an Israelite. (Ex. 12:43)

Exodus 12:48-49 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

Israelites were repeatedly and consistently ordered to have the same laws for foreigners as for those born in the land. (Ex. 12:49; Lev. 19:34; 24:22; Nu. 9:14; 15:15-16,29-30) This included:


 * A prohibition of working on the Sabbath to let them rest (De. 5:14; Ex. 20:10; 23:12)
 * A prohibition of working on Yom Kippur (Le. 16:29)
 * A prohibition of eating food with the blood (Le. 17:12)
 * Quarantine and washing for those eating animals which died apart from human intervention (Le. 17:15)
 * A prohibition on committing incest, adultery, child sacrifice, homosexuality, or bestiality (Le. 18)
 * Leaving portions of one's fields unreaped for them and the poor to gather from (Le. 23:22; De. 24:19-21)
 * Sharing the food from each 7th year with them and the poor (Le. 25:6)
 * The death penalty for blaspheming GOD's name (Le. 24:16)
 * Allowing sin offerings to be made for them by the priests (Nu. 15:26)
 * Allowing them to flee to sanctuary cities as refuges for those who had mistakenly killed another person (Jos. 20:9; Nu. 35:15)
 * Righteous judgment in court of law (De. 1:16; 24:17; 27:19)
 * Allowing them to share in three-year tithes of food for them, Levites, orphans, and widows (De. 14:29; 26:12-13)
 * Allowing them to share in the feast of weeks along with the Levites, orphans, and widows (De. 16:11)

However, foreigners that had not been circumcised were not to be given the Passover (Ex. 12:43), make or eat burnt offerings (Ex. 29:33), be priests (Ex. 30:33; Le. 22:10,25), have relatives that were priests (Le. 22:12), or come near the temple (Nu. 1:51; 3:10,38; 18:4,7). They could be lent to with usury. (De. 23:20) However once circumcised and keeping the Passover (Ex. 12:48) they could make offerings to the LORD. (Le. 15:14) Nonetheless only Levites directly descended from Aaron could be priests offering incense. (Nu. 16:40)

As such, an expectation that foreigners integrate into society by adapting to the culture and language is entirely reasonable. 'A house divided cannot stand' as Jesus pointed out. (Mt. 12:25) For the sake of cohesion, a nation should stand united in language and culture to large degree; lest divisions break the nation apart. As such, foreigners immigrating to the U.S. should be able to speak English and pass an American civics/history test showing they will integrate into American society.

Return Troops to Guard the Borders
It would be far more cost-effective for U.S. troops to spend their time guarding U.S. borders than overseas. Spending on national defense in 2018 is 15.8% of the U.S. budget ($656.3 billion). After health and retirement, military spending is the third-largest expense in the U.S. budget.

However, only 22.7% of the national defense budget is spent on 'Military Personnel' ($146.1 billion) and only 11.29% is spent on 'Research, Development, Test and Evaluation.' ($74.1 billion) The majority of military spending relates to direct war costs unrelated to payroll or research. 'Operation and Maintenance' is 39.42% of the defense budget ($258.7 billion) and 'Procurement' is 18.94% ($124.3 billion). As such a total of $383 billion in defense spending could be reduced by simply paying U.S. troops to do something more cost-effective like guarding the borders which would require less spending on operations, maintenance, and procurement.

Furthermore, returning troops to guard the borders would give a boost to U.S. employment. Troops would now be spending their salaries here in the U.S., creating jobs here instead of overseas. Adding thousands of employed consumers to the economy could do nothing but help.

Tax Remittances
Remittances, immigrants sending billions of U. S. dollars overseas to other countries, is a serious problem that costs the U.S. billions of dollars each year. In 2017 alone, $148.5 billion was sent overseas in the form of remittances. This should really be taxed, and could be used to fund a border wall.

