Call the Sean Hannity Show:

800.941.7326  3-6 pm ET Mon-Fri



By Sean Hannity | Jan. 13, 2014 10:43am

“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-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

That verse is written on the Statue of Liberty and harkens back to the days of people, from so many different countries, making their way to America. These people believed in the dream of freedom and possibility. They wanted to do more, make more, and give more to their children and grand-children. There was a desire to assimilate and blend heritage with new world ideals. The poem above was written by Emma Lazarus, she herself was an immigrant, and her poem has survived to inspire many more generations of those fixing their destination on Lady Liberty.

Today we have a serious immigration problem, and suddenly having national pride, and wanting English to be the main language of the country is racist. We have over 11 million people here illegally, and our public hospitals, government aid and assistance programs are overwhelmed. The costs are astronomical and on the rise, here is a quote from an article by Neal Asbury in Money News:

“The United States currently has an estimated 11 million immigrants who entered this country illegally. According to the National Research Council, the migration of these individuals into the United States costs American taxpayers $346 billion annually.”

We have been debating a fence that separates our nation from that of Mexico’s for years. Our completion of border security is a long way off, and without it the conversation of ‘legal immigration’ is mute.

The United States has always been a beacon of hope for those who have lived under oppression, whether it be religious, gender or lifestyle based; people have always known that America was a place for freedom and individuality.

However, if we do not secure our borders then we do not have a chance at legal immigration. Period. Every nation has some sort of immigration policy, why should the USA be the country that does not enforce immigration policies? In addition, think of the security breach if we are not monitoring and controlling those who enter and leave the country? We were attacked on 9-11 because of the nation we are, the people we are and our beliefs in liberty. If we live with our borders open, and not secured, we are inviting terrorists in to attack us again.

Do you know that Mexico has a strict immigration policy? One that does not grant immigrants citizenship? One that brutally abuses those who enter illegally? Below is some information provided by Discover the Networks, an organization founded by the David Horowitz Freedom Center in 2004. Here is an article from this organization which researched how immigration was handled by Mexico within its own borders:

This section of DiscoverTheNetworks examines the immigration policies of Mexico. Though that nation's government has long criticized U.S. efforts to curtail the heavy northward flow of Mexican illegals, Mexico itself takes a hard line against those who would violate its immigration laws.

As Professor Michael Waller of the Institute of World Politics points out, Mexico deports more illegal aliens than the United States does. Under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien residing anywhere in the country. Mexican immigration authorities keep detailed records of all foreign visitors. These visitors are explicitly banned from interfering in the nation's internal politics. Those who enter the country under false pretenses (e.g., with fake papers) are summarily incarcerated or deported, and those who aid in illegal immigration are also sent to prison.

Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society. According to the nation's central immigration law:
  • Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress."
  • Immigration officials must "ensure" that immigrants will not only be useful additions to Mexico, but that they have the necessary funds to sustain themselves and their dependents.
  • Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics"; if they are deemed to be detrimental to "economic or national interests"; if they have broken Mexican laws; and if they are not found to be “physically or mentally healthy."
  • The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners” if he determines such action to be in the national interest."

Mexican guards at the Guatemalan border, the locale for most attempts at illegal entry, are notorious for the brutality of their treatment of would-be immigrants. The guards' use of violence, rape, and extortion against those seeking to cross into Mexico has, in fact, managed the border so well that the country has only a minimal illegal-immigration problem.

Though Mexico has condemned America's construction of a border fence designed to prevent illegals from emigrating northward into the U.S., in September 2010 it was reported that the Mexican government was building a wall in the state of Chiapas -- along the Mexican/Guatemalan border -- to stop contraband from coming into Mexico.

Mexico is also notorious for its aggressive efforts to promote the illegal emigration of its own citizens into the United States. As Manhattan Institute scholar Heather MacDonald observes, Mexican officials in the U.S. and abroad are involved in a massive and almost daily effort to facilitate the passage of Mexicans into the U.S. in violation of American immigration law, and to subsequently normalize their status as quickly as possible.

Toward that end, Mexico publishes a comic book-style guide -- the Guía del Migrante Mexicano (Guide for the Mexican Migrant) -- offering "practical advice" on how to breach the U.S. border safely and evade detection once across. This publication is distributed by Mexico’s foreign ministry and the Mexican consulates; it is also available online.

Mexican consuls characterize virtually any U.S. law-enforcement efforts against illegal immigration as discriminatory and inhumane. Moreover, they have advanced a “disparate impact” theory maintaining that police actions -- whatever their context -- are invalid if they fall disproportionately upon illegal Mexicans.

In November 2004, Arizona voters passed Proposition 200 -- which required proof of citizenship as a prerequisite for voting or for receiving certain welfare benefits -- over the loud protests of the Mexican consul general in Phoenix. After the law passed, Mexico’s foreign minister threatened to file suit in international tribunals for this allegedly egregious human-rights violation. In a similar vein, the Phoenix consulate supported the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund’s federal lawsuit against Prop 200.

