Ellis Island Immigrants to America

Jack E. Kemp
This Independence Day, my thoughts return to a tourist visit I made over decades ago to Ellis Island, the place where new immigrants were examined and processed roughly twenty million immigrants from the late Nineteenth to the early Twentieth Century in New York Harbor.

The most startling thing seen on that visit was the peeling paint of the main building, a problem not based on years of  age but on more recent neglect of the plumbing system. The old pipes had broken and flooded the building before anyone could realize what happened. The Ellis Island museum was then asking American citizens for - and they did receive - voluntary funds to fix the pipes and other structures as well as repaint the water damaged walls.

Ellis Island is, of course, a National Park Museum and if you go to the website http://www.nps.gov/elis/historyculture/people.htm ; you can read about inspectors, doctors, nurses who did a quick check of potential immigrant's paperwork to enter the U.S. and their health condition. Some were quarantined on the Island and would later enter into the United States. Others were sent back to their home country, failing to gain entry to the U.S. because of their poor health for such conditions as tuberculosis. The left keeps screaming about "white privilege" but if you contrast Ellis Island to the Central American illegal immigrants now flooding over the U.S. Southern Border, it is these Central Americans who are being allowed entry and the ability to move around the U.S. in a privileged state, with neither legal paperwork (as was required on Ellis Island) nor being required to pass any health inspection requirement of not having communicable diseases. The Central Americans should now be given the same "privileges" as the European and British Isle immigrants who came to Ellis Island around a century ago.

In the tour, our guide told us a funny story of an Eastern European Jew who was flustered by his meeting with stern looking uniformed immigration inspector. When asked his name, he said in Yiddish, "Shoen Fargessen" which means "(I) already forgot." The immigration inspector, wrote down what he heard - "Sean Ferguson" - and that was the new immigrant's legal name in his new country!

The large Ellis Island complex of inspection stations and employee housing and quarantine hospital facilities was not placed on Governor's Island, which was an actual nearby New York Harbor military base and Civil War prison in the Nineteenth and - in the Twentieth Century, it was a Coast Guard base. There was ample housing space on Governor's Island, but in those days the government felt they should keep immigrants, some of them quite ill, far away from the military base and its housing.

So if someone tells you that you are "old fashioned" to want the sanitary and legal safeguards of the Nineteenth Century, ask them if they think disease conditions, such as those that cause tuberculosis, are operating in an "enlightened, modern" way today or whether they operate very much like they did in earlier times - and would operate in that "outdated" fashion when the children carrying those diseases are given "temporary" asylum and placed in public schools and walk in the shopping malls where their own children congregate. Although some people will make an angry face and walk away, others will listen. Over a decade ago, there was a news story in New York City about a school bus company working for some fancy private schools had hired the lowest cost immigrant drivers, some of whom had tuberculosis. And the children who rode those buses had to be tested for the disease because apparently the disease did not have any regard for the family wealth or political convictions (be it liberal or conservative) of the children involved.

There is a similar immigration center on Angel Island in San Francisco Bay, now a museum, a place ofter referred to informally as "The Ellis Island of the West Coast." The immigrants arriving there between 1910 and 1940 were largely from Asia (mostly China). And they  were processed in the same manner as those on Ellis Island in a center with its own hospital. You can read about it at http://aiisf.org/

So on this Independence Day, it is worth taking a moment to consider what it took, in the last steps of their journey, for many of our ancestors to be officially allowed to enter the United States. Last week Lower Manhattan in New York City was full of tourists standing in line in Battery Park to get on the tourist boat going to both the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island, all to retrace the steps of perhaps their own ancestors who first saw the Lady in the Harbor and then had to pass her agents' inspections on Ellis Island before being allowed into the United States. No society can care for the health and well being of its citizens - and their children - by relying solely on the sentiments of Emma Lazarus' poetry written on a plaque at the Statue of Liberty's base.Would Lazarus write the same poem if new immigrants with tuberculosis were walking around her neighborhood coughing on Emma and her family?

Uncle Sam Cartoon

Tahmooressi's mother makes Fourth of July appeal to US ambassador to Mexico

On the eve of Independence Day, the mother of a Marine jailed in Mexico for three months appealed to America's top diplomat south of the border, asking for help winning the freedom of her 25-year-old son, Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi.
Jill Tahmooressi, of Weston, Fla., sent a letter June 30  to E. Anthony Wayne, the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, requesting his help in getting a Mexican federal judge to give an expedited review to her son's case, after his representation had been botched by two previous attorneys who failed to submit any evidence for the court to review.

"If any consideration can be made to expedite the reviews before the federal judge so that he will be closer to probable freedom, those actions would be much appreciated," Jill Tahmooressi wrote Wayne.
Her son has been held in Mexico since March 31, when he was arrested after accidentally crossing into Mexico with three legally-purchased guns in his pickup truck. Fox News has highlighted how poor signage, as well as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Tahmooressi got from serving two tours in Afghanistan, could have contributed to his mistake.

