The primary version of this blog is HERE. The Blogroll. My Home Page. Email John Ray here. Other mirror sites: Political Correctness Watch, Dissecting Leftism, Greenie Watch, Australian Politics, Socialized Medicine, Tongue Tied, Food & Health Skeptic, Education Watch and Gun Watch. For a list of backups viewable in China, see here. (Click "Refresh" on your browser if background colour is missing). The archive for this mirror site is here or here.
****************************************************************************************



30 June, 2007

Fear This: Hillary Clinton on Immigration

Post lifted from Doug Ross. It was too good to leave anything out so I have lifted it whole. My apologies to Doug

While there's good news on the illegal immigration front today -- the shamnesty bill just went down in flames -- more battles remain. Consider if you will, Hillary Clinton's various attempts to sponsor amnesty and guest-worker programs (source: Numbers USA).

Sen. Clinton is a cosponsor of S. 2075, the DREAM Act of 2005: Need a reward for sneaking into the country and then evading the police for five years? Well, how does amnesty and in-state tuition sound? If my kids sneak out of the country and then back in, can they get the in-state tuition deal?

S. 2075 would grant in-state tuition and amnesty to illegal aliens under the age of 21 who had been physically present in the country for five years and are in 7th grade or above. Such a reward for illegal immigration serves as an incentive for more illegal immigration.

Sen. Clinton is a cosponsor of S. 2109, the National Innovation Act of 2005: Need to import cheap high-tech workers? Then have I get a law for you! Unfortunately for American workers, it's a raw deal. Furthermore, it's easy to prove that this program (H-1B) is being abused. Law firms like Cohen and Grigsby are openly counseling employers how to game the legal system to avoid hiring "qualified and interested U.S. worker[s]."

S. 2109 would continue the H-1B program that every year imports additional high-tech workers as part of "comprehensive immigration reform." The H-1B program has been shown to harm American workers by depressing wages and displacing workers. As well, S. 2109 suggests that comprehensive reform must include provisions to "eliminate delays in processing immigration proceedings, including employment-based visa applications." This provision would do nothing but encourage the rubberstamping of applications, which is already happening because of the existing "backlog elimination" program and would promote and encourage fraud and corruption.

Sen. Clinton is a of S. 340, the Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act of 2007: Running a farm and need, cheap -- but legal -- unskilled labor? Well, Hillary's got your back!

S. 340 is an amnesty for agricultural workers. Of the 1.2 million illegal aliens currently working in agriculture, an estimated 860,000 plus their spouses and children could qualify for this amnesty, so the total could reach three million or more. The potential recipients of the amnesty will be required to prove at least 863 hours or 150 work days of agricultural employment in two preceeding years. S. 340 would, subsequently, allow these “blue card” illegal aliens to apply for legal residency (i.e., amnesty), provided they demonstrate that they have worked in agriculture here: (1) 100 work days per year each of the first five years following enactment; (2) 150 work days per year each of the first three years following enactment; or (3) over the course of the first four years after enactment, 150 work days per year for three of those years and 100 work days for the other. The AgJOBS amnesty has also been introduced as S. 237. Read an analysis of the AgJOBS amnesty.

Sen. Clinton is a cosponsor of S. 237, the Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act of 2007: Need cheap, legal indentured servants? Hillary can do!

S. 237 is an amnesty for agricultural workers. Of the 1.2 million illegal aliens currently working in agriculture, an estimated 860,000 plus their spouses and children could qualify for this amnesty, so the total could reach three million or more. The potential recipients of the amnesty will be required to prove at least 863 hours or 150 work days of agricultural employment in two preceeding years.S. 237 would, subsequently, allow these “blue card” illegal aliens to apply for legal residency (i.e., amnesty), provided they demonstrate that they have worked in agriculture here: (1) 100 work days per year each of the first five years following enactment; (2) 150 work days per year each of the first three years following enactment; or (3) over the course of the first four years after enactment, 150 work days per year for three of those years and 100 work days for the other. Read an analysis of the AgJOBS amnesty.

Sen. Clinton was a cosponsor of S. 2381, the Safe, Orderly, Legal Visas and Enforcement Act of 2004: or, more properly, the Unsafe, Disorderly, Illegal Unenforcement Act of 2004.

Introduced by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), S. 2381 included an amnesty that would have granted Legal Permanent Resident status to certain illegal aliens (and their spouses and minor children) who have lived in the U.S. for at least 5 years and worked for an aggregate of 2 years. Virtually all of the 10.3 million illegal aliens estimated to have been living in the U.S. in March 2004 could have qualified for this amnesty, along with their spouses and children. As well, S. 2381 would have significantly increased overall immigration numbers by increasing the number of family visas and exempting from the family-based visa ceiling all immediate relatives. See analysis of S. 2381 provisions.

Sen. Clinton cosponsored S. 2444, the Kennedy INS restructuring bill: if you're looking for a way to add hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants in short order, S. 2444 hits the mark!

This legislation contained both structural and policy problems that would encourage illegal immigration and potentially increase legal immigration. The most far reaching provision proposed in S. 2444 was the change in the definition of immigration law. S. 2444 would have redefined immigration law to include not only the Immigration and Nationality Act but also Executive Orders and international agreements. In so doing, the bill would have opened up massive possibilities for increased legal and illegal immigration. For example, the President could have agreed to amnesty all illegal aliens in a trade agreement or in an Executive Order. The President also could have created new categories of legal immigrants, increase refugee numbers, triple H-1B visas, etc. In addition, S. 2444 would have facilitated asylum fraud and add thousands of illegal aliens to the population each year by greatly reducing the detention of asylum applicants while their cases are pending, allowing them to disappear into the public. While the numeric impact of the Kennedy restructuring bill is almost impossible to determine, the policy changes outlined in S. 2444 would certainly have increased illegal immigration and very likely increased legal immigration, thus adding to the 8-9 million illegal migrants already residing in the U.S. as well as increasing legal immigration levels.

Hillary Clinton. Let the buyer beware.

AgJOBS:

AgJOBS: Legalizing Indentured Servitude: What Kind of America Will You Choose? Indentured Servant: An indentured servant is an unfree laborer under contract to work for a specified amount of time for another person – often for low or no wages – in exchange for accommodation, food, other essentials and/or free passage in a new country. Indentured Servitude Banned with Slavery: Indentured servitude was abolished along with slavery when the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1865. AgJOBS indentures illegal alien agricultural workers: • Section 101(a) of AgJOBS grants amnesty in the form of “temporary residence” (via a “blue card”) to illegal aliens who worked in agriculture between December 31, 2004, and December 31, 2006. • Section 103(a) permits these formerly illegal “temporary residents” to apply for adjustment to lawful permanent residence only if they perform at least: 2,587 hours of agricultural work during the first three years after enactment; 2,875 hours of agricultural work during the first five years after enactment; or during the first four years after enactment, 862.5 hours of agricultural work per year for three of those years and 575 hours of work for the other. • Section 103(c) says that, if temporary residents do not perform the requisite work and apply for permanent status within seven years of enactment, they are deportable. • AgJOBS permits employers of formerly illegal temporary residents to pay these workers as little as minimum wage. It also freezes the “adverse effect wage rate” for H?2A workers at its January 1, 2003, level for three years, after which the wage rate may be increased by no more than the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index from two years prior. Required Labor + Specified Duration of Labor + Substandard Wages + Free Passage in a New Country = Indentured Servitude

Mexican birthrate falling rapidly

The writer below seems to have forgotten the famous observation by Lord Keynes: "In the long term we are all dead". So while his data is interesting, his conclusions are flawed

As the debate over illegal immigration from Mexico rages in Washington and across the country, and as the administration's reform bill hangs by a thread, few Americans are aware that this problem will automatically decline and eventually become a vague memory.

There has been a stunning decline in the fertility rate in Mexico, which means that, in a few years there will not be many teenagers in Mexico looking for work in the United States or anywhere else. If this trend in the fertility rate continues, Mexico will resemble Japan and Italy - rapidly aging populations with too few young workers to support the economy.

According to the World Bank's 2007 Annual Development Indicators, in 1990 Mexico had a fertility rate of 3.3 children per female, but by 2005, that number had fallen by 36 percent to 2.1, which is the Zero Population Growth rate. That is an enormous decline in the number of Mexican infants per female. The large number of women currently in their reproductive years means that there are still quite a few babies, but as this group ages, the number of infants will decline sharply. If this trend toward fewer children per female continues, there being no apparent reason for it to cease, the number of young people in the Mexican population will decline significantly just when the number of elderly is rising. As labor markets in Mexico tighten and wage rates rise, far fewer Mexican youngsters will be interested in coming to the United States. Since our baby boomers will be retiring at the same time, we could face a severe labor shortage.

There have been significant declines in fertility rates across Latin America, but Mexico's has been unusually sharp. In El Salvador, another country from which immigrants come, a 3.7 rate in 1990 became 2.5 by 2005. Guatemala is now at 4.3, but that is far lower than it was in 1990. Jamaica, another source of illegal U. S. immigrants, has fallen from 2.9 to 2.4 over the same period. Chile and Costa Rica, at 2.0, are actually slightly below a replacement rate. Trinidad and Tobago, at 1.6, is well below ZPG. For all of Latin American and the Caribbean, a rate of 3.2 in 1990 fell to 2.4 in 2005, a decline of 25 percent. This means less pressure on the United States from illegal immigrants from the entire area, not just from Mexico. A powerful demographic transition is well underway, and soon many of these countries may be worried about there being too few babies rather than too many. We may miss this labor, and wonder how we will replace it.

What is going on in Latin America? Better education and improved job opportunities for women mean that it has become quite expensive for them to leave the labor force to have more children. The improved availability of birth control technology and liberalization of abortion rules in some countries mean that it is easier for women to avoid that outcome.

Fertility rates are declining across the globe, but the change is particular striking to our south. The world fertility rate fell from 3.1 to 2.6 over the 1990-2005 period. The population bomb is becoming a fire cracker.

Another reason for the particularly sharp decline in Mexico is the cultural influence of the United States. Our xenophobic nationalists fear that we are being 'Mexicanized.' In fact the opposite may be underway. NAFTA, our mass media, the more widespread use of English, and the large number of people going back and forth (legally or otherwise) mean that Mexicans are increasingly influenced by our culture, and that implies fewer babies. The United States also has a fertility rate of 2.1, but that is the same as it was in 1990. Mexico is becoming more similar to the United States, which must frustrate their nationalists.

The main point for the United States is that we have only a temporary problem with illegal immigration from Mexico. For another decade or a bit more we must attempt to limit such entry, but then the problem will fade like the smile on the Cheshire Cat. Lou Dobbs, Rep. Tancredo and their xenophobic friends can calm down and relax.

Source





29 June, 2007

The Great American Sellout Has Died A Second Death

Post lifted from STACLU. See the original for links

The much anticipated 3rd cloture vote on the Senate Immigration Reform Bill also know by readers of Gribbit's Word as "The Great American Sellout" has resulted in a 3rd no vote on cloture. Sen. Harry Reid has once again promised to pull the bill from the floor. One can only hope it stays in its grave this time.

I'm still waiting on the availability to post those who voted for and against cloture but the final tally was 53 - 46 against cloture. 60 votes are required to invoke cloture and limit debate. For the 3rd time this bill has failed miserably to achieve that number.

According to Sen. Jeff Sessions the Sgt at Arms of the Senate informed him that the volume of calls coming in to the Capital crashed the phone system. It seems that the Senators are finally listening to America. We do not want this or any other bill that grants amnesty.

Big surprise for me was the fact that Voinovich voted NO. Hallelujah George grew a brain.

The forces in favor of cloture on The Great American Sellout controlled 60 minutes of debate time prior to the beginning of the cloture vote. Of which, the time was evenly split between a Democratic Leader and a Republican Leader, both in favor of cloture. Of that 30 minutes each, they each allotted 5 minutes to the opposition. So those who oppose cloture got 10 minutes to make their case to block cloture. This is democracy? Not hardly Mr. Reid.



Recidivist





A wall along the Mexican border COULD cost peanuts

Maybe everyone knows this but I was astounded by the actual cost of Israel's wall when I watched a liberal documentary (Wall, 2004, directed by Simone Bitton) about all the problems caused by Israel's wall. In it, Israel's Minister of Defense described the wall and how much it cost. It included: a layer of razor wire, a trench to stop cars, the actual wall (including electronic sensors, radar, etc. so that the army could tell when it was breached), a dirt road that would evidence footprints of would-be crossers, an asphalt road for quick deployment to areas where crossing had been detected, and another layer of barbed wire. It was approximately 50 meters wide. The cost--roughly $2 million dollars (10 million shekels) per kilometer. According to Wikipedia, the US border is 1951 miles. This equal approximately 3140 km. At $2 million dollars each, this comes to $6,280,000,000. That's it!!! For all that!