In May 2005 Congress passed the Real ID Act, which stipulated that driver’s licenses issued to illegal aliens were inadmissible for aircraft-boarding and at federal security checkpoints. Mexico’s interior minister, Santiago Creel, described the law as "absurd" and "not understandable in light of any criteria."

Two months later, Mexico's former foreign minister Jorge Castañeda told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that his country would only cooperate with the U.S. on future security matters if America granted amnesty to its illegal aliens.

For further discussion of Mexico's multi-faceted efforts to undermine American immigration law, see Heather MacDonald's article, "Mexico’s Undiplomatic Diplomats," published in the Autumn 2005 edition of City Journal.

This section of DiscoverTheNetworks also examines Mexico's effort to gain influence in the United States by means of immigration, legal and illegal.

Why do we as Americans feel that we are unable to put a stop to illegal immigration? Find here comments by Barbara Gonzalez, citing one particular incident, in detail, which is a clear warning of what could happen, if precautions are not taken:

Barbara Gonzalez, spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said, “Many of the individuals cited in the report were not removable under current law or were released by local officials before ICE could respond. Because ICE is congressionally funded to remove a limited number of individuals each year, the agency prioritizes our enforcement efforts."

She also said that the agency in fiscal 2011 removed more than 396,000 people -- the largest number in ICE history. Gonzalez said roughly 55 percent of those removed were convicted criminals.

Committee members cited one case in which an illegal immigrant was flagged by Secure Communities for a June 2010 vehicle theft and then arrested five months later for attempted grand theft.

He was then arrested roughly six months later in connection with murder. He and two other men allegedly attempted to rob a 68-year-old man. When the victim’s grandson intervened, the illegal immigrant allegedly shot and killed the grandson, according to the committee.

“While this illegal immigrant should have been detained and deported, he was not considered a priority under the Obama administration’s reckless immigration policy and was released onto our streets,” the committee concluded.

Let’s talk about one of the biggest impositions that illegal immigration places on our nation’s shoulders. With undocumented workers making undocumented paychecks, we are unable to garner any tax revenue from their contribution to the workforce. Unfortunately, it does not prevent those hear illegally from taking from the system, and that is bankrupting our public services. A path to lawful citizenship is something our nation has whole always supported, as many can attest to through their family history and stories of Ellis Island. With many Governors now granting in state tuition to illegal immigration, the latest being Governor Christie of New Jersey, there is no end in sight to the growing costs to taxpayers.

The Heritage Organization put together a study in May of 2013, on the cost of not taking action when it comes to immigration reform. One thing is very clear we can not afford it.

“In 2010, the average unlawful immigrant household received around $24,721 in government benefits and services while paying some $10,334 in taxes. This generated an average annual fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of around $14,387 per household. This cost had to be borne by U.S. taxpayers. Amnesty would provide unlawful households with access to over 80 means-tested welfare programs, Obamacare, Social Security, and Medicare. The fiscal deficit for each household would soar....Moreover, taxes and benefits must be viewed holistically. It is a mistake to look at the Social Security trust fund in isolation. If an individual pays $3,700 per year into the Social Security trust fund but simultaneously draws a net $25,000 per year (benefits minus taxes) out of general government revenue, the solvency of government has not improved.

Following amnesty, the fiscal costs of former unlawful immigrant households will be roughly the same as those of lawful immigrant and non-immigrant households with the same level of education. Because U.S. government policy is highly redistributive, those costs are very large. Those who claim that amnesty will not create a large fiscal burden are simply in a state of denial concerning the underlying redistributional nature of government policy in the 21st century.

Finally, some argue that it does not matter whether unlawful immigrants create a fiscal deficit of $6.3 trillion because their children will make up for these costs. This is not true. Even if all the children of unlawful immigrants graduated from college, they would be hard-pressed to pay back $6.3 trillion in costs over their lifetimes...A final problem is that unlawful immigration appears to depress the wages of low-skill U.S.-born and lawful immigrant workers by 10 percent, or $2,300, per year. Unlawful immigration also probably drives many of our most vulnerable U.S.-born workers out of the labor force entirely. Unlawful immigration thus makes it harder for the least advantaged U.S. citizens to share in the American dream. This is wrong; public policy should support the interests of those who have a right to be here, not those who have broken our laws...During the interim phase, the former unlawful immigrant households would generate a net fiscal cost (benefits received minus tax paid) of $550 billion. During the full phase of amnesty (but prior to retirement), the net fiscal deficit would be $1.99 trillion. After retirement, amnesty recipients would run a fiscal deficit of $3.45 trillion. Parents brought into the U.S. by amnesty recipients would generate another $260 billion in net fiscal costs.

There is so much incredible research in this report, I can’t list it in its entirety here, but I encourage you to visit their site and take a look for yourself.

Before you make a decision regarding your position on immigration policies, make sure are informed. You owe it to yourself and your children, and the millions of people who took the time and came to this nation, legally. We can’t offer the American dream, if people are not playing fairly and robbing the system. It’s time to take back our country and remember the struggle that those who came before us made to give us opportunity.

The Solution: Secure the borders first.