Need for eVerify: Democrat Voter Fraud

 * See Voter Fraud

Obama in April 2014 falsely claimed that "The real voter fraud is people who try to deny our rights by making bogus arguments about voter fraud." However, contrary to Obama's lies, Democrat voter fraud has been pervasive and consistent under his administration. The Republican National Lawyers Association has catalogued nearly 200 cases of Democrat voter fraud just since 2011. Some of the more prominent examples of Democrat voter fraud in recent years include:


 * Four Indiana Democrats charged with election fraud for helping put Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the ballot in Indiana in 2008.


 * Wendy Rosen, a Democrat running for Maryland's 1st Congressional District, resigned in September of 2012, and pled guilty in 2013 to voting illegally in two elections. Rosen was sentenced to five years’ probation and a $5,000 fine.

“Today, we have a new example of just how far prominent people will go to commit voter fraud. Wendy Rosen, who until last September was the Democratic nominee in Maryland’s Eastern Shore congressional district, was just indicted for voting in both Florida and Maryland since at least 2006. Each of the two counts she was indicted on carry a possible sentence of up to five years in jail and a fine of $2,500. Nor is Rosen the only candidate for Congress who has become, shall we say, personally involved in stuffing the ballot box. A few years ago, former Democratic congressman Austin Murphy of Pennsylvania pleaded guilty to illegally entering nursing homes and overly ‘assisting’ incapacitated voters with filling out ballots.”

-John Fund, National Review


 * The 2008 ACORN national scandal had numerous cases of Democrat voter fraud across the United States leading to 18 convictions. In Philadelphia alone 1,500 fraudulent voter registrations were submitted.


 * Al Franken, the Senator who gave Democrats their supermajority in 2009, won through a recount where 12,000 absentee ballots were thrown out. According to the New York Times, “Mr. Franken won by 312 votes, while state officials rejected 12,000 absentee ballots.” Despite trailing at the end of the election, thousands of mysterious absentee ballots emerged after the elections had closed to given Franken the victory and Democrats complete control of Congress, allowing them to pass any legislation they wanted without Republican votes.

“But the team's real goldmine were absentee ballots, thousands of which the Franken team claimed had been mistakenly rejected. While Mr. Coleman's lawyers demanded a uniform standard for how counties should re-evaluate these rejected ballots, the Franken team ginned up an additional 1,350 absentees from Franken-leaning counties. By the time this treasure hunt ended, Mr. Franken was 312 votes up, and Mr. Coleman was left to file legal briefs.”

-The Wall Street Journal


 * The Chief of Staff for Florida State Representative Joe Garcia, Jeffrey Garcia (no relation) resigned on May 31st, 2013 for manipulating the 2012 Florida elections with hundreds of fake absentee ballots.


 * James Webb Baker of Seattle pleaded guilty to one count of voter intimidation and one count of identification fraud for sending fake letters to 200 Republican Party donors in Florida warning them they would be arrested if voting.


 * The son and Director of Field Operations for Democrat Representative Jim Moran resigned from his campaign in October of 2012 after being caught on video explaining how to use voter fraud to help Obama win the election. The Congressman’s son Patrick Moran can be seen on recorded video saying “Bank statement would obviously be tough, but they can fake a utility bill easily enough, you know?” Moran's son endorsed a scheme to fraudulently vote on behalf of 100 people.


 * A Democrat State Representative in Massachusetts, Stephen Smith, pled guilty to charges of voter fraud in December of 2012. Smith used fraudulent absentee ballots in both 2009 and 2010. According to the FBI's report Smith's plea agreement required that he resign from office on January 1st, 2013, and he will not be eligible to run for office for five years afterward.


 * In March 2013 a Democrat poll worker, Melowese Richardson, was indicted for voting illegally at least six times in the 2012 elections, along with illegal votes in both 2008 and 2011. Richardson defended her illegal actions by saying, “I'll fight it for Mr. Obama and Mr. Obama's right to sit as president of the United States.” Also indicted for illegal voting were Marguerite Kloos and Russell Glassop. A year later Al Sharpton honored Melowese Richardson at a rally after she was released early from a 5-year prison sentence, going so far as to hug her for committing voter fraud to help Obama win.