Source





28 June, 2007

Discussion of the Senate bill severely limited

In a bid to complete work on a historic immigration-reform bill this week, Senate leaders agreed to limit debate to 26 amendments – and no more. But the dozens of amendments blocked from the Senate floor could yet play a role in the outcome of this momentous debate. That's because their omission may alter how Republicans in the other chamber of Congress – the House of Representatives – regard the bill when it's their turn to take up the issue. It may also affect how talk radio, bloggers, and the American public come to see it. The excluded amendments range from those that would revise mechanisms for enforcing immigration law to those that challenge the bill's essential fairness. "It's a rigged process," says Sen. Jim DeMint (R) of South Carolina. "It undermines minority rights in the Senate."

In a procedural standoff at time of writing, senators who have been refused the right to offer amendments threatened to derail the process. "We've been told by the master crafters of this bill that it's a delicate compromise that can't allow our amendments to be debated," says Sen. David Vitter (R) of Louisiana. "At the same time, these crafters of the compromise are changing their bill every half an hour.... That's unfair."

In response, majority leader Harry Reid said: "We've had 21 days of Senate debate since 2006. We've really worked this thing hard. This is a bill that people should fully understand." Despite such concerns, the Senate on Tuesday voted 64 to 35 to resume debate on immigration reform.

"It's a constricted and constrained procedure, which I don't like," Sen. Arlen Specter (R) of Pennsylvania said Wednesday as the Senate resumed work on the bill. Still, he says, the unusual move to limit senators' rights to offer amendments was needed to get to a vote. "It's going to be tough, but we're going to see the will of the Senate worked one way or another," he added. In a sharp response to the Senate move, the House Republican caucus on Tuesday voted 114 to 23 on a resolution to disapprove of the Senate bill.

Many amendments blocked from consideration deal with enhancing enforcement and with tougher standards for eligibility for "Z visas," which give a path to citizenship for many of the 12 million people currently in the United States illegally.

• Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R) of North Carolina wants an amendment making immigrants illegible for "Z visa" status if they have been convicted of drunken driving. The amendment is needed because of the number of fatal auto accidents involving illegal immigrants, she says.

• Sen. Charles Grassley (R) of Iowa proposes requiring "Z visa" holders to pass a naturalization exam and pay fines up front. Otherwise, he says, there is no requirement to learn English and American civics until 12 years after obtaining a "Z visa."

• Sen. John Cornyn (R) of Texas wants to bar undocumented criminals currently in detention or removal proceedings from applying for a "Z visa." .

• Sen. Wayne Allard (R) of California wants to require applicants for "Z visas" to disclose all names and Social Security numbers they have used in the past to obtain employment in the US. Such disclosure would be a condition of their legalization.

• Sen. John Ensign (R) of Nevada wants a provision that makes sure "Z visa" holders are not eligible for welfare benefits sooner than are immigrants who came to the US legally. The bill as currently written, he says, gives "Z visa" holders a three-year edge over other immigrants.

• Sen. Jeff Sessions (R) of Alabama would move the qualification date for "Z visa" applicants back to May 1, 2005, to make sure that those who are in the US illegally don't have an advantage over those who applied to come legally.

Democrats are unhappy, too. Some Democrats say they wanted a fuller debate on enforcement aspects of the bill. "Until you have the border secure, you cannot deal with the 12 million here without encouraging others to come across," says Sen. Ben Nelson (D) of Nebraska, who voted to proceed with the bill this week but warns that could be his last vote for the bill.

Adds Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) of Missouri: "Until our country gets serious about enforcement against employers, all the laws we pass won't make a difference." She says she'll vote against the bill for this reason. If the Justice Department would start handing out three-month jail sentences to employers who hire undocumented workers, "that will have more impact than this bill," she adds.

Source



Open borders and the welfare state.

By Robert Rector

A decade ago, Nobel prize-winning economist Milton Friedman admonished the Wall Street Journal for its id‚e fixe on open-border immigration policy. "It's just obvious you can't have free immigration and a welfare state," he warned. This remark adds insight to the current debate over immigration in the U.S. Senate.

To be fully understood, Friedman's comment should be viewed as applying not merely to means-tested welfare programs such as food stamps, Medicaid, and public housing, but to the entire redistributive transfer state. In the "transfer state," government taxes the upper middle class and shifts some $1.5 trillion in economic resources to lower-income groups through a vast variety benefits and subsidies. Across the globe, this sort of economic redistribution is the largest, if not the predominant, function of government in advanced societies.

The transfer state redistributes funds from those with high-skill and high-income levels to those with lower skill levels. Low-skill immigrants become natural recipients in this process. On average, low-skill immigrant families receive $30,160 per year in government benefits and services while paying $10,573 in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of $19,587 that has to be paid by higher-income taxpayers.

There is a rough one-to-one fiscal balance between low-skill immigrant families and upper-middle-class families. It takes the entire net tax payments (taxes paid minus benefits received) of one college-educated family to pay for the net benefits received by one low-skill immigrant family. Even Julian Simon, the godfather of open-border advocates, acknowledged that imposing such a burden on taxpayers was unreasonable, stating, "immigrants who would be a direct economic burden upon citizens through the public coffers should have no claim to be admitted" into the nation.

There is also a political dimension to the transfer state. Elections in modern societies are, to a considerable degree, referenda on the magnitude of future income redistribution. An immigration policy which grants citizenship to vast numbers of low-skill, low-income immigrants not only creates new beneficiaries for government transfers, but new voters likely to support even greater transfers in the future.

The grant of citizenship is a transfer of political power. Access to the U.S. ballot box also provides access to the American taxpayer's bank account. This is particularly problematic with regard to low-skill immigrants. Within an active redistributionist state, as Friedman understood, unlimited immigration can threaten limited government.

Many libertarians respond to this dilemma by asserting that the real problem is not open borders but the welfare state itself. The answer: dismantle the welfare state. The libertarian Cato Institute pursues a variant of this policy under the slogan, "build a wall around the welfare state, not around the nation." Borders should be open, but immigrants should be barred from accessing welfare and other benefits.

But in practice, pursuit of these dual libertarian goals of opening borders and ending the redistributionist welfare state often leads to contradictions. The current Senate "comprehensive" immigration-reform bill, supported by the Cato Institute, actively demolishes existing walls between illegal immigrants and government benefits, granting some 12 million illegal immigrants (60 percent of whom are high-school dropouts) access to Social Security, Medicare, and, over time, to 60 federal means-tested welfare programs.

It also substantially increases the future flow of low-skill immigrants and gives them access to welfare and transfer programs. Far from building a "wall around welfare," this legislation levels existing walls, builds a highway to Fort Knox, and shovels billions in taxpayer funds into the pockets of immigrants who entered this country illegally.

In a recent debate with Dan Griswold of the Cato Institute, I pointed out this paradox. Griswold replied that the key was to grant amnesty and open borders now and work on "building a wall around welfare" at some point in the future. The weakness of this response should concern all those interested in limiting the size of government.

While most open-border libertarians proclaim a desire to dismantle both borders and the welfare state, in practice what they offer is open borders today and a vague (and almost certainly illusory) promise to end the welfare state in the indefinite future. As Milton Friedman understood, open-border enthusiasts have the sequence wrong: Opening borders with the redistributionist state still intact will result in a larger and more confiscatory government. In response to libertarians who propose to open borders and dismantle the welfare state, practical conservatives should answer: "Go ahead. Dismantle the welfare state. As soon as you've got that finished, let us know, and then we'll talk about open borders."

Open-border enthusiasts sometimes claim that the 1996 welfare reform defanged the welfare system, eliminating the costs that low-skill immigrants impose on taxpayers. As one of the architects of that reform, I would warn that this view shows a serious lack of understanding of the limited scope of the 1996 welfare law, and, more importantly, a lack of appreciation of the magnitude of the redistributionist state.

Sen. Ted Kennedy understands that a steady stream of low-skill immigrants will help him build a much larger, tax-fueled government. It is a pity that so many foes of big government fail to appreciate this point.

Source





27 June, 2007

Security First: How to protect the borders while welcoming the immigrants America needs.

A moderate proposal from PETE DU PONT. It appeared in the "open borders" WSJ so is rather a wonder from that source

The immigration bill may be back on the Senate floor this week, and the policies that are adopted will have a significant impact on the sovereignty, security, economic growth and opportunity of America in the coming decades.

America's modern immigration trend began in 1986 when President Reagan's bill granted amnesty to some three million illegal immigrants yet failed to improve border security. That amnesty sent a message to people across the border: If you slip into America you will be able to work and live here, and nothing negative will happen to you. Almost 20 years went by before any serious effort was undertaken to secure our borders, so that three million 1986 illegal immigrants have turned into 12 million today. About eight million people have entered the U.S. during the current Bush administration, half or more illegally, and according to the Washington Post, undocumented workers now make up "about 5 percent of all employees nationally."

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 authorized 750 miles of fence to be built along our border with Mexico, where almost all of our illegal immigrants enter--over 80% of them come from Mexico and Latin American countries--but only about 150 miles of that border fence will have been built by the end of this year.

With this growing influx of illegal entrants into America, there are five essential actions the Senate should take next week: First, secure the Mexican border so that America is closed to illegal immigration. Controlling our borders is essential to our national security. The additional 600 miles of border fencing authorized by the 2006 law must immediately be built; and we must add surveillance technology and more border security agents to our entire southern border. President Bush has agreed to add an upfront $4.4 billion to the bill to strengthen border security, enforce our immigration law, and prosecute employers who hire illegal workers--a good first step to solve our illegal immigration problems.

Second, make sure the bill contains the provisions of the Isakson Rule (proposed by Sen. Johnny Isakson, R., Ga.) that no other immigration reform programs can be implemented until the border is secure.

Third, once the border has been secured, require tamper-proof ID cards of all immigrants. Today there are no such cards, and verifiable identification is essential to both immigration policy and national security. We must know who is entering our country and what their background is.

Fourth, identify the skills required for the jobs immigrants need to fill, so that immigration policy will reflect America's economic needs. The Senate bill contains a merit-based system for evaluating immigration applicants. It encourages higher education, those skilled in specialist occupations (including scientists, engineers and technicians) and people who have previously worked in America and speak English. Working skills should be the focus of our immigration policy, so we must move from the current "chain migration" policy which gives preference to extended families of current immigrants--like sisters, cousins, uncles, and grandparents, to one that admits the skilled working people we need. Sen. Barack Obama tried to sunset this merit program after five years, and fortunately his attempt was defeated.

Fifth, get rid of the existing "visa lottery" that randomly selects 50,000 immigrants from the application list each year. An effective immigration policy isn't based on gambling. These are the essential elements of any immigration policy, and all must must be enacted to have both a secure America and enough guest workers for a prosperous society. Passage of them would greatly improve our immigration system, our economy, and the quality of our workforce.

Then comes the difficult question of what to do about the aforementioned 12 million undocumented aliens who are in the country already. Sen. Ted Kennedy proposes allowing them to stay indefinitely and pursue citizenship. They would have to apply for a Z visa (temporary legal status) by admitting they have broken the law, pay an initial $1,000 fine, and submit to a background check. They would still not then eligible for welfare benefits or food stamps, and if they wanted a green card and permanent legal status, they would have to pay an additional $4,000 fine, learn English, and then return to their home countries to file for it. The Department of Homeland Security has estimated that some 15% to 20% of the 12 million illegal immigrants in America have criminal records and would be ineligible for Z visas or green cards.

Granting blanket amnesty to the 12 million illegal immigrants would be abandoning the rule of law, and deporting them would be difficult and chaotic. So a serious, enforceable visa plan makes sense.

America's illegal immigrant admission has accelerated over time. Congress and President Reagan granted amnesty to three million illegal aliens in 1986; and the current President Bush wants to legalize another 12 million now, which sends an arithmetic signal to other immigrants who want to slip into America that 20 years from now whoever is president will perhaps grant amnesty to 48 million illegal immigrants.