Tahmooressi hopes to have her son's case fast-tracked, but according to attorney Fernando Benitez, the Mexican judicial system will have to run its course, regardless of efforts made by the Marine's supporters.

But given a recent incident along the U.S.-Arizona border where a Mexican military helicopter allegedly fired upon U.S. Border Patrol agent mistaking them for drug smugglers, mistakes and apologies take on a different meaning.
Tahmooiressi was in San Diego receiving treatment for PTSD when he drove into Mexico. His apologies and explanation for the wrong turn into Mexico fell on deaf ears, resulting in his imprisonment.

FoxNews.com attempted to contact Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto. A spokesman said he had received the media request and would provide a statement, but has not.
In her letter to Wayne, the worried mother appealed to sentiment of the Fourth of July.

"This Independence Day will be a bitter one for Andrew, his family and supporters as his freedom is bound by his felony arrest," Tahmooressi wrote.  "Freedom he valiantly fought for others to have, willing to die to combat the evil of oppression and violence, Andrew is experiencing captivity for the first time, in a foreign country as a result of one wrong turn."

Iran opposition compares its struggle to the American Revolution

The leader of the Iranian opposition likens its goal to overthrow the regime in Tehran to the war for American independence from Britain, the struggle to abolish slavery in the U.S. and the birth of the civil rights movement in the 1960's.
"I am confident that the Iranian resistance, which seeks the proven values of advanced societies, will reach its goal of a free, prosperous, democratic, just and non-nuclear Iran," declared Maryam Rajavi, the head of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, in an exclusive Fox News interview.
"The experience is out there, including in the history of the United States, such as George Washington and the people of America who decided to stand up to colonialism to gain independence, such as Abraham Lincoln and the price he paid and the war he waged to abolish slavery and the price the people of America paid during the time of Dr. Martin Luther King for civil rights and the struggle of the people of America for the freedom of women," she says.
"These are all historical experiences and I am, therefore, confident. My experience and that of the Iranian people tell us that when a people, a nation, decides to fight and pay the price for the rights it deserves, such as democracy, freedom and equality, when it decides to fight for these and pay the price, for values which shine in history of all human societies and in the progress of human society, it will certainly achieve it."
Rajavi, based outside of Paris, is the leader of the largest Iranian resistance group that opposes the current Tehran regime. She is calling for regime change, free, democratic elections, and a non-nuclear Iran. The group held a massive hours-long rally last week, in which a variety of speakers, including many prominent former U.S. government officials, also called for a democratic Iran and tougher restrictions on Tehran in advance of the looming July 20 nuclear agreement deadline.
It was Rajavi's group that first exposed the extent of Tehran's clandestine nuclear program back in 2002.
"If it weren't for the revelation of the Iranian resistance, the mullahs would have gotten the bomb right now," says Rajavi. She also says Iran should not be given the right of uranium enrichment, which is expected to be part of the agreement, despite six United Nations Security Council resolutions specifically prohibiting that.
"I believe any possibility left at the hands of the mullahs paves the way for them to quickly obtain what they want (nuclear weapons) at a time they so choose."
The Iranian government has branded the Council as a" terrorist group," a "cult," and has claimed that its allegations regarding its nuclear program have been fabricated.
In the aftermath of the Council’s rally in Villepinte, France, the spokesman for the French Foreign Ministry was quoted by the Associated Press as criticizing the group for "its violent and non-democratic inspirations," ''cult nature" and "intense campaign of influence and disinformation."
Rajavi reportedly called the comments, "a gift to the mullahs." Former French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, who attended the rally, told the AP that he was “ashamed” by the government’s statement.
In her Fox News interview, Rajavi rejected the Iranian government's criticism of her group, calling it "ludicrous."
"My call to the Iranian people has always been not to surrender to the religious dictatorship," she declares.
"We have an expression in Farsi that says, 'a viper never gives birth to a dove.’ No moderate will emerge from the mullahs and the clerical dictatorship. The Iranian resistance has said this repeatedly over the past 25 years, and it has been proven correct every time."
Follow Eric Shawn on Twitter: @EricShawnonFox