 * In February 2014 a Philadelphia election worker was arrested for tampering with voting machines during the November 2013 election. Dianah Gregory, a Democrat, forced her way into an election booth to write her name on another voter’s ballot for the position of election judge, and wrote her name on the side of the booth. She has since been sentenced to 15 months’ probation, fined $5,000, and is required to perform 15 hours of community service.


 * Eight different Democrat officials stand accused of voter fraud in the 2009 Working Families Primary, and as of January 2012, four of them had pleaded guilty to falsifying absentee ballots. Hundreds of faked ballots, as well as forgery instruments, were uncovered by the investigation.


 * In September 2012 Democrat State Representative Hudson Hallum pleaded guilty to bribing voters with chicken dinners and cheap vodka for their absentee ballots in a 2011 election. Also pleading guilty were two other Democrats, his father Kent Hallum and West Memphis City Councilman Phillip Wayne Carter; as well as a West Memphis Police Officer named Sam Malone. Hallum was ultimately sentenced to three years’ probation including nine months of home confinement, fined $20,000, and ordered to perform 100 hours of community service.

Mexico Requires Photo ID to Vote, Why Don't We?
Mexico requires holographic voter IDs with thumbprints be shown in order to vote, yet here in the U.S. we have not yet caught up to the electoral advances of Mexico. It makes no sense that the country from whom all the immigration comes requires photo I.D. to vote, with holograms and thumbprints no less, but here in the U.S. such sensible measures are rejected. They are perfectly reasonable requirements needed to stop widespread Democrat Voter Fraud.

Border Wall Executive Order Constitutionality
Senator Thom Tillis, a Republican, questioned whether or not Donald Trump's emergency executive order for border wall funding is constitutional, given that it bypasses Congress.

“Conservatives rightfully cried foul when President Barack Obama used executive action to completely bypass Congress. There is no intellectual honesty in now turning around and arguing that there’s an imaginary asterisk attached to executive overreach — that it’s acceptable for my party but not thy party.”

As a general rule, the Defending Conservatism Institute opposes wide-reaching executive orders. Considerable thought was given to whether such an executive order constituted executive overreach before endorsing the order. And it is true that conservatives, including myself, have criticized Obama for far-reaching executive orders in the past, and rightfully so.

So what makes this executive order different? Frankly, it has statutory basis, which is the gold standard for the constitutionality of executive orders, as previously noted by Karl Rove.

"But when it comes to the execution of the laws passed by Congress, the statutes, a president must first and foremost look whenever they take an executive action, an executive order, for example, they must look for, is there a statutory basis to do so?"

-Karl Rove

Congress deliberately gave the President wide-ranging authority to declare national emergencies in the 1976 National Emergencies Act. If it does not agree with giving him that power, the correct, constitutional method to remove it is to pass a new law revoking the Act, and override the Presidential veto if necessary.

Now, as to the Constitutionality of the Act, Congress can clearly vest authority in the President when it comes to the appointment of inferior officers per Article II, Sec. 2. Whether it can vest its own constitutional legislative/law-making authority in the President (per Article I, Sec. 1) is a bit murkier. Hobwever, numerous Presidents have been using the national emergency power for decades, they have been passing executive orders, and of course numerous Cabinet bureaus and departments exercise powers that arguably include those which are Constitutionally delegated to the Legislative branch in Article I, Sec. 8.

“but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

If there is a clearer question about the declaration’s constitutionality, it involves the use of revenue raising powers. According to the Constitution’s Article I, Sec. 7, all bills for raising revenue are to start in the House of Representatives. However, the National Emergencies Act itself passes that test, since it started in the House.

“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

The question however, is whether Presidential emergency declarations are skirting the requirement of taxes starting with the House of Representatives. Nonetheless, if Senators (including Thom Tillis) were concerned with that question, they should have repealed the Affordable Care Act, since first of all, it did not even start in the House, and secondly it was only upheld as constitutional (by Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts no less) under the justification that it was a tax. The courts then rejected the argument that the ACA was unconstitutional because it was a tax yet did not start in the House.