We do need to secure our borders, issue legal ID cards to immigrants, and admit people skilled in the jobs we need to fill. But experience shows that our government lacks the political will to enforce such an immigration policy. Georgia state employee Reagan W. Dean was recently quoted in the New York Times: "Maybe it is possible to secure the border. Maybe it is possible to establish an employee identification system. But I don't have any confidence it will be done." Many Americans agree with him, so a serious and substantive bill that would restore the people's confidence is the Senate's task this week.

Source



'Equal protection' amendment to the immigration bill

It occurred to me that there might be a very short and very simple amendment that would ensure the support of a majority of the citizens of the United States for the immigration bill. John McCain ought to be demanding space be found in the bill's 600+ pages for this single sentence:

"Every citizen of the United States shall be entitled to the same treatment for taxation liability as this bill provides for individuals who have entered the United States illegally."

This would mean that we will all be exempt from taxation for the same number of years (all) that illegal aliens would be exempt from taxation. Since illegal immigrants won't have to pay taxes for the years that they have worked in the United States, legal citizens should similarly be entitled to that benefit. Surely there breathes a Senator who will fight for the rights of citizens to be treated equally with individuals who have broken the law. Who could vote against this? I can't wait to get my refund.

Source



26 June, 2007

"A Vote For Cloture Is A Vote For Amnesty"

Post lifted from Ace. See the original for links

NRO's new editorial. Let the scumbags we've elected to defy us at every turn know we won't get fooled again.

The fate of the bipartisan immigration deal now rests with a handful of senators who say that they are against it, but are inclined to vote to let the Senate take it up again. Do not be fooled. Any senator who votes to bring this legislation back to the Senate floor tomorrow is supporting it, and any contrary vote he casts later will be a scam designed to fool gullible voters.

The bill is unpopular, but powerful forces — businesses, journalists, officials in both parties, and racial pressure groups — are determined to push it through. They do not mind if a few senators vote against the bill for the cameras while greasing the track for it when it counts.

Senators who claim to oppose the bill say that they want a new debate on it so that they can improve it. But the broad outlines of this bill are set in stone.... For senators who are professing to wait to see what the final bill looks like before taking a position, the wait is over. The final bill will represent the will of its drafters and defy the expressed will of their constituents. The only way to prevent that inevitable finale, is to bring the curtain down now.

Their scheme is triply deceptive. First, they are attempting to shut down debate -- that's what cloture is -- before there has been any genuine debate on this at all in the Senate. There's been plenty out in America, but the Senate has kept itself nicely insulated from such discord. The whole point of this cloture vote is to shut down debate before debate can tank an extraordinarily unpopular, and fatally flawed, bill.

Second, the cloture vote insures that a vote take place on the bill itself after a very short time, a very short list of amendments, and the possibility that, via Reid's "clay pidgeon strategy," no amendments at all will even be considered.

And third -- the Amnestia Coalition is intending to vote as a bloc against every single amendment that should happen to get by Reid's clay pidgeon strategy, no matter how reasonable (e.g., denying amnesty to gang-members, denying amnesty to those with multiple drunk driving convictions or serious sexual assault/molestation charges -- even this common-sense amendment is considered a poison pill by the Amnestia Coalition and will not be permitted to pass, or even, most likely, be permitted to be raised on the floor at all).

These bastards claim the American people want this bill. If that's the case, why do they fear a lengthy debate? A lengthy debate should only help them if indeed Americans support the bill.

And if the bill is popular -- why the imperative to pass it so long before the elections? Again, if those who seek to push this piece of shit on America truly believe they're acting in accord with the public's wishes, why not extend the debate through next fall and take the vote right before the primary elections? After all-- voting for such a popular bill can't help but improve their poll numbers, right?

This is the worst affront to democracy I have ever witnessed in my lifetime. Not only was the whole corrupt bargain cooked up in secret, not only have they repeatedly attempted to schedule quick votes so that their corrupt deal could be voted on before anyone knew what terms were contained therein and before the public was informed at all on the subject, not only do the proponents of the bill routinely and flagrantly lie about what the bargain is ("Amnestied illegals will be required to pay back taxes!"), not only are they disingenuous about their motives for passing this, not only are the determined to pass this in the face of strong opposition on the level between 50-69% of the public... but, in the end, it's a terrible bill which satisfies no one except corporate lobbyists and racial pressure groups and which they refuse, in order to preserve the fractuous coalition pushing the bill, to improve one iota in any direction.

This is debate? This is democracy? This is the wildly unpopular, ill-considered, poorly-drafted, loophole-ridden, corrupt-payoff bill that we have to pass in order to prove that democracy in America still works? Gee, I'd've imagined the opposite -- that we could only prove we still have democracy in America by defeating such an immensely unpopular and corruptly fashioned piece of sh*t.



What the pro-immigration politicians think of the voters





Kiss of death for the (A) bill?

Post lifted from Macsmind. See the original for links

If the Senate support for the (A) immigration bill was really tight with the 60 votes needed, there would be no need for Ted Kennedy and other supporters to flood the Sunday talk shows.

"Backers of US immigration reform vowed Sunday to hustle deeply divisive legislation through the Senate this week to document 12 million illegal aliens while beefing up border security. But virulent opponents stepped up attacks on what one critic called a foreign "invasion" of the United States, despite a new bid by President George W. Bush to cement support for the centerpiece of his domestic agenda.

After the immigration bill collapsed a fortnight ago, the Senate is set to vote Tuesday on whether to allow debate to proceed on revised legislation that emphasizes tighter borders and law enforcement. "I believe we will pass the bill, and I think we have good support among the Republican Party," Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy said on ABC television. "And the reason we're going to pass this bill is because it's tough, fair and practical," he said.

In his weekly radio address Saturday, Bush revealed that under the revised Senate bill, people slipping into the United States illegally will not only be deported, but never allowed to enter the country again."

Kennedy and his bravado simply shows that they in fact do not have the votes necessary. Senator Jeff Sessions whom Bush just did some fund raising for just last week doesn't see the votes being there either.

"Republican Senator Jeff Sessions took issue with Kennedy's confidence that the latest immigration bill would carry the 60 votes it needs in the 100-seat upper chamber to overcome blocking tactics by its critics.

Top Democrats in the House of Representatives have also warned that Bush must cajole up to 70 Republicans to back the deal in the lower house, as it is likely to be spurned by Democratic lawmakers from conservative districts.

Senate opponents are "going to use every effort to slow this process down and continue to hold up the bill," Sessions said on ABC. "It will not work. We will be on the verge of giving an amnesty for 12 million people, but not getting a legal system in the future that will work, and that's the difficulty there."

Most observers believe that if the bill fails to make it through Congress this year, it will be dead, as it will get caught up in the political maelstrom of next year's presidential election."

We'll see Tuesday, but Monday opponents of the bill are planning even more ramped up blitzing of Senator's phones and faxes and emails.



CIS roundup

1. Employment Down Among Natives in Georgia As Immigrant Workers Increased, Native Employment Declined in Georgia

EXCERPT: Some businesses in Georgia argue that they need large numbers of immigrants because there are not enough native-born Americans to fill jobs that require relatively little education. However, state employment data show that as the number of less-educated immigrant workers has grown dramatically, the share of less-educated natives holding a job in Georgia has declined significantly.

********

2. Limit relatives' rights: Decide what categories of people to admit, then let in all who qualify

EXCERPT: Rather than accelerating family immigration under the pretext of limiting it, Congress should simply eliminate all the extended-family categories. (One exception: Those who expect to get their visas within one year.) Special immigration rights for relatives should be limited to the spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens; they are -- and should always be -- admitted without any numerical caps. Other relatives should be allowed to move here only if they prove their value to the American people as a whole.

********

3. Misguided City ID Plan Undermines Security, Rewards Illegal Immigration

EXCERPT: Ostensibly issued by foreign governments to keep track of their citizens, these cards have been used by Mexican consuls in recent years to provide documents to undocumented (illegally present) Mexicans or anyone claiming to be Mexican. The Departments of Justice, Homeland Security and the FBI all have declared these cards worthless as identification. Steven McCraw, then assistant director of the FBI's intelligence office, told Congress in 2003, 'There are major criminal threats posed by the cards, and a potential terrorist threat.'

********

4. 2007 Eugene Katz Award for Excellence in the Coverage of Immigration

Panel discussion transcript, June 8, 2007

********

5. Amnesty, R.I.P.: A bad deal dies

EXCERPT: It seems that the overreaching of amnesty advocates has politicized a lot of people, and not just conservatives, over the non-enforcement of the immigration law. And that's a good thing too -- if the White House concludes that amnesty is unattainable, there will be a strong temptation to end the enforcement show that's been staged over the past six months or so, with workplace raids designed to bolster the administration's credibility on the issue. A vigilant citizenry will be required to ensure that doesn't happen -- that enforcement is not only not discontinued, but that it's expanded, so we can end the Bush administration's 'silent amnesty' and get to work implementing a real strategy of attrition through enforcement.

********

6. Senate Amnesty Could Strain Welfare System

EXCERPT: Of course, immigrants, including illegal aliens, also pay taxes. However, because of the education level and resulting incomes levels of Mexican and Latin American immigrants, their tax payments are much less than natives on average. The same is true for illegal aliens. In a 2004 study, the Center for Immigration Studies estimated that illegal alien households used about $2,700 more services than they paid in taxes at the federal level only. We also found that households headed by a legal Mexican immigrant created a net fiscal drain at the federal level of roughly $15,000, and for those with only a high school degree the drain was a little over $3,700. However, those with more education were a fiscal benefit. A new Heritage Foundation study estimated the net fiscal drain at all levels of government created by households headed by high school dropout immigrants at about $20,000 a year. A 1997 National Research Council study found the same pattern -- less-educated immigrants create a net fiscal drain and educated immigrants create a net fiscal benefit.

********

7. The Senate Immigration Bill: Good or Bad for America?

Moderator: Philip Terzian, The Weekly Standard

********

8. Legal, Good / Illegal, Bad? Let's call the whole thing off

EXCERPT: Not only are the flows of legal and illegal immigration related, but the impacts they have on the United States are similar. The effect that illegal immigration has in reducing wages for low-skilled American workers, for instance, is only partly caused by the illegality. The majority of illegal immigrants actually work on the books, having provided a fake or stolen Social Security number, but they command low wages regardless because most of them lack even a high-school education and thus are unequipped for advancement in a modern society. In other words, the chief problem that immigration creates for less-educated or young or minority American workers is that it floods the job market with competitors, illegal and legal.

********

9. Without Merit: Why have skills-based immigration at all?

EXCERPT: But to answer whether we should have a merit-based system, you need to clarify for yourself the purposes of having any immigration at all. Others may answer differently, but as I see it, immigration policy is not an employee-procurement system for American business, but rather a citizen-recruitment program for the American people. And while higher-skilled immigrants will be more likely to master the initial indicators of Americanization -- speaking English, keeping a job, paying your bills and taxes, and in general exhibiting behavior in lines with middle-class norms -- they may be less likely to develop the deeper, emotional connections that mark true Americanization. Higher-skilled immigrants are more likely to arrive here with a fully formed modern national consciousness and have both the means and the inclination to pursue transnational lives -- both through the formality of dual citizenship, and also emotionally, by living in two countries simultaneously without developing a genuine attachment to either.

********

10. Temporary Means Temporary'? No it doesn't. And it shouldn't

EXCERPT: The temptation to delegate certain categories of work to menials is as old as civilization. It was the basis of the Hindu caste system, the Spartan economy, antebellum southern society, and daily life today in the oil states of the Persian Gulf. It is based on the premise that other men are labor inputs destined for those jobs that Americans (or Brahmans or Spartans or white southerners or Saudis) won't do. It is subversive of republican virtue, moving us back toward the kind of master-servant society America was founded to transcend.

********

11. No Alien Left Behind: There's nothing as permanent as temporary immigration status

EXCERPT: Our experience with TPS leads to only one possible conclusion: Once an illegal alien gets legal status, no matter how 'temporary,' he's here for good. Sponsors of the Senate's amnesty bill know this full well.

********

12. Fort Dix Fix: Immigration policy in wartime

EXCERPT: The nation's 700,000 state and local law-enforcement officers encounter illegal aliens every day in the normal course of their duties, and police cooperation is essential to any successful federal effort at immigration control. The Senate bill, however, actually undermines security by ensuring, in Section 136(d), that 'Nothing in this section may be construed to provide additional authority to any State or local entity to enforce Federal immigration laws.'

This is especially pertinent regarding the Fort Dix plot. The three Duka brothers -- illegal aliens all -- were stopped by police on various New Jersey jurisdictions 75 times without any inquiry into their lack of immigration status.