Supreme Court ruling revives ObamaCare backlash

Any time ObamaCare is in the headlines -- especially when its various mandates are concerned -- it reminds opponents why they don't like the law. 
This week's Supreme Court decision limiting the law's requirement on employers to provide free contraceptive coverage was no different. 
"I think it's a reminder of how many things ObamaCare regulates it would never have occurred to you a federal law should regulate in the first place," said Avik Roy, of the Manhattan Institute. 
The 5-4 decision ruled that certain "closely held" for-profit businesses can opt out of the mandate by citing religious objections. 
Two years ago, the court upheld the law's so-called "individual mandate" -- the requirement on individuals to buy health insurance. But together with a prior decision reining in the law's Medicaid expansion, the decision in the case brought by arts-and-crafts chain Hobby Lobby and other businesses marked a blow for the law and a reminder for critics of its reach. (Hobby Lobby provides coverage for 16 of 20 forms of contraception, but objected to those it claims can work after conception.) 
Joe Antos, of the American Enterprise Institute, said it "touches on issues related to what is the power of the president versus the power of the Congress to decide how we run our lives." 
Kellyanne Conway, who polls on issues affecting women, noted the health care law has struggled to win public approval. 
"The majority of the Americans in everyone's polling rejects the Affordable Care Act as way too intrusive and invasive and also way too expensive for them," she said. 
Several polls have uncovered deep skepticism about the law. A Fox News poll from late June found a 56 percent majority disapprove of President Obama's handling of health care while only 41 percent approve. 
A poll from early June found 55 percent wish the law had never passed, compared with 38 who said the opposite. 
In the same poll, 44-29 percent said the country will be worse off under the law, while 24 percent say it'll make no difference. 
The court case once again raises the issue ahead of looming midterm elections. Democrats are using the ruling to highlight the impact on women, and defend the law's intent of providing contraceptive coverage to female employees. 
But Republicans are likely to highlight the rebuke to the law itself. 
"The election isn't for another few months," Antos said, "and I think there will be other issues that will come up that will remind people that this is not the law that they would have hoped for." 
Roy added that "this whole case was really about showing that ObamaCare's ability to regulate every aspect of the way the private sector and private economy works was not appropriate." 
In mid-week, a poll by Bankrate.com found 68 percent of Americans say ObamaCare will play a role in deciding how they vote this fall. Thirty-two percent said they're more likely to vote Republican, while 26 percent said they're more likely to vote Democrat. 
And 52 percent, according to the poll, would like to see the new Congress make changes in the law, while only 12 percent of Americans want to keep it exactly as it is.

The Real Meaning of the Fourth of July.

It's the Fourth of July weekend. We’re supposed to be celebrating Independence Day. 

But what makes this day special?

What gives the Fourth of July its significance is that our Declaration of Independence was adopted by the Continental Congress in 1776. 

It was in Philadelphia, and the signers of that document, composed by Thomas Jefferson, knew that this declaration of independence from the dictatorial rule of Great Britain might also be — literally — their death sentence.

They knew full well that the wrath and might of the British army would be sailing across the Atlantic to descend on the relatively defenseless colonies. They knew their scattered “states” didn’t have the numbers or arms or training to stand against the British, much less defeat them militarily. Yet they put their signatures, and their lives, their families, their destiny, on that parchment.

And so, against all odds, and even against reason, that Declaration told the world that “these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states.” 

The only importance of the 4th day of July, then, is that it marks the birth of the United States of America.

 The very words should send awe-filled shivers up your spine, as they do mine. 

Most of the people living in those colonies had simply had enough of British domination, of working and virtually existing at the pleasure of a king they didn’t know and who obviously considered them his indentured servants. 

They wanted to be free, to make their own decisions, to govern themselves and breathe the sweet air of liberty. 

The first celebration of American Independence took place four days later in Philadelphia, where the Continental Congress was still meeting. 

The ceremony began with a public reading of the Declaration of Independence. Then, from the tower of the State House, now called Independence Hall, the Liberty Bell rang out.

The coat of arms of the king of England was taken down. And there was a parade. And cannons boomed. The people, though aware of what lay ahead, cheered! A new nation sprang to life.

That’s what this day is meant to be about.

John Adams, himself a signer of the Declaration, thought that Americans should henceforth celebrate a “great anniversary festival.” In a letter to his wife Abigail he wrote, “It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forevermore.”

So it began. A more elaborate celebration was held there in 1788, after the new Constitution had been ratified. Then there was a much larger parade, speeches and a dinner. 

But between those two celebrations, in 1776 and 1788, there was much horrible fighting, rivers of bloodshed, the deaths and bankruptcies of many of the signers of the Declaration, families torn apart and businesses and farms destroyed. The freedoms declared by the Declaration — and ushered into fact by the Constitution — were secured at a terrible cost.

Soon, across the growing nation, at sunrise on July 4, salutes were fired and bells were rung. Flags were flown from buildings, from homes, and along the streets. Shop windows were decorated with red, white, and blue. Churches held special services.

What’s Independence Day like today? Do most people you know actually make time to purposely celebrate our independence in meaningful ways?

Even while we’re again locked in a deadly combat on foreign soil  — still involving hundreds of thousands of our finest young men and women?