Furthermore, many of the ACA’s provisions were comprised of executive orders apart from Congressional statutes. Congress, including the Senate, has shown no interest over the past two years in getting rid of Obamacare. It is a little late to suddenly show outrage over an executive order that, unlike those with the ACA, explicitly derives its authority from legislation delegating that authority as passed by Congress. I have no issue with any Congressmen who oppose the executive order on grounds that it gives the President too much power. This is a complex enough issue for there to be room in both opposing and supporting the declaration.

Executive orders have arguably been used to usurp authority from the Legislative branch in recent years, and at some point will need to be curtailed by Congress. However, Congress specifically authorized the President’s national emergency authority in 1976, and if it wants that authority removed, it should accept responsibility for delegating it in the first place, and act to more clearly refine that power through new legislation.

A Statutory Basis
Even aside from the fact that the border situation would seemingly qualify as a national emergency at a time when the drug overdose epidemic is of national concern (over 70,000 people died last year alone from drug overdose ), an executive order to secure the border is arguably consistent with other legislation already passed by Congress, including:


 * The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 “ which, among other things, explicitly gave the Attorney General (now the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security) broad authority to construct barriers along the border and authorized the construction of a secondary layer of fencing to buttress the completed 14-mile primary fence.”
 * The Secure Fence Act of 2006 which authorized 700 miles of fencing along the border. The chain link fencing was, for all intents and purposes, a ‘wall.’US-Mexico border fence.jpg
 * The REAL ID Act of 2005 “that authorized the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to waive all legal requirements in order to expedite the construction of border barriers.”
 * The Border Tunnel Prevention Act of 2012 which sought to limit the use of tunnels across the border.

It makes no sense for Congress and the courts to oppose an executive order which clearly has more statutory basis and constitutionality than Obamacare executive orders unless doing so is for political reasons.

How to Pass Immigration Reform
An immigration reform bill is more likely to pass if accompanied by at least some of the following commonsense measures:

Mexican Repatriation Apology
Roughly 2 million American citizens of hispanic heritage were deported into Mexico to free up jobs during the Great Depression, a wrong the United States has never apologized for. A simple apology for that wrong would do much to mend bridges with the hispanic community. A further good faith effort would be creation of a public department to assist hispanics in examining public records to determine who is descended from former U.S. citizens.

Citizenship for Military Veterans
One would think military veterans would automatically become U.S. citizens but hundreds of veterans have been deported, including Daniel Torres (U.S. Marines), Marco Antonio Chavez (U.S. Marines), Hector Barajas-Varela (Paratrooper), Erasmo Apodaca, and Miguel Perez (U.S. Army).

Citizenship for Native Americans
Another commonsense reform would be to allow those who can provide evidence of ancestry from U.S. Native American tribes (e.g. genealogical or genetic testing) to become U.S. citizens. A possible test would be 1/16th blood quantum, a common standard for joining Native American tribes, although 1/8th or 1/4 are possible alternatives as well.

Most hispanics are a combination of Native Americans and Spanish conquistadors so many may have the same ancestry as those on reservations. Because Mexico owned the states of Texas, California, New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma, Nevada, and Wyoming prior to the Mexican-American War, there will be overlap between many Mexicans and U. S. Native American tribes, so they could reasonably apply for status due to their Native American ancestry on a case-by-case basis. Some hispanic families have lived on their land in U.S. states before the land even belonged to the United States.

Immigrant Crime Statistics
It is commonly and falsely claimed that illegal immigrants, particularly hispanics, commit a substantial amount of crime. Actual crime statistics show otherwise. Immigrants in general commit less crime, likely due to more conservative upbringings.

Racial Crime Statistics
Even though there are similar levels of poverty among hispanics as among blacks, and there are more hispanics than blacks, hispanics do not commit nearly as much violent crime or murders as blacks. For example, blacks make up 13.4% of the U.S. population yet account for 52.6% of all murders and non-negligent manslaughter. Hispanics account for 18.1% of the U.S. population yet account for just 20.0% of all murders and non-negligent manslaughter.