*******

13. Proper enforcement is the only solution

EXCERPT: The overriding purpose of the Senate bill is to amnesty illegal immigrants -- everything else is window-dressing. Rather than go down this road, Congress would do well to put off further legislating on the issue and instead demand that the president do his job. Only when there's a demonstrated political commitment to enforce the law should Congress revisit the immigration issue. Until then, bipartisan inaction is the best policy.

********

14. Immigration Policy and Organized Labor: A Never-Ceasing Issue

EXCERPT: But the key point is that hitherto the labor movement had been the nation's most effective advocate for the economic advancement of all American workers eligible to legally work. With these position changes, the issue is open to question. Working people -- especially those on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder -- can no longer be assured that the most effective champion they have ever had is still there for them. The potential loss of public support for organized labor among the general populace may in the long run prove to be more costly than any short run tactical gains achieved by this shift in its advocacy position.

********

15. Be Our Guest: New immigration law? Enforce old ones first

EXCERPT: This insistence that the administration do its job isn't just whining. All these measures are part of an alternative to legalizing illegal immigrants -- a strategy sometimes called 'attrition through enforcement.' The goal is to enforce the law, across the board, to reduce the number of new illegal arrivals and increase the number of current illegals who give up and deport themselves.

The illegal population would then start shrinking from year to year, instead of constantly growing, gradually transforming what is now a crisis into a manageable nuisance. And we can get started without Congress passing a single new law.

********

16. Becoming American: U.S. Immigrant Integration

EXCERPT: What is America's central, core immigration issue? It is this: How is it possible to integrate the almost one million new legal immigrants who arrive here each year, on average, into the American national community? How do we help them to feel more at home here, while at the same time developing the emotional attachments that will truly help them think of themselves as more American than otherwise? Before the United States adds 12 million illegal immigrants and their families to our citizenship rolls, stimulates the inevitable yearly increase in illegal aliens who will wish to be strategically placed for the next 'status adjustment,' and adds them to the already record-breaking numbers of legal immigrants who arrive each year, it should seriously consider the 'attachment gap.'

********

17. Low Salaries for Low Skills: Wages and Skill Levels for H-1B Computer Workers, 2005

Panel discussion transcript, May 22, 2007

********

18. Faith-Based Approaches to Immigration Policy

EXCERPT: Leviticus 19 commands us to love the stranger. S.1348 is about greed, not love, and Leviticus 19 surely does not command us to exploit strangers as cheap labor or for partisan advantage. S.1348's reactionary, inhumane provision for 400,000-600,000 'guest workers' violates the Holiness Code of Leviticus that demands dignity for laborers, including the most humble. We are told to be 'holy because I the Lord am holy.' Our holiness is tested by how justly we treat laborers.

Cherry-picking the Bible to exploit poor immigrants at the expense of working-class and impoverished Americans -- African Americans especially -- to enrich wealthy employers is nothing less than sacrilege.





25 June, 2007

Labor group, Hispanics hit Senate bill

Labor and Hispanic groups yesterday told senators to scrap their immigration bill and go back to the drawing board, saying that the proposal now before the Senate has become too harsh on illegal aliens and a poor deal for U.S. workers. In separate press conferences, the Hispanic rights groups and labor leaders, including the AFL-CIO, joined a growing group of critics from both the left and the right who say current law is better than the immigration bill that President Bush and a small bipartisan group of senators are pushing. "This takes a problem we have and, instead of solving it, makes it worse," said Richard L. Trumka, secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO. He said the temporary-worker program that the bill sets up would hurt U.S. workers by providing a source of cheap labor that would depress Americans' wages.

Meanwhile from the immigrant-advocacy side, a handful of Hispanic groups yesterday said the Senate bill started off poorly, became worse after the first two weeks of amendments and is now unfixable. "Let's go back to the drawing board," said Lillian Rodriguez-Lopez, president of the Hispanic Federation.

That Senate bill collapsed two weeks ago when Republicans and Democrats demanded more time to try to pass amendments. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, moved last night to revive the bill, taking the first step to schedule a vote to force the bill back onto the floor.

The bill would combine legalization and a path to citizenship for illegal aliens with a guest-worker program for future foreign workers and a point system for future immigration that gives greater weight to people with needed skills or education. But opposition appears to have grown among voters, and a poll released earlier this week by Democratic strategists warned that Republicans can have success attacking Democrats on some parts of the immigration bill.

Source



La Raza's Lapdogs

Why the elite press won't report seriously on immigration

by Steve Sailer

Despite its tradition of editorializing in favor of openness and public participation, the prestige press offered virtually no complaints when the Senate recently voted to skip holding hearings on the convoluted "comprehensive immigration reform" package worked out behind closed doors by Sens. Ted Kennedy and John Kyl with Bush administration support. Nor did the mainstream media object when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced his intention to ram this vast concoction of highly debatable effect through the Senate in one week, a ploy that even Reid soon admitted was wrong.

You might think that our nation's elites would find immigration the single most fascinating domestic policy issue to explore. After all, besides ourselves, nothing is more interesting to us than other human beings. And few political questions would seem more compelling than which of the 6 billion foreigners we want to become our fellow citizens, neighbors, and, eventually, the ancestors of our descendents. Immigration policy directly affects nearly every other question of our day, from education and crime to economic inequality and healthcare costs.

Yet the national newspapers cover immigration with no more enthusiasm than they muster for local zoning board meetings. When they deign to discuss immigration at all, their approach is superficial and sentimental. Debate is routinely denounced as "divisive," as if democracy is the opposite of division. The palpable contempt the mainstream media radiates toward anyone well-informed about immigration contributes to the vapidity of its coverage.

An insightful economist, writing under the protection of anonymity, recently pointed out: "Power today very largely consists of being able to define what criticisms are off the wall, over the top, and out to lunch. . Those who wield it do not `run the world.' Rather they can block significant changes that reduce their power."

There may be no better example of this than how the powerful treat informed analysis of illegal immigration. For example, recall the Amnesty Baby Boom. What, you haven't heard of it? According to a 2002 study by demographers Laura E. Hill and Hans P. Johnson of the Public Policy Institute of California, due to the 1986 amnesty (another "comprehensive" compromise, combining legalization with enforcement provisions that were never enforced), "Between 1987 and 1991, total fertility rates for foreign-born Hispanics [in California] increased from 3.2 to 4.4" expected babies per woman over her lifetime. Why? "Many of those granted amnesty were joined later by spouses and relatives in the United States." This fertility explosion among former illegal aliens choked California's public schools, leading to the expenditure of over $20 billion for construction of new school buildings by the Los Angeles school district alone. It's not quite accurate to say that the PPIC study was tossed down the memory hole because it was never allowed out in the first place.

Why is respectable immigration reporting so one-sided, inane, and downright dull? Just as immigration is tied into every domestic issue, the failure to examine immigration intelligently illuminates much that is wrong with American intellectual discourse in general. Here are some reasons for this sorry state of affairs:

1. An aversion to working with numbers is common among intellectuals and media types. For instance, it's of some relevance to crafting immigration policy to know that 5 billion people live in countries with lower average per capita GDPs than Mexico. About a fifth of the 135 million people in the world of Mexican descent now reside in America, and another 40 million Mexicans tell pollsters they'd like to immigrate here. That suggests that if the Wall Street Journal editorial board had its way, and there were a constitutional amendment declaring, "There shall be open borders," at least a billion foreigners would try to move here. At a minimum, this quick estimate suggests that the WSJ's immigration views are mad. Yet these numbers are not at all well-known because few in public life have bothered to do the simple calculations required.

2. Views on illegal immigration may be the surest status symbol. A blithe attitude toward illegal immigration conveys your self-confidence that you don't have to worry about competition from Latin American peasants and that you can afford to insulate your children from their children. Moreover, your desire to keep down the wages of nannies, housekeepers, and pool boys by importing more cheap labor advertises that you are a member of the servant-employing upper-middle class.

3. While libertarians enjoy displaying their feelings of economic superiority- their Randian confidence that they can claw their way to the top of the heap no matter how overcrowded it gets-liberals feel that laxity on illegal immigration shows off their moral superiority. Celebrating diversity has been promoted for a generation now as the highest imaginable ethical value, so the ambitious compete to be seen espousing most fervently the reigning civic religion and damning most loudly any heretics who dare to speak up.

4. It is unfashionable to admit the existence of group statistical differences. The endless campaign in American society against stereotypes has reached the point that simple acts of pattern recognition demand reflexive debunking by citation of whatever contrary example is available. "Any exception disproves the tendency" appears to be the rule.

5. The media's dislike of reporting on averages is exacerbated by its love for man-bites-dog stories. The illegal immigrant who graduates from Cal Tech is news because it doesn't happen very often. In contrast, the consistently dismal performance of Latino students on average-by 12th grade, immigrants are five to six grade levels behind Anglo whites, while even American-born Hispanics trail by three to four grade levels -isn't news because it's boring and depressing.

6. Among the privileged, if a tree falls in the forest but it's not reported in the New York Times, it never happened. For example, the best estimate is that the Latino crime rate is roughly triple the Anglo white rate, which would not come as much of a surprise to anybody who doesn't live in a cave. Yet because the major media won't note differences in mean crime rates by ethnicity, this fact is considered outside the limits of acceptable discussion of immigration.

7. Another class marker of elite discourse is not letting the dreary realities of daily life sully discussions of affairs of state. Both average and elite Americans observe that the children and grandchildren of illegal immigrants are more likely to become disruptive students and to join street gangs, so they both try to find schools for their children far from them. While the typical citizen draws the additional lesson from this that our government should therefore work harder to enforce the laws against illegal immigration, inside the Beltway anyone noticing a connection between the personal and the political is looked down upon as a pathetic loser who needs help from his government.

8. For public consumption, you should act as if you believe that social construction is all powerful. We shouldn't worry about who or how many come to America because we can mold anybody into anything. Yet at the same time that elites propound the moral superiority of constructionism over selectionism, they compete furiously to get their children into the most selective colleges.

9. That the chief supporters of "comprehensive immigration reform"-the president, corporate America, Democratic Party chieftains, the Catholic Church, race racketeers, the educartel, and big media-represent more or less what a '60s radical would have decried as The Establishment does not raise doubts in the minds of contemporary wordsmiths. God may not always be on the side of the big battalions, but public intellectuals are these days.

10. Today, Republican vs. Democrat disputes use up most of the oxygen in the public square. The immigration debate doesn't follow partisan lines, so it doesn't attract much interest from the professional provocateurs in opinion journalism. In contrast, many reporters claim to deplore partisanship, so when those twin paragons of good judgment, Ted Kennedy and George W. Bush, team up to push a bipartisan "compromise," the bigfoots are naturally on board.

11. Ethnic nostalgia is common among Catholic and Jewish pundits. For example, Tamar Jacoby dedicated her book Reinventing the Melting Pot to "Aunt Bea, who was the last living link to my family's Ellis Island generation." Jacoby's support for mass immigration appears driven by resentment of those now long-dead "Anglo-Saxonists" who gave the fish eye to Aunt Bea back in Nineteen-Ought-Whatever. That American Jews today are in more danger from anti-Semitic immigrants than from WASPs is of little interest compared to re-fighting battles from the early 20th century.

12. Open borders enthusiasm often reflects covert hostility toward African-Americans. Hispanic illegal immigrants are slowly pushing African-Americans out of the most expensive cities, such as New York, which has been losing American-born blacks since 1979. And, let's be frank, many affluent whites are happy to see African-Americans go. The Latino influx can create a temporary dip in the crime rate. Illegal immigrants generally arrive at too mature an age to get involved in youth street gangs-but their sons, who grow up feeling territorial about their mean streets, flock to gangs.

In summary, the influential treat immigration as another topic on which they can exhibit their superiority by being oblivious to the obvious.

Source



A cut-rate college education for illegal aliens

It's no secret that the Senate immigration bill rewards 12-20 million illegal aliens with immediate amnesty. What is less well known is that the bill also allows illegal aliens to receive in-state tuition rates at public universities, discriminating against U.S. citizens from out of state and law-abiding foreign students. These provisions are buried deep in the Senate bill. They are part of the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act section.

The DREAM Act is a nightmare. It repeals a 1996 federal law that prohibits any state from offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens, unless the state also offers in-state tuition rates to all U.S. citizens. On top of that, the DREAM Act offers a fast track to U.S. citizenship for illegal aliens who attend college. On its own, the DREAM Act never stood a chance of passing - even in the Senate. Every scientific opinion poll on the subject has shown over 70 percent opposition to giving in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens.