What are they fighting for now? Is it anything like what motivated our Revolutionary Army? 

Is it “freedom from religion,” the necessity to take “under God” out of our pledge, or even to do away with it altogether? Is it the “right” to end the lives of unwanted babies, or the “right” for two men or two women to “marry”? 

Or is it still the impossible dream of a nation under God, with unalienable rights endowed equally to all — among these life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Surely this weekend is a time for all of us who really cherish that original dream, the one for which so many have died, to individually and collectively re-declare our independence from tyranny, despotism, taxation without representation, and debts that no free society should ever bear. 

And allegiance to the blood-bought foundation of government of, by, and for the people . . . people who are determined to live free.


© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Obama Cartoon

'Wrong side of the Constitution'? Obama likely to delay deportations, say experts

Bailey: "Our problems with immigration is caused by the Mexican Government!"

One of President Obama’s first moves toward trying to “fix” the U.S. immigration system without Congress will almost certainly be to expand on his 2012 executive order postponing deportation for potentially millions of young illegal immigrants, say experts on both sides of the debate.
Obama will likely sidestep Congress on immigration reform by expanding on his so-called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals memorandum, which essentially allows young illegal immigrants to remain in the United States if they were brought into the country illegally by their parents and have not been convicted of a major crime, Federation for American Immigration Reform spokesman Ira Mehlman predicted.
“I expect him to continue to ignore U.S. immigration law,” Mehlman said. “This can all be traced back to the DACA program … under the guise of not splitting up families.”
Although many Republicans believe President Obama is overreaching on the issue by advancing his immigration agenda without the support of Congress, there is broad support among Latinos, labor groups and other Democrat constituencies for him to act unilaterally. 
The idea of extending delayed deportation to parents of young illegal immigrants also appears popular among Hispanic voters and will likely be recommended to the president by pro-immigration-reform groups with whom he has reportedly met in recent weeks.
A poll of registered Hispanic voters for the Center for American Progress Action Fund found strong support for renewing DACA as well as delaying deportation for the parents of young illegals protected under the program, people married to U.S. citizens and those living illegally in the United States for more than 10 years.
The respondents were “super excited” about such actions if they included the option of a work permit for illegals, said Gary Sugura of Latino Decisions, the opinion research group that conducted the poll. He also pointed out that Democratic candidates running in 2014 and beyond would benefit significantly from such changes.
The respondents were less supportive of so-called prosecutorial discretion, which essentially gives immigration officials say over which cases to pursue and prosecute.
As a sign of just how important the work permit issue is to pro-immigration advocates, particularly big business and organized labor, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and Janet Murguia, head of the National Council of La Raza, a Latino advocacy group, on Tuesday called on Obama to provide work permits to everyone who would have been eligible for citizenship under the bipartisan immigration bill passed last year by the Senate.
Obama has already taken the first step in directing Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Attorney General Eric Holder to shift resources from the U.S. interior to the Mexico border. And he has asked both for recommendations by the end of summer on the types of executive actions he could take.
“And I intend to adopt those recommendations without further delay,” Obama said in his Rose Garden remarks Monday.
In addition, the Center for American Progress, the liberal-leaning think tank influential in shaping Obama administration policy, released a 42-page study, which Marshall Fitz, the group’s director of immigration policy, calls “a roadmap for executive action on immigration.”
The study claims Obama has authority to use enforcement reforms and affirmative relief to implement his immigration agenda in spite of opposition in the House.
Reform involves prioritizing how and whether enforcement is conducted when someone comes into contact with the authorities. And the relief focuses on identifying illegal immigrants considered low priority for deportation, then creating a procedure for them to seek temporary protection from being removed from the country, according to the report.
Sugura and Center for American Progress officials acknowledge that Obama cannot stop all deportations, that any executive action is temporary and only Capitol Hill legislation can provide a permanent solution, which they say should include a path to legal status and eventual citizenship for the roughly 11.7 million illegal immigrants living in the country. 
Obama argues he has been compelled to act in large part because of the recent surge in unaccompanied Central American children showing up by the thousands at the U.S.-Mexico border and the GOP-controlled House’s unwillingness to vote on the issue until at least after the November elections.
"American cannot wait forever ... ," Obama said Monday. "That is why, today, I am beginning a new effort to fix as much of our immigration system as I can on my own, without Congress."
House Speaker John Boehner and other members of the House Republican Caucus argue the recent border problem is the result of executive actions that have enticed people to try to enter the U.S. illegally. And they plan to sue Obama over his use of such actions, serving notice that more moves by the president on immigration would only stiffen their opposition.
"If the president insists on enacting amnesty by executive order, he will undoubtedly face a lawsuit and will find himself, once again, on the wrong side of the Constitution and the law," said Texas GOP Rep. Lamar Smith.