Yes, to a degree the racial distinctions are just indicative of racial differences in poverty. Poorer people tend to commit more crime because of their environments and circumstances (and richer people tend to get off the hook even when caught for crimes like embezzlement because they can pay off a judge). However, hispanics have nearly comparable poverty levels to blacks yet do not commit even half as much crime as blacks do. Since many illegal immigrants are hispanics, the statistics suggest they are much less likely to commit crime than black U.S.-born citizens.

The following table shows how much crime each race commits in proportion to the percentage of the population they make up. For example, blacks commit 52.6% of all murders but are just 13.4% of the population, so they are 3.93 times as likely to commit murder as their percentage of the population (52.6% / 13.4%), whereas hispanics commit 20.0% of all murders but are 18.1% of the population, so they are 1.11 times as likely to commit murder as their percentage of the population. This allows for easy comparison between races when it comes to crime. For example, blacks are 3.55 times more likely to commit murder than hispanics are (3.925 / 1.105).

Ironically, Democrats are advocating reparations solely to benefit African-Americans while ignoring Hispanics, Native Americans, and other groups; even as a number of leading African-Americans demonize Hispanics as criminals, even though African-Americans commit far more crime than Hispanics despite being fewer in number.

Labor Statistics
No, immigrants are not freeloaders. On any construction site, warehouse, or factory they are over-represented relative to their 18.1% population percentage, doing the hardest, most undesirable jobs. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, adult male hispanics are easily the most likely group to be employed, as measured by the employment-population ratio, at 77.1%. They are over-represented in:


 * Painters, construction and maintenance, comprising 53% of all workers.
 * Miscellaneous agricultural workers, comprising 51% of all workers.
 * Maids and housekeeping cleaners, comprising 49% of all workers.
 * Natural resources, construction and maintenance, comprising 28% of all workers.

"Among employed men, Hispanics were more likely to work in the construction industry (20 percent) than were Whites (13 percent), Blacks (7 percent), or Asians (3 percent)."

-Bureau of Labor Statistics

They are paid low wages for doing the hardest work to make American society operate, and are constantly mistreated, exploited, and underpaid by unscrupulous employers. They get charged billions of dollars for benefits like Social Security through payroll and excise taxes which they will never have access to, to the extent that they are a main reason Social Security isn't even more bankrupt than it is.

Mexican Abolition, Mexican-American War
It is little-known that the Mexican-American War occurred because Mexico outlawed slavery. As Frederick Douglass pointed out in his address at Belfast Ireland, Mexico originally opened its borders to modern-day Texas (then part of Mexico) because it had too much land and not enough settlers. Numerous Americans came in, many of them bringing their slaves. However, Mexico then outlawed slavery in 1829. The ex-American slaveholders attempted to circumvent this by declaring slaves indentured servants, but this too was outlawed by Mexico. Furious, the settlers, led by Sam Austin, petitioned the U.S. government, claiming that Texas wanted to cede from Mexico. U.S. President James Polk, along with the Democratic Party, acceded to the request, knowing that more slave states were needed to protect the institution of slavery at a time when free states were beginning to outnumber the slave states. Thus the U.S. started a war with Mexico to create more slave states out of the captured territory (Texas, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arizona, and Colorado).

Polk sent U.S. troops to the border between the U.S. and Texas to start a war, and then falsely claimed that Mexican troops attacked first. As a result, three U.S. Presidents all condemned the Mexican-American War because of Democrats' dishonesty in starting a war on false pretenses in the name of slavery, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, and John Quincy Adams. Ulysses S. Grant even expressed the view that the Civil War was God's divine punishment upon America for its unjust actions in the Mexican-American War, stating, "Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times."