Not surprisingly, the DREAM Act languished in committee for five years - until the opportunity arose to hitch it to the Senate's "comprehensive" immigration bill of 2006. Now, Sen. Edward Kennedy and his allies have added it to this year's amnesty bill, too. They know that the only way to slip such bad legislation past the American people is to bury it in a comprehensive bill. To understand just what an insult to the rule of law the DREAM Act is, recall the events of the past 11 years.

In September 1996, in the landmark Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), Congress prohibited states from giving in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens. Members of Congress evidently never imagined that some states might simply disobey federal law. But that is precisely what happened. Beginning (predictably) with California and Texas, open-borders advocates in 10 states succeeded in passing legislation that openly violated federal law by offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens. The list includes some states right in the heart of America: California, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Washington. In most of these states, the law was passed under cover of darkness. The governors declined to hold signing ceremonies heralding the new law - because public opinion was overwhelmingly opposed to giving taxpayer-subsidized college education to illegal aliens.

Not surprisingly, when voters themselves decide the question, a very different result occurs. In November 2006 Arizona voters passed Proposition 300, which expressly barred Arizona universities from offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens. More than 71 percent voted in favor. The American people realize the injustice of giving illegal aliens a taxpayer-subsidized education when out-of-state U.S. citizens and law-abiding foreign students have to pay the full cost of their education. This gift to illegal aliens comes at a time when millions of U.S. citizens have had to mortgage their future to attend college. From 2002-07, college costs rose 35 percent after adjusting for inflation. Two-thirds of college students now graduate with debt, and the amount of debt averages $19,200. In a world of scarce education resources, U.S. citizens should be first in line to receive taxpayer subsidies - not aliens who violate federal law.

Worse, many of these 10 states are encouraging aliens to violate immigration laws. Their statutes actually require an alien to violate federal law before he can receive the tuition discount. Foreign students with valid visas need not apply. Talk about perverse incentives.

In July 2004, a group of U.S. citizen students from out of state filed suit in federal court in Kansas to enjoin the state from providing in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens. The case is currently before the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, in December 2005, another group of U.S.-citizen students filed a similar suit in California state court. That case is before the California Court of Appeals.

Now, just when it looks like U.S. citizens might finally bring the lawbreaking states into line, the DREAM Act provisions of the Senate immigration bill would change federal law and allow states to offer in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens currently in the country. On top of this, DREAM Act beneficiaries would enjoy a special fast track to green-card status and citizenship. Illegal aliens younger than 30 who entered the country before age 16 and subsequently enrolled in college would be eligible for green cards in only three years - even if they haven't completed their degrees. No such fast track exists for law-abiding foreign students. The illegal aliens would also be eligible for federal student loans and federal work-study programs - another benefit that law-abiding foreign students cannot receive. And all of it comes at taxpayer expense. A consistent theme emerges: Illegal aliens are treated much more favorably than aliens who follow the law. There is no penalty for illegal behavior.

The Senate bill applies the same distorted logic to the 10 states that have defied federal law simply because they don't like it. The DREAM Act would overlook their offense and invite other states to follow their lead. One thing we have learned in the struggle to enforce our nation's immigration laws is that states cannot be allowed to undermine the efforts of the federal government to enforce the law. Only if all levels of government are working in concert to uphold the rule of law can it be fully restored.

Source





24 June, 2007

Republican Support For Stalled Immigration Bill Waning

Senate Republicans are beginning to galvanize opposition to the immigration overhaul that President George Bush has made a domestic priority. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, speaking to Bloomberg Television, said the way in which the White House and the bipartisan group brought the bill forward has posed some problems. "We're beginning to see some of the people that would have ordinarily voted to proceed with the bill to say, `hey, this process is not fair, it's not transparent,''' Senator Cornyn said. Among those Republicans who Senator Cornyn cited: Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas and Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson of Georgia

On June 26, to inch the bill forward, 60 senators will have to vote to resume debate on the thorny issue. The bill, which would give 12 million immigrants in the U.S. illegally a path to citizenship and create a guest worker program, has been criticized for not doing enough to protect the nation's borders.

One of the major sticking points is a provision that would allow illegal immigrants who entered the country before Jan. 1 to apply for Z visas, which would enable them to live and work in the United States legally. In addition to paying an initial $1,000 fine, they would have to pass criminal background checks and remain employed.

The previous vote on the legislation, on June 7, was 15 short of the total needed. To attract Republican votes, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has suggested that the Democratic and Republican caucuses would each be able to put forth 12 amendments.

Source



Robots to replace illegals?



As if the debate over immigration and guest worker programs wasn't complicated enough, now a couple of robots are rolling into the middle of it. Vision Robotics, a San Diego company, is working on a pair of robots that would trundle through orchards plucking oranges, apples or other fruit from the trees. In a few years, troops of these machines could perform the tedious and labor-intensive task of fruit picking that currently employs thousands of migrant workers each season.

The robotic work has been funded entirely by agricultural associations, and pushed forward by the uncertainty surrounding the migrant labor force. Farmers are "very, very nervous about the availability and cost of labor in the near future," says Vision Robotics CEO Derek Morikawa. It's a surprising new market for Vision Robotics, which had been focused on developing consumer devices, including a robotic vacuum cleaner to compete with iRobot's Roomba.

When a member of the California Citrus Research Board approached the company in 2004, Morikawa was doubtful that an effective robotic picker was even feasible. A citrus grower brought the skeptical engineers to an orange farm in California's fertile Central Valley, where they walked down the neat rows of trees and stared at the oranges hanging in the branches.

Previous attempts at making a mechanical harvester were thwarted by inefficiency, explains Morikawa. In the past, experimental machines approached a tree as a human would, picking one piece of fruit and then looking for the next. In this slow process, the machine circled the tree repeatedly until it was sure it had picked all the fruit.

Morikawa says his engineers had their breakthrough idea right there in the orange grove. They realized that the task could be divided between two robots: One would locate all the oranges, and the second would pick them. "Once you know where all the fruit is, then it becomes an easy job to calculate the most efficient way to pick it all," says Morikawa.

But it wasn't just technological challenges that held back previous attempts at building a mechanical harvester -- politics got involved, too. Cesar Chavez, the legendary leader of the United Farm Workers, began a campaign against mechanization back in 1978. Chavez was outraged that the federal government was funding research and development on agricultural machines, but not spending any money to aid the farm workers who would be displaced. In the '80s, that simmering anger merged with a growing realization that the technology was nowhere near ready, and government funding dried up.

This time around, growers' associations are funding the research. By the end of this year, the orange growers will have invested almost $1 million in the project, says Ted Baskin, president of the California Citrus Research Board. He estimates that it will take about $5 million more to get to the finished product

Source



23 June, 2007

Fraudulent documents easy to obtain

We're on the streets of Juarez, a few feet from the bridge leading across the U.S. border. NBC News producers with hidden cameras came here this week to see how easy it is to get fraudulent documents to enter the U.S. The first offer came within 15 minutes. A man offered U.S. residency and Social Security cards for $1,000.

For about $500, we could rent what is known as a lookalike document — a real "green card" — with a photo of someone resembling our undercover producer. Because the document is authentic, it will pass inspection unless a customs officer notices the photo doesn't match the person. Another man wants $400 to rent us a lookalike passport long enough to cross the border, where his female partner would retrieve it so it can be used again.

"The investigative aggressiveness of our enforcement agencies, both American and Mexican down around the border, are obviously very weak, because these people are operating so out in the open," says Michael Sheehan, an NBC News terrorism analyst.

Experts say, since 9/11, U.S. border agents have gotten somewhat better at spotting fraudulent documents. Many of those documents end up at a forensics lab outside Washington to be analyzed for the latest ploys. U.S. officials say so far this year, some 15,000 bogus documents have been confiscated along the southern border. There are no numbers on how many people actually entered the U.S. using fraudulent documents.

"It's a cat and mouse game," says Michael Everitt, director of the Forensic Document Laboratory at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "Every time we make an advance, the bad guys, you know, they try to figure out another way to exploit the system." There's also a problem on this side of the border. Near downtown Los Angeles, fake documents are sold openly.

Source



Update on What's Happening With The Senate Immigration Bill

Post lifted from John Hawkins. See the original for links

Yesterday, a GOP aide, who is one of my sources in the Senate, gave me the rundown on what's currently happening with the Senate immigration bill (You can see my two previous reports from this source here and here).

To begin with, the key thing to keep in mind about the upcoming vote on the Senate immigration bill is that the pro-amnesty forces have two key cloture votes that they have to win. The first is the vote on the so-called "clay pigeon" strategy. What this does is take the original bill and all of its amendments and reintroduce it on the Senate floor as a new bill. There are two reasons for doing this. The first is to prevent killer amendments that could upset the "grand compromise" from being voted on. The second reason is procedural, because it keeps conservative Senators who are opposed to the bill from being able to slow up the process.

However, in order for the bill and the previous amendments to be offered on the floor of the Senate as a new bill, it will take the cooperation of both Democratic and Republican leadership, along with 60 votes for cloture. The conventional wisdom has been that this first cloture vote is a done deal because the Senate leadership has been wheeling and dealing behind the scenes. The way it works is that they go to a Senator and offer to allow a vote on their Amendment IF -- and only if -- that Senator agrees to vote for cloture on the "clay pigeon" strategy.

My source tells me that this has left a sour taste in the mouth of a number of Republican Senators who are upset that Mitch McConnell is cooperating with Harry Reid to curtail the rights of Republican Senators. Moreover, there's a growing fear that a dangerous precedent is being set here that could be used against Republican Senators again and again as long as they're in the minority. After all, if the "clay pigeon" strategy is used against conservatives on the immigration issue, who's to say it won't also be used against them on any number of issues in the future? According to my source, this is causing a lot of nervousness amongst Republican Senators and it has Mitch McConnell acting very defensive behind closed doors about working with Harry Reid to roll members of his own caucus. Because of this issue, my source tells me that the vote for the "clay pigeon" strategy is no longer a slam dunk and it is possible that the "grand bargainers" may not be able to get 60 votes to put the bill on the floor as a new bill. If that turns out to be the case, the bill is dead.

Then, if the bill does make it to the floor, there will be 22 amendments offered. These amendments have been carefully selected by the combined Democratic/Republican leadership to try to make sure that no deal breakers can make it through. Still, my source tells me that every amendment has the potential to be problematic for the grand bargainers, because the vote count is very close. If certain amendments pass, it could cost votes. On the other hand, some Senators may very well decide not to vote for the bill if their amendments don't pass. But, once the votes on the amendments are through, there will be another key vote for cloture and whether it will get the 60 votes is anyone's guess at this point. Then, of course, if they do get the 60 votes for cloture, there will be a final vote for the bill, but since only 50 votes are needed, it will be almost guaranteed to pass.

Summary: My source tells me that he thought the amnesty proponents definitely had the upper hand last week, but now, he thinks the momentum may be swinging back the other way. He also said that he thinks the best chance to stop the bill will be on the initial cloture vote. He said that he's hoping that a coalition of conservatives who think this is a bad bill, liberals who think this bill is too tough, and Republican Senators worried about losing minority rights because of the "clay pigeon" strategy will get together and block the bill. If that doesn't happen, the pro-amnesty side won't have won, but the odds will shift a bit more in their favor.

PS #1: I pointed out that John Edwards and Claire McCaskill have made some extremely negative comments about the bill and asked my source if it's possible that Democratic opposition could increase enough to kill the bill. He said it was possible, but he thought Harry Reid was capable of strong arming the Democrats enough to keep them from losing many votes. Of course, he also added that he's not sure that Harry Reid really wants to see this bill pass, so he's not sure how hard he would fight for it. Either way, he said not to count on the Democrats to finish off the bill.

PS #2: I asked him about Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss announcing that they will vote against cloture. My source's take was that it wasn't a bill killer, but that it was significant since both of them were prominent early supporters of the bill. He added that he thought their switch was indicative of the pressure Republicans are feeling at the grass roots level and he said that he thought Isakson and Chambliss deserved credit for paying attention to it while a lot of pro-amnesty supporters have tuned it out or even shut off their answering machines because they're tired of hearing their constituents complain about this issue.

