Encouraging Illegal Immigration is Okay, Who Cares About The Law?

Well, here we are again, addressing the Dead Fish Wrapper's admonitions that we should ignore our immigration laws and just give illegal immigrants all the same rights and privileges that law-abiding citizens get. Apparently those of us who actually believe in the awful idea of actually enforcing our laws deserve to be scolded again.

Today's arrogant lecture is an editorial about Bank of America's new program to issue credit cards to illegal immigrants.

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that the bank was quietly expanding a pilot project, offering credit cards to people who lack a Social Security number. For about a year, Bank of America has been testing this pilot at five of its branches in Los Angeles. Recently, however, the Charlotte, N.C.-based company expanded the credit-card pilot program to 51 branches in Los Angeles County, with eventual hopes of taking it nationwide.

Requirements for obtaining the credit card are minimal. Customers do not even need to have a credit history. They do need to open a checking account at a Bank of America branch and maintain it for a few months without an overdraft.

Now here's where the typical liberal rhetoric starts.

It's understandably disturbing to many people that banks are reaching out to illegal workers. And yet keeping them in the shadows, where they put money under their mattresses, and are often robbed and exploited, isn't good for our society either.

No, what's good for our society is if we enforce our immigration laws and quit providing enticements for people to come here illegally. They wouldn't have to live in the shadows if they would bother to get the proper papers, but apparently that's too much to ask.

For many illegal immigrants, the card looks like a godsend.

No kidding. Where else can you get free money with no way to track you or report you since reporting is all done by SSN?

Not only does it provide a quick source of cash for small purchases, but it also helps them establish credit for larger ones. "I always wanted to start building credit to buy a home, but I couldn't," one unauthorized worker told the Journal. "When a senorita at the bank told me about this card, I couldn't miss the opportunity to get it. You need credit to succeed in this country."

And banks likewise need new sources of customers to succeed. For several years now, in fact, banks have been competing to tap into the huge, growing Hispanic market. Reaching out to illegal residents -- helping them dispatch money to their home countries, open checking accounts and even take out mortgages -- is part of a larger strategy of appealing to legal residents and citizens, as well.

Huh? How does "reaching out" to illegal immigrants help legal residents? Any legal immigrants that I have heard speak on this subject resent illegals, because it's a slap in the face to those who made the effort to come here legally and become citizens. But the editors don't bother to explain that statement; that's too much to ask of the drive-by media.

This marketing approach acknowledges a couple of messy realities. Many of the nation's 6.6 million "illegal" families include legal members. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, three out of five children growing up in "unauthorized" families are U.S. citizens. These "mixed" families are not only a vital source of workers, but also an important source of future customers, too.

Yeah, don't you just hate it when a little thing like the law gets in the way of making money? It's just like the global warming hype, or any other issue; follow the money. When there's money to be made, any ethical issues are just thrown out the window.

Even if banks do some retrenching in reaction to public criticism, it will only be temporary. The global market is pushing banks in this direction, and there's no going back. Certainly, the proliferation of banking services for illegal immigrants does underscore the need for comprehensive immigration reform, though. Ideally, these workers would be part of a guest-worker program with every name known, every worker's history tracked and everything about the program above board.

No, ideally, these workers would go back to Mexico and only come back legally, but obeying the law is apparently too much to ask.

Interestingly enough, the Fish Wrapper actually published a couple letters about this, and they were actually people who agreed with me.

It was no surprise that your Feb. 20 editorial, "It's time to lose the hypocrisy," supported the idea of Bank of America providing credit cards to people without Social Security numbers [illegal immigrants].

According to you, such a credit card "looks like a godsend" and can help the cardholder "establish credit for larger (purchases)," such as a home.

Assisting a person who is breaking the law every minute he or she is in this country illegally to buy a home here (to continue to break the law) is facilitating the crime.

The other benefactors of Bank of America's new policy are potential terrorists operating in this country. Does Bank of America plan to discriminate against "Abdul" to accommodate "Jose"?

Contrary to your position, negative reaction to Bank of America's actions will not be "temporary." I have cut up my Bank of America credit card and sent it in, and right after the first truck bomb goes off in an American city with the truck rental made with a Bank of America credit card, cut-up credit cards will be the least of the bank's worries.

And this one.

Today I mailed a letter off to Bank of America, telling the company that I will be closing my accounts because of its offering service to illegal immigrants. It is no longer the Bank of America to me. Perhaps the bank needs to change its name and location.

Yes, something like Bank of Latin America, or even Bank of Illegal America would be more appropriate.

As I've documented here, here, and here, the Fish Wrapper editors continually make it clear that their liberal vision of the world is much more important than reality and legall requirements. For some reason it's okay for us to provide free services to immigrants who don't pay taxes for them, as well as to drain our economy of up to $45 billion per year.

But the interesting thing is that the money doesn't help. Instead, it makes people dependent upon it, and they just sit and wait for money instead of working and trying to improve their lives and their country. I remember seeing an article in the Wall Street Journal about how after receiving money sent by relatives from the United States, most people in Mexico were worse off than before they started getting the money (if I can ever find it again, I'll post the link).

The first thing my wife said when I told her about this program was "why do we want to keep enticing illegal immigration?" I'd be willing to be that most people don't, but they're not the ones offering free government services and free credit cards either. Those that do are liberals who don't have the guts to stand up for what's right, which in this case is enforcing immigration laws.

One final note is how the editors (again) make accusations without backing them up. The title of the editorial is "It's time to lose the hypocrisy", but they never explain it. They never once in the article explain how our naughty society is saying one thing and doing another. The only hypocisy here is how the Fish Wrapper claims to give unbiased news but then slants everything as liberally as possible (nothing like a little "blog security" for me).

I have done my banking with B of A for 16 years, since I worked for them right out of college. Needless to say, they will be losing my business, and that won't be a temporary thing.

 

User login







Syndicate

Syndicate content