To quote Frederick Douglass:

"They accordingly took their families and slaves to Texas, from the blighted and blasted fields of Virginia—fields once fertile as any under Heaven—(hear)—and which would have still remained so had they not been cursed by the infernal spirit of slavery. We do not hear of much confusion in Texas, until 1828 or 1829, when Mexico after having erected herself into a separate government and declared herself free, with a consistency which puts to the blush the boasted “land of freedom,” proclaimed the deliverance of every captive on her soil. Unlike the boasted republic of America, she did this at an immense cost to her own slaveholders—not proclaiming liberty with her lips, while she fastened chains on the slave—not securing liberty for her own children but also for the degraded bondsman of Africa. This act of the Mexican government was resisted at once by the settlers who had carried their slaves into Texas, though they were bound by a solemn agreement to submit to the laws of Mexico. They remonstrated with the government. They said their slaves were too ignorant and degraded to be emancipated. The Mexican government, desirous to treat amicably with those whom it had welcomed to its bosom, listened to this remonstrance, and consented that the Texian slaves should be only gradually emancipated under a system of indentured apprenticeship. Even this restriction was evaded by the Texians, making the indentures binding for 99 years. In fact they showed themselves to be a set of swindlers. Well, Mexico attempted an enforcement of her law, making it impossible for any man to hold an apprentice more than ten years. This was resisted on the plea that the slaves would not be fit for freedom even then. One would think ten years long enough to teach them the value of liberty, but these wise Americans could not understand how that could be the case. The Texians still persisted in holding their slaves, contrary to the express declaration of their legislature—contrary to the law of the land—to drive them before the biting lash to their hard tasks, day after day, without wages. Again, the Mexican Government attempted to enforce its law, but then Texas revolts—defies the law—and calls upon the people of the United States to aid her in, what they termed their struggle for religious liberty! Yes, they said they could not worship God according to the dictates of their conscience, alluding to the contract entered into by them as professing Roman Catholics. I am not prepared to say whether that contract was a righteous one or not, but, I do say, that after possessing themselves of the land, on the faith of their being Roman Catholics, they should be the last to complain on that score. If they had been honest, they would have said, in regard to their religious opinions, “We have changed our minds; we feel we cannot longer belong to the Church of Rome; we cannot, according to our contract, worship God as our conscience dictates; many of us are Methodists—many are Presbyterians; if you will allow us to worship God as we think right, we will stay in the soil; if not, we feel compelled to abandon it, and seek some other place.” That is the way that common honesty would force them to act, but the people of the United States—and here is one of the darkest acts of their whole history—understanding the terms upon which the Texians had obtained the territory, and well-knowing the exact nature of the contract—offered them the means of successfully resisting Mexico—afforded them arms and ammunition, and even the men who. at San Jacinto, wrested the territory from the rightful owners. Here was an act of national robbery perpetrated, and for what? For the re-establishment of slavery on a soil which had been washed pure from its polluting influence by the generous act of a “semibarbarous” people! The man who goes into your ship on the high seas, puts out the captain, takes down the ensign and declares himself the owner—is no greater robber than the people of the United States. And what are their excuses, their apologies, their reasons—for they always give reasons for what they do? One of them is, that Mexico is unable to defend her territory, and that therefore they have a right to take it! What do you think of a great heavy-fisted fellow pouncing on every little man he meets, and giving as his reason that the little man is unable to take care of himself? We don’t see this pretext made use of in the case of Canada. Mexico, nevertheless, is a sister republic, which has taken that of the United States for a model. But Mexico is a weak government, and that is the reason America falls on her—the British territories are safe because England is strong. Oh, how superlatively base—how mean—how dastardly—do the American people appear in the light of justice—of reason—of liberty—when this particular point of her conduct is exposed! But here there was a double point to be gained—on the part of the Southern planters to establish and cultivate large plantations in the South—and on that of the Northern ones, to support what Daniel O’Connell says should not be called the internal, but the infernal, slave-trade, which is said to be worse than the foreign slave-trade, for it allows men to seize upon those who have sported with them on the hills, and played with them at school, and are associated with them in so many ways and under so many interesting circumstances. This is more horrible still than to prowl along the African shore and carry off thence men with whose faces at least we are unfamiliar, and to whose characters we are strangers. Still the chief object of the Annexation of Texas was the quickening of the foreign slave-trade, which is the very jugular vein of slavery, and of which, if kept within narrow limits, we would soon be rid. But the cry of slavery is ever “Give, give, give!” That cry is heard from New England to Virginia. It goes on, leaving a blighted soil behind—leaving the fields which it found fertile and luxuriant, covered with stunted pines. From Virginia it has gone to North Carolina, and from that to South Carolina, leaving ruin in its train, and now it seizes on the fertile regions of Texas, where it had been previously abolished by a people whom we are wont to call semi-civilized. They say they only want to increase their commerce, and add to their security. Oh what a reason to give for plunder! The pirate of the high seas might make the same excuse." -Frederick Douglass, 1846