PS #3: Last but not least, I talked to my source about the shots Trent Lott and Lindsey Graham have taken at people opposed to the bill. My source replied that when this whole thing started, these guys were cocky and thought they'd get this bill through with 70 votes, no problem. But now, because of the blogs and talk radio, they've lost the public debate on the issue and they know it. So, at this point, they're way out on a limb supporting a wildly unpopular bill that may or may not pass, and they're lashing out in frustration. He added that a lot of Republican Senators have been offended and embarrassed by their comments and are worried that the voters will lump them in with Graham and Lott.





22 June, 2007

Easiest to enter Britain illegally

Sounds a lot like the USA

HOLIDAYMAKERS who only say they plan to sightsee during a visit to Britain could find their tourist visa applications being refused, a monitoring body said in a report. It is a standard reason given for not granting tourist visas, the Independent Monitor for Entry Clearance Refusals, Linda Costelloe Baker, found in her annual report. Would-be visitors who have never before travelled abroad could also find it difficult to holiday in Britain.

Costelloe Baker cited one case where an applicant had been told by an officer: "You have never previously undertaken any foreign travel before and I can see little reason for this trip." "This is a common reason for refusal," she added. "Entry clearance officers can use some ridiculous reasons when refusing a visa for tourist visits," Costelloe Baker said. She cited one case where an applicant who had previously travelled abroad was refused entry because the countries were "nowhere near the UK". In another case the applicant was told he or she did not have a "sufficient command of the language for the purposes of tourism".

Costelloe Baker said in her report: "Well, if knowledge of the language was a requirement for travel, that would certainly stop lots of British citizens going on their hols." Taking annual vacation in this country was not a good enough reason for one entry clearance officer, while wanting to visit friends near the seaside fell short for another applicant from St Petersburg because he had not said where he wanted to visit.

A would-be tourist who wanted to stay in a hotel in London while visiting friends in Surrey and Kent was turned down because the entry officer had misread it as Cirencester "far from his friends".

Despite such flaws there had been a "significant improvement in quality", she added. The department, UKvisas, formed in 2000 as a joint Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Home Office initiative, received 2.2 million applications between January 2006 and September 2006, of which it issued 1.8 million visas. Costelloe Baker found 86 percent of refusal notices overall were reasonable and provided correct information about the rights of appeal.

Source



As Immigrant Workers Increased, Native Employment Declined in Georgia

Some businesses in Georgia argue that they need large numbers of immigrants because there are not enough native-born Americans to fill jobs that require relatively little education. However, state employment data show that as the number of less-educated immigrant workers has grown dramatically, the share of less-educated natives holding a job in Georgia has declined significantly.

# Between 2000 and 2006 the share of less-educated native-born adults (ages 18 to 64) in Georgia holding a job declined from 71 percent to 66 percent. (Less-educated is defined as having no education beyond high school.)

# Had employment rates for natives been the same in 2006 as they were in 2000, then 186,000 more less-educated native-born adults and teenagers would have been working. The number of less-educated immigrants holding a job increased by 218,000.

# Less-educated blacks in Georgia have seen a somewhat larger decline in employment, from 66 percent holding a job in 2000 to just 60 percent in 2006.

# There are nearly 800,000 less-educated native-born adults in Georgia not working. There are likely between 250,000 and 350,000 less-educated illegal aliens holding jobs in the state.

# Wages and salary for less-educated adults in Georgia have stagnated. Over the entire six-year time period of the study, real annual wages for less-educated adults grew by just 1 percent. If there was a labor shortage, wages should be rising fast.

# Native-born teenagers (15 to 17 years of age) have also seen a dramatic decline in employment. Between 2000 and 2006 the share of native-born teenagers holding a job declined from 22 percent to 11 percent in the state.

# There are about 300,000 native-born teenagers not working in Georgia.

# Immigrants (legal and illegal) increased their share of all less-educated workers in Georgia, from 7 percent in 2000 to 19 percent by 2006. Other research indicates that at least half of this growth was from illegal immigrants.

Discussion: It would be a mistake to think that every job taken by an immigrant is a job lost by a native. However, it would also be a mistake to think that the kind of dramatic increase in immigrant workers that has taken place in Georgia does not have serious implications for the employment of less-educated natives there. The natives impacted by immigrant competition are already the poorest workers and have the lowest rates of employment. This raises important questions about the fairness of creating so much job competition at the bottom end of the labor market through our immigration policies.

There would seem to be a huge supply of less-educated native-born adults and teenagers in the state to meet the needs of businesses. Of course, a large share of persons who are not in the labor force do not wish to work. But it is also clear that many would be willing to do so if properly paid and treated by employers. This is especially true in light of the fact that so many less-educated natives who are not working were in fact working as recently as 2000.

If, for example, immigration laws were enforced and this resulted in say two-thirds of illegal immigrants leaving the state, it would mean that employers would have to find about 200,000 workers to replace them. Given the very large size of the non-working population in the Georgia, replacing illegal workers would seem to be very possible. Again, assuming they are properly paid and treated properly. It is worth noting that businesses in the state could attract natives from other parts of the country with weaker economies if the large existing pool of less-educated natives in the state was still found to be inadequate. There is also the option of utilizing labor-saving devices and techniques.

While the decline in employment among less-educated natives in Georgia is not in dispute, some may feel that immigrants have little to do with it because they work very different jobs than do natives. While there are some differences in the concentration of immigrants and natives across occupations, the fact remains that less-educated immigrants and less-educated natives very often do the same kinds of work. If we look at the top-five occupational categories done by less-educated immigrants we find that 44 percent of less-educated natives are employed in these same occupations. These include building cleaning and maintenance, construction, production, food preparation and service, and transportation and moving occupations.

Other Research: In a paper published last year by the Center for Immigration Studies, Andrew Sum and his colleagues at Northeastern University found that the arrival of new immigrants (legal and illegal) in a state results in a decline in employment among young native born workers in that state. Their findings indicate that young native born workers are being displaced in the labor market by the arrival of new immigrants. In another recent paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (Working paper 12518), the authors found that immigration was responsible for 40 percent of the decline in black employment between 1980 and 2000.

Data Sources: The data for this analysis come from the Annual Social and Economic Supplement of the Current Population Survey (CPS) collected by the Census Bureau in March of each year. It includes legal immigrants and most illegal immigrants. The occupational data discussed above was based on a combined sample of March 2005 and 2006 CPS. We combined two years to get more statistically robust estimates by occupation for the state of Georgia.

Source





21 June, 2007

Federal judge halts Farmers Branch immigration law

A federal judge has blocked the Dallas suburb of Farmers Branch from enforcing a voter-approved law that prohibits landlords from renting apartments to illegal immigrants. The judge has issued a preliminary injunction until a legal challenge to the law is resolved.

The lead attorney for three apartment complexes suing Farmers Branch says they're preparing for a trial. They plan to seek millions in damages for the business they've lost since the ordinance was approved in May. An attorney for Farmers Branch says the city has the right to inquire of apartment renters whether they're legally entitled to live in the United States.

Source



The work open-border libertarians won't do

Open-border fundamentalists seldom address devastating arguments against their case. Maybe they can't. But they generally prefer to respond to philosophically limp positions. Immigration fetishists seem to like advancing positions not worth a straw.

The intellectually honest, however, will try to reply to a valid opposing argument, no matter who makes it. Unless he can't. Then he must concede defeat. Alas, among the open-border claque, intellectual honesty is as scarce as unskilled labor is abundant across the land. The scrappy Tibor Machan is one exception. A scholar and a friend, Machan possesses the intellectual energy and honesty to address the hitherto unchallenged arguments I've put forward in opposition to mass immigration.

First some background. While he is no Tamar Jacoby (for one, he's prettier), Tibor has expressed, in a column for the Orange County Register, doubts about the findings that, overall, immigrants cost taxpayers more than they contribute. Jacoby just denies facts such as those released by the National Academy of Sciences and relayed by the Heritage Foundation. Accordingly, "each immigrant without a high school degree will cost U.S. taxpayers, on average, $89,000 over the course of his or her lifetime." Having tallied the number of illegal and legal low-skill, uneducated immigrants, the NAS has estimated "in total, all immigrants without a high school education could impose a net cost on U.S. taxpayers of around 1 trillion dollars or more. If the cost of educating the immigrants' children is included, that figure could reach 2 trillion dollars."

It's not clear why clever people consider these facts counterintuitive. The immigration "reforms" of the 1960s launched an era of egalitarian policies which gave preference to Third World immigrants, who were then selected not for their skill or education, but for their family ties to a principal sponsor. Such a policy guaranteed the importation of masses of poor, less accomplished, dependent individuals. A finding to the contrary would be newsworthy.

Missing from the current debate about illegal immigration, argues Machan, is a recognition that "the welfare state is the underlying fundamental problem. Until that system is abolished, until a revolutionary change occurs and no Peter is looted for the sake of any Paul - whether poor, rich, legal or illegal - there will be no solution to the illegal immigration problem." In the column "Welfare State and Illegal Immigration," Tibor repeats an uncontested, standard libertarian stance: "The immorality begins not with putting illegal immigrants on the welfare rolls or transferring to them costly services at the expense of American citizens. The immorality lies in the welfare state itself, in the government's policy of coercive wealth redistribution."

The problem with so many libertarian formulations is that they do not respect reality. Rather, they hold up the libertarian ideal, lament its unattainablility, and refuse to debate the issue until the ideal is achieved. That's intellectually lazy. It's also an affront to reality, the rational man's anchor.

And the reality is the American welfare state is accreting, not shrinking. The reality is the more libertarians support the importation of impoverished minorities, with a tradition of aggressively manipulating the political apparatus to obtain property not theirs, the more intractable the welfare state will become. How better to diminish property rights and accelerate wealth distribution and, with it, the death of the republic, than to add to the "union" each year the equivalent of a New Jersey, fueled by identity-politics and consisting predominantly of tax consumers seeking to indenture taxpayers? Witness how, when thousands of non-voting illegal aliens poured into the streets recently to demand their positive, man-manufactured, bogus rights, their elected officials and El Presidente (Bush) came up with a bill that would grant the protesters their wishes.

To the meat of my argument: From the fact that taxpayer-funded welfare for nationals is morally wrong, as Machan rightly avers, why does it follow that extending it to millions of unviable non-nationals is economically and morally negligible? Or that it remotely comports with the libertarian goal of curtailing government growth? How is this stock-in-trade, truncated argument different from positing that because a bank has been robbed by one band of bandits (welfare-dependant nationals), repelling or arresting the next (welfare-dependent non-nationals) is unnecessary because the damage has already been done?

This craven indifference to property proponents of mass immigration extend to the lives snuffed out in crimes committed by illegal aliens. Bob Clark, director of one of the most delightful films ever made, "A Christmas Story," and his 24-year-old son were both killed by a drunk, unlicensed, allegedly illegal alien. Geraldo and Jacoby, the teletwits of amnesty, both asserted that the illegality of the perp is irrelevant to the crime. "It's not an illegal alien story; it's a drunk driving story," Geraldo noodled on "The Factor."

Geraldo was serious, although he should not be taken seriously. So here's my next question: For the Geraldo/Jacoby crushingly stupid claim to stick, they would have to demonstrate that had this drunk, allegedly illegal alien been stopped at the border or been deported, his victims would have nevertheless suffered the same fate. If you leave the door to your home intentionally open (as Bush has), and advertise your hippie habits around the hood (as Bush does), can you honestly claim that the robbery, abduction, rape or murder of your charges was unavoidable? (And that you are unimpeachable?) I'll let professor Machan do the work libertarians won't do.

Source



Illegals flooding little Malta

A migrant flood has overwhelmed the tiny sun-splashed island nation of Malta over the past five years, stirring charges of human-rights violations, taxing the nation's tiny navy and fueling xenophobia. The rocky archipelago, about 55 miles off the coast of Sicily, is best known as a tourist destination. But the start of summer brings mostly African migrants, crossing the Mediterranean in rickety overcrowded boats, on their way to seeking a better life in Europe. Boatloads appear almost daily. "All of a sudden we saw quite a phenomenon; hundreds and hundreds of migrants started appearing in our waters," said Lt. Col. Emmanuel Mallia, the officer in charge of Malta's air, land and sea operations.

Malta's embattled government made a fresh plea last week for EU assistance after the military detained another 28 illegal migrants and Interior Minister Tonio Borg warned that hundreds of others were dying trying to reach Europe. "The situation right now is a complete mess, it's a free for all," he told his EU counterparts, days after immigrants whose boat capsized were left clinging to a fishing net for three days while Mediterranean nations argued over who was responsible for them.

For those who reach this 122-square-mile outcropping of limestone and medieval fortifications, where more than 1,900 people reside per square-mile and jobs are scarce, the relief of survival is quickly followed by the realization that the journey is over. Upon arrival, migrants deemed to be from "safe" countries like Egypt or Morocco are immediately deported, but the rest spend up to a year and a half locked in detention centers while their cases are assessed. Once released, they are moved to open centers or tent cities. But, due to European Union regulations, even those who are granted asylum or humanitarian protection are barred from leaving the country.

Escape from the island is near impossible. "Malta's a stone in the sea," said Somali immigrant Mohammed Abdullahi Hassan, who has dreams of living elsewhere in Europe or even the United States. "There's no way to go back," said Warsame Ali Garare, who fled lawless Mogadishu nearly four years ago. There also is "no way to go to another European country, no way to integrate properly in this community. I don't see my future in general," he said.

Malta's annual intake of about 1,800 migrants is small when compared to the 37,000 "boat people" disgorged in southern Spain, mostly via the Canary Islands, and the 22,000 who washed up in Italy last year. But, given the country's population of 400,000, roughly the same as Omaha, Neb., "every migrant that lands in Malta is like 200 landing in Spain," Lt. Col. Mallia said. Meantime, the Maltese, a homogenous, Roman Catholic society that until recently saw few immigrants, feel under siege from the foreigners - at least half of whom are Muslim. "We have to give them help when they come here, but not for a long time," said Carmen Bongailas, who sells jewelry at a small market in Birkirkara, the country's largest city. "If they would continue to come to Malta . and Malta is a small place . they could overtake us," she said.

Further fueling tensions are worries that terrorists could use Malta as a jumping-off point for attacks in Europe. In April, it was reported that a Libyan terrorist arrested in Britain made it from Malta to the United Kingdom in 2002 after paying smugglers 2,000 British pounds ($3,977). The man, identified as "AS" is "an Islamic extremist who has engaged actively and as a senior member with a terrorist group clearly engaged in support work for jihadist activities," wrote Britain's Special Immigration Appeals Commission, adding that his cell was probably about to go into the operational stage of an attack in Europe.

Not unlike the pattern in other European nations, the tide of immigrants has strengthened far-right political parties. Immigrants "are heading for Europe because it's like the American dream; they're just taking advantage of us," said Martin Degiorgio, spokesperson for the Republican National Alliance, adding that even genuine refugees could have opted to go to other African countries. If migrants can't be repatriated, "we cannot allow them out of (closed) detention centers," said Degiorgio, whose license plate reads "DVX", which is Latin for "Duce," the title adopted by Italy's World War II fascist leader Benito Mussolini.

Not unexpectedly, the tension has triggered racist incidents and sentiments. "The buses are full of black people and they smell," said Manuel Attard, a taxi driver from Birzebbuga, a town near a large immigrant tent city. Meantime, attacks have been carried out on both immigrants and groups that work with them, including several arsons on homes and vehicles belonging to Jesuit Refugee Service workers.

More here





20 June, 2007

Some outrageous provisions in the Senate bill

Here is a 3-minute video explaining the Amnesty Bill that Congress is trying to pass. I think most people will be amazed. Click here



A Bipartisan Compromise or a Conservative Sellout?

It is the conventional wisdom in many quarters that the soon-to-be-revived immigration bill is a good thing, because it is the result of a grand bipartisan compromise. Leaving aside the implied notion that bipartisan compromises are somehow inherently good, the above is a completely inaccurate assessment of this piece of legislation. If the bill indeed represents a compromise what is there in it for conservatives? In the open borders and across-the-board amnesty liberals have been handed everything they have ever wanted in connection with immigration. Conservatives, on the other hand, have been given... er... er... er... Never mind. The bill is a great compromise anyway.

One should always become suspicious when the media and political establishment hail anything as a bipartisan compromise. What this usually means is that the Republicans have come out of the `negotiation' process laughably empty-handed. In return for their gullibility, they get a couple of favorable pieces in print and invitations on leftwing TV network talk shows where they are praised for their sound judgment and wisdom. The adoration invariably lasts until the next time they vote on conservative principle or run against a liberal opponent, whichever comes first.

We know that things are getting really bad when Republicans are targeted for praise by their sworn enemies for putting the good of the country above conservative allegiances. It is a truth not often spoken but plainly obvious that many liberals do not like their own country and consequently pursue policies which they hope will harm it. Nothing could illustrate this better than the current immigration bill, for how can the open borders and amnesty be good for America? Only a madman or a seriously deluded republican could ever think so.

Rather than letting themselves be played for suckers, Senate Republicans would do well to read the first page of the liberal playbook which is inscribed with Winston Churchill's famous dictum:

"Never give in, never give in, never; never; never; never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense."

The first part liberals heed with fanatical zeal as they would rather shout `bigot' and `racist' a thousand times than to give one inch to the other side. The latter part they also keep close to their hearts but in a perfectly inverted manner, ready as they are always to give in where honor and good sense are concerned. This is why they almost never tell the truth or advocate policies that actually work. Case in point: open borders and amnesties.

If anything, the Democrats must have been shocked by how easily they got everything they could ever dream of in that grand `compromise.' The Republican sellout was complete and, somewhat surprisingly, entirely voluntary. The Democrats received it all on a silver platter and they did not even have to dance for it.

To be fair, there was one issue where the Republicans were prepared to drive a hard bargain. On May 23, Senator John Cornyn introduced an amendment which would have made felons ineligible for the proposed amnesty. Needless to say, the Democrats - in the spirit of bipartisanship - categorically refused to give any ground and the Cornyn amendment went down to a stinging defeat. One can almost hear the celebrations in the illegal felon ranks.

The immigration bill travesty has brought home one truth which many conservatives have long tried to ignore - many among the Washington Republicans are for all practical purposes merely moderate liberals in disguise. Disquieting as it is, extravagant spending, burgeoning government bureaucracies, cynical earmarking, needless deficits and uncontrolled immigration are no longer exclusively Democrat priorities. Having essentially the same objectives as their more radical colleagues on the other side, the only real difference is the pace at which Republicans strive to bring these about.

The one clearly remaining difference is in the area of military and foreign policy where Democrats doggedly and unashamedly strive for America's defeat. But there are signs that some Republicans are at last coming around on this issue as well.

It is as telling as it is worrisome that Teddy Kennedy has become the favorite of many D.C. Republicans. George W. Bush, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Michael Chertoff and Jon Kyl are only some among many who have in recent months heaped praise and plaudits on the man whom USA Today calls the Lion of Massachusetts. It apparently does not bother them that during his four decades in the Senate this man has wrought incalculable damage on the United States much of which was effected through his support and sponsorship of bungled immigration legislation in the past.

The Republican love affair with Kennedy is difficult to understand given that even many Democrats - especially those seeking office - are loath to publicly taunt their ties with him. How often do we see Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or John Edwards these days boasting about their friendship with Teddy Kennedy as they traverse America in hunt for votes? They know better, aware as they are of just how despised he is by the majority of the American electorate.

The Washington Republicans, however, have for some reason failed to take note of this. One really wonders what kind of spell Kennedy has cast on those feckless ones to snooker them so. I am really starting to suspect that the Lion of Massachusetts is in possession of some dark powers of which we know nothing about.

If this is indeed so, we better quickly find what they are and come up with an antidote to his black magic as time is running out fast. A heightened sense of urgency should be the order of the day for all those who care for this country's continued well-being, because America may not survive another Kennedy-induced immigration disaster.

Source



Senate Proposal is Full of Holes

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) has been a stalwart proponent of curbing illegal immigration and reforming the legal immigration apparatus in a truly meaningful manner. To that end, on June 4, in the middle of the first round of floor debate on the so-called "grand bargain" immigration bill, Sen. Sessions issued a press release listing egregious loopholes in the proposal, including "flaws effecting border security, chain-migration and assimilation policies."

In prefacing the list, Sen. Sessions indicated that he is "deeply concerned about the numerous loopholes.found in this legislation," which he sees as "more than technical errors, but rather symptoms of a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation that stands no chance of actually fixing our broken immigration system." Furthermore, Sen. Sessions said, "Many of the loopholes are indicative of a desire not to have the system work."

Flaw No. 1: Sen. Sessions pointed to perhaps the biggest flaw by noting that the "'enforcement trigger' fails to require the U.S. VISIT system - the biometric border check-in/check-out system established by Congress in 1996, but never implemented - to be fully functioning before new worker or amnesty programs begin. Without the system in place, the U.S. has no method of ensuring that workers and their families do not overstay their visas."

Flaw No. 2: While most Americans tell pollsters they want less immigration, this bill dramatically increases overall immigration. It TRIPLES chain migration through the year 2016 - all the while sanctioning a mass importation of low-skill foreign workers and, by extension, a mass importation of poverty into this country.

Flaw No. 3: Illegal aliens get "legal status before enforcement" begins;

Flaw No. 4: The "triggers" require "no more agents, beds, or fencing than current law" mandates;

Flaw No. 5: The completion of background checks, including checks against criminal and terrorist databases, is "not required for" the granting of amnesty (in this bill, it is referred to as "probationary status").

Flaw No. 6: Criminals of all kinds - including gang members, some child molesters, and absconders (i.e., "aliens who have already had their day in court and who are now subject to.removal" [covering "more than 636,000 fugitives") are eligible for the bill's mass amnesty;

Flaw No. 7: "Illegal aliens with terrorism connections are not barred from getting amnesty. An illegal alien seeking most immigration benefits must merely show 'good moral character.'"

Flaw No. 8: Illegal aliens granted amnesty or guestworkers imported via the new "Y" "temporary worker" program can claim the Earned Income Tax Credit, which "will cost taxpayers billions in just 10 years";

Flaw No. 9: "Affidavits from friends" are acceptable as evidence of satisfying requirements for amnesty, thus "invit fraud and more illegal immigration";

Flaw No. 10: "In-state tuition and other higher education benefits.will be made available to current illegal aliens that are granted [amnesty>, even if the same instate tuition rates are not offered to all U.S . citizens," a violation of current Federal law, which "mandates that educational institutions give citizens the same postsecondary education benefits they offer to illegal aliens";

Flaw No. 11: New visas are created for individuals who are prone to overstaying their period of authorized admission - namely, the new "parent" visa, which allows parents of citizens, and the spouses and children of new temporary workers, to visit a worker in the United States. Not only is this term "a misnomer, but also an invitation for high rates of visa overstays" because it "specifically allows the spouse and children of new temporary workers who intend to abandon their residence in a foreign country, to qualify to come to the U.S. to 'visit.'" To obtain the visa, one must only post a $1,000 bond, "which will be forfeited when, not if, family members of new temporary workers decide to overstay their 30 day visit. Workers should travel to their home countries to visit their families, not the other way around";

Flaw No. 12: To be granted amnesty, illegal aliens need not pay back income taxes;

Flaw No. 13: Social Security credits for work done while in the United States illegally will be granted to "[aliens who came to the U.S. on legal visas, but overstayed their visas and have been working in the U.S . for years, as well as illegal aliens who apply for Z visa status but do not qualify"; and

Flaw No. 14: "The criminal fines an illegal alien is required to pay to receive amnesty are less than the bill's criminal fines for paperwork violations committed by U.S. citizens, and can be paid by installment," which means that "the fine for illegally entering, using false documents to work, one-tenth the fine for a paperwork violation committed by a government official."





19 June, 2007

A succinct comment from Mark Steyn

The illegal immigration question is an interesting test of government in action, at least when it comes to core responsibilities like defense of the nation. When critics of this "comprehensive" immigration bill demand enforcement of the borders, the administration says: Boy, you're right there! We're with you on that! We want enforcement, too. But we can't get it as long as you're holding up this "comprehensive reform."

Why not? There are immigration laws on the books right now, aren't there? Why not try enforcing them? The same people who say that government is a mighty power for good that can extinguish every cigarette butt and detoxify every cheeseburger and even change the very climate of the planet back to some Edenic state so that the water that falleth from heaven will land as ice and snow, and polar bears on distant continents will frolic as they did in days of yore, the very same people say: Building a border fence? Enforcing deportation orders? Can't be done, old boy. Pie-in-the-sky.

Source



Who is Illiberal on Immigration?

By V.D. Hanson

The collapse last week of a comprehensive immigration bill in Congress that called for a huge guest-worker program, fast-track visas and a sort of earned citizenship for illegal aliens has unleashed a backlash against those opponents of it who prefer to close the border first and legislate the details of illegal immigration later.