Opposition by U.S. Presidents and Republican Party
“Before long, however, the same people -- who with permission of Mexico had colonized Texas, and afterwards set up slavery there, and then seceded as soon as they felt strong enough to do so -- offered themselves and the State to the United States, and in 1845 their offer was accepted. The occupation, separation and annexation were, from the inception of the movement to its final consummation, a conspiracy to acquire territory out of which slave states might be formed for the American Union… The Southern rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican war. Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times.”

-President Ulysses S. Grant

"You have been, if you are not now, at the very point of a war with Mexico — a war, I am sorry to say, so far as public rumor may be credited, stimulated by provocations on our part, from the very commencement of this administration, down to the recent authority given to General Gaines to invade the Mexican territory. It is said that one of the earliest acts of the administration was a proposal, made at a time when there was already much ill-humor in Mexico against the United States, that she should cede to the United States a very large portion of her territory — large enough to constitute nine States, equal in extent to Kentucky.

It must be confessed that a device better calculated to produce jealousy, suspicion, ill-will, and hatred, could not have been contrived. It is further affirmed, that this overture, offensive in itself, was made precisely at the time when a swarm of colonists, from these United States were covering the Mexican border with land-jobbing, and with slaves, introduced in defiance of the Mexican laws, by which slavery had been abolished throughout that republic. The war now raging in Texas is a Mexican civil war, and a war for the re-establishment of slavery where it was abolished. It is not a servile war, but a war between slavery and emancipation, and every possible effort has been made to drive us into the war, on the side of slavery.”

-President John Quincy Adams

“Some, if not all the gentlemen on, the other side of the House, who have addressed the committee within the last two days, have spoken rather complainingly, if I have rightly understood them, of the vote given a week or ten days ago, declaring that the war with Mexico was unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the President [James K Polk]. I admit that such a vote should not be given, in mere party wantonness, and that the one given, is justly censurable, if it have no other, or better foundation. I am one of those who joined in that vote; and I did so under my best impression of the truth of the case…. And if, so answering, he [President Polk] can show that the soil was ours, where the first blood of the war was shed—that it was not within an inhabited country, or, if within such, that the inhabitants had submitted themselves to the civil authority of Texas, or of the United States, and that the same is true of the site of Fort Brown, then I am with him for his justification… But if he cannot, or will not do this—if on any pretence, or no pretence, he shall refuse or omit it, then I shall be fully convinced, of what I more than suspect already, that he is deeply conscious of being in the wrong, that he feels the blood of this war, like the blood of Abel, is crying to Heaven against him. That originally having some strong motive—what, I will not stop now to give my opinion concerning—to involve the two countries in a war, and trusting to escape scrutiny, by fixing the public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of military glory—that attractive rainbow, that rises in showers of blood—that serpent’s eye, that charms to destroy he plunged into it, and has swept, on and on, till, disappointed in his calculation of the ease with which Mexico might be subdued, he now finds himself, he knows not where. How like the half insane mumbling of a fever-dream, is the whole war part of his late message! At one time telling us that Mexico has nothing whatever, that we can get, but territory; at another, showing us how we can support the war, by levying contributions on Mexico.”

-President Abraham Lincoln