Washington pundits and Beltway politicians are furious at various critics of the bill, from radio talk show hosts and writers for conservative magazines to frontline congressional representatives and Republican presidential candidates like Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson.

These critics are dubbed cynical nativists - or racists - who have demagogued the issue and scapegoated hardworking illegal aliens. Even President Bush got into the fray when he alleged that conservative obstructionists were somehow not working in America's best interests.

But who's really being cynical when it comes to illegal immigration? The government? Of course. It has caved to pressure groups for over a quarter-century. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 ensured neither reform nor control. Instead, the law simply resulted in millions entering the United States through blanket amnesty and de facto open borders. In many cities, current municipal laws bar police officers from turning arrested illegal aliens over to immigration officials. So why should the public believe that the proposed new law, with hundreds of pages of rules and regulations, would trump local obstructionism or effect any real change?

Had the bill passed, could we really have expected that the first impoverished alien unable to pay the fee or fine under its provisions would have been sent summarily home? More likely, he would have appeared on the 6 o'clock news as a victim of American mean-spiritedness and racism - and thereby instead won a reprieve or an outright apology.

Congressional supporters of the present legislation are themselves often engaging in politics of the most cynical kind. Rare "bipartisan" cooperation on the bill, which brought Sen. Trent Lott from Mississippi to the side of Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy, is hardly statesmanship or a sudden outbreak of civic virtue. Rather, it is a new public face to the old alliance between profit-minded employers (and those who represent their interests) and demographically obsessed liberal and ethnic activists.

The former want assurances that there will be millions of aliens available to work at wages that Americans will not - with the ensuing medical, housing, schooling and legal costs subsidized by the taxpayer. The latter can't wait for more constituents in need of group representation who, it is hoped, will someday support them at the polls.

Most cynical of all, however, are the moralistic pundits, academics and journalists who deplore the "nativism" of Americans they consider to be less-educated yokels. Yet their own jobs of writing, commenting, reporting and teaching are rarely threatened by cheaper illegal workers. Few of these well-paid and highly educated people live in communities altered by huge influxes of illegal aliens. Their professed liberality about illegal immigration usually derives from seeing hardworking waiters, maids, nannies and gardeners commute to their upscale cities and suburbs to serve them well - and cheaply.

In general, such elites don't use emergency rooms in the inner cities and rural counties overcrowded by illegal aliens. They don't drive on country roads frequented by those without licenses, registration and insurance. And their children don't struggle with school curricula altered to the needs of students who speak only Spanish. For many professors, politicians and columnists, the gangs, increased crime and crowded jails that often result from massive illegal immigration and open borders are not daily concerns, but rather stereotypes hysterically evoked by paranoid and unenlightened others in places like Bakersfield and Laredo.

So, what is the truth on illegal immigration? Simple. Millions of fair-minded white, African-, Mexican- and Asian-Americans fear that we are not assimilating millions of aliens from south of the border as fast as they are crossing illegally from Mexico. In the frontline American Southwest, entire apartheid communities and enclaves within cities have sprung up whose distinct language, culture and routines are beginning to resemble more the tense divides in the Balkans or Middle East than the traditional melting pot of multiracial America.

Concern over this inevitable slowdown in integration and assimilation is neither racist nor nativist. It grows out of real worry that when millions of impoverished arrive in mass without legality, education and the ability to speak English, costly social problems follow that will not be offset by the transitory economic benefits cheap wages may provide. Those fretting about delays in sealing the border along with proposed fast-track visas, millions of new guest workers and neglect of existing immigration law are neither illiberal nor cynical. But their self-righteous critics may well be both.

Source



An Interview With National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman, John Ensign

On Friday, John Hawkins got together for a phone interview with National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman, John Ensign. Excerpt below

John Hawkins: Sure, I understand. Give me an estimate of how many calls, emails, and faxes that you think the RNSC has received over the immigration issue and maybe what the for and against ratio has been.

John Ensign: The number of calls to our personal offices as well as to the NRSC are overwhelming and they are overwhelmingly against the bill. It's, I don't know, ...a hundred to one against.

John Hawkins: If the Senate amnesty bill passes, Tom Tancredo has pledged to campaign against senators who vote for it. You probably know. I've set up a website called The Payback Project to do the same thing. The number of (commenters) I've seen around the blogosphere who've commented that they're either going to stay home in 2008 or throw their vote away on a third party has been enormous. According to Rasmussen, the public opposes this bill 2 to 1. Given all that, don't you think it's fair to say that if this bill passes, isn't it pretty safe to say that some Republican senators will lose their job as a result?

John Ensign: Well, first of all, I want to see the final version. I don't think people should judge the final version. I'm against the bill as it currently stands. But, if we can make some changes to the bill, I do believe it will be a much better bill than current law is...and it will help actually clean up some things.

Briefly, some things that need to be put in the bill that are not in there now -- one is that we need more resources for interior enforcement. It's one thing to secure the border, but when 40% of the people have just overstayed their visas....if local law enforcement arrests someone for drunk driving, and they call the immigration service, and the immigration service says we don't have the resources -- that's unacceptable. They need to have the resources to do that interior enforcement so we can have respect for the rule of law at the borders as well as within our country.

The second thing is, you have to have an exit visa program. If we have a temporary visa program and you don't have an exit visa program -- in other words, if someone is supposed to be here for 10 months and you let him come in legally and he's supposed...to leave, if you don't have an exit visa program, there's no way to know if he's left. You will end up literally with millions more people here illegally into the future. So, that is a huge flaw in the bill right now that has to be fixed. I've talked to Secretary Chertoff about this, to the bill managers about this, to Lindsey Graham about this, and it absolutely must be fixed before we go ahead.

Another thing that is a problem with the bill is that we have to make sure the funding is there. You have got to make sure that (the) mandatory spending is there for border enforcement, for the exit visa program, for interior enforcement, for all of those things that those of us who believe in strengthening our laws (want). We have to make sure the funding is there and that it's not a wink and a nod.

John Hawkins: Well, let me ask you, John: isn't the thing that.nobody believes that this stuff will be implemented? Even if it's written in the law....

John Ensign: ...We've got a lot of laws subject to appropriations and that's the way it has been in the past and that's why you have to guarantee the funding. That's why the funding has to be part of the triggers. In other words, this new Z visa program or the new temporary Y visa program doesn't go into effect until these things happen. That's why the triggers have to be real and they have to be tied to funding.

John Hawkins: John, don't the probationary Z visas start as early as immediately (after the bill is signed)?

John Ensign: I have a problem with that. I think that's one of the problems with the bill. The problem I have with the probationary Z visa part is that the probation is unlimited...if you make it probationary, make it like two years. You got two years to get the thing in place. You do want folks signing up -- having to go through a background check, having to get a tamper proof identification card so we'll know where they are, where they're working, and so that they won't get government benefits, so that they're not getting welfare, all of those things.

John Hawkins: Well, John, let's say that's passed. Trent Lott has already said that they're going to take that sort of thing out in committee. He's already publicly said...

John Ensign: Well, we've got some good leverage on that as far as conference. We can make sure that those things are what are called, pre-conference. They have to agree to them before we ever allow them to go to the conference. We can filibuster them going to conference. So, we do have some leverage there. We haven't given everything up by letting that happen. That's a very strong...parliamentary trick that we have -- if the bill is fixed -- and I am not in any way, shape, or form confident that the bill is going to be fixed. As a matter of fact, I'm very doubtful. I'm saying that if we can fix it, and I'm saying I would like to fix it, I would actually like to try to solve the problem, it's just that the current bill misses the mark and it misses the mark badly.

John Hawkins: Ok, well, let me ask you also, given what the loud, clear, and overwhelming conservative outcry against the immigration bill has been, don't you think that if it passes, conservatives will almost have no other choice than to make sure that 4-5 pro-amnesty senators in 2008 lose just to prove that the GOP can't get away with totally disregarding the opinions of conservatives?

John Ensign: Once again, I think it depends on the final product, on the final bill...

John Hawkins: So, what if the bill is passed as is today or with the...amendments that are currently up, the 22 they're going to bring up...?

John Ensign: It may do some damage. It also may do some damage to Democrats though. You have to remember...that a lot of the unions hate this bill. So, it can do some damage to Democrats as well. But, ...I think that the passions run very deep and you feel it out there. There's no question about that. That's why I am trying to make sure that we fix the bill so that it's not just good politics, but it's what's good for America. You know, that's one thing that I have discovered in the few years that I've been in office. If you do what's good for America, what's good for your state, the politics will take care of itself.

John Hawkins: As far as fixing the bill, let me bring one more thing up. I think what everybody seems to be asking for is, or most people seem to be asking for, is to build confidence by putting in enforcement measures first. No probationary visas until, let's say, we've got the wall built - until, let's say, we've got the border patrol up to full strength. What's the problem with doing that first?

John Ensign: Well, that's all part of the trigger system. That's why I said the triggers have to be funded. If you don't fund the triggers, then the triggers can really just be window dressing.

John Hawkins: We're sort of seeing that with the wall. It's not getting built. I think we've had 11 miles built so far after all this time...I guess the thing is, since they're getting probationary permanent Z visas immediately, the triggers are irrelevant....

John Ensign: No, no. This is what we talked about. ...Listen to me on these two things. One is that the problem that people like you and I have with the triggers right now, is we've seen what's happened to the funding in the past. It has not been there. That's why I made the important point that you have to guarantee the funding. ...You have to write that into the bill, that the funding is guaranteed. You can...actually do that. The other thing that is the important part of this though, is that you do want folks signed up. It is for us to be able to know where people are and to be able to get rid of some of these criminals. You have to remember that the employee verification system, when it's in place -- it will weed out over time the folks who are here illegally that choose to stay here...and a lot of those would be criminals.

John Hawkins: But, do you believe that will happen because my expectation is that even if you have an employer verification system, the employers will complain and the same people who are supporting this bill will just take it out, or weaken it, or dilute it in the future.

John Ensign: No...because even the people who are supporting this bill -- because the immigration system in the future will be based a lot more on merit, and so the employment needs of the country can be based on our economic needs.

John Hawkins: But, John, doesn't the merit system kick in...in eight years? So, who's to say that we will ever get to it? How do we know that won't be taken out?

John Ensign: Well,...the merit system on the Z visa program waits 8 years, but not on the rest of it. So, it is something that is a critical part of this bill, the merit system, because instead of having a system just based on family, just because someone happens to be a 2nd cousin of somebody who is already here, that they don't really contribute anything to the economy, it can be based on somebody coming here and contributing to this country. Those are the people that we want to attract to the United States.

John Hawkins: I agree with you, it's just that, again, I don't think it's possible to fix this in the bill just because the people who want (this bill), don't want it to be merit based, they don't want to enforce the border, and they'll simply thwart these measures. They'll either strip it out in committee, they'll slow walk the laws, or they'll find a way never to enforce them.

John Ensign: There's no question that what you are saying -- you should be skeptical about this. That's why we're trying to put in as many safeguards as possible. And you will not get a perfect bill. But, the one thing we do know is that the current system is broken. And without an employee verification system, I don't care what walls you build, what you do -- without that, you are not going to fix the immigration problem. You need an exit visa program; you need an employee verification system. Period. The end.

John Hawkins: Well, I agree with you, John. But, I guess the point is, why can't we do that first, before the probationary Z visa...

John Ensign: We can't get enough votes. That's the bottom line. If we could do that, I would go with you on that. But, you don't have enough votes in the U.S. Senate to do that.

John Hawkins: Wouldn't that be a great campaign issue to run on though if Republicans favored it and Democrats didn't?

John Ensign: I would rather fix the problem and you're not going to get it fixed...under the current situation. Therein lies the problem.

John Hawkins: I think this bill can only make it worse -- it doesn't matter what amendments you put on it, as long as it has those probationary Z visas in there that start immediately. I don't think there's any way to fix it. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

John Ensign: Exactly and listen, there are not two sides to this bill. There are 22 sides to this bill. We can sit conservatives in the room and come up with 20 different opinions on each aspect of the bill. That's what makes this a very complex piece of legislation and that's why we're trying to make as good a law as we possibly can. The one thing we have agreed on is that the current bill is not a good enough law. Very good. I gotta go, I have another press interview right after this.

Source





18 June, 2007

Why the Railroad Effort on the Amnesty Bill?

Post lifted from Jawa Report. See the original for links

We can all understand the push by big business to keep their steady flow of illegal laborers coming in, strengthening their bargaining position against blue-collar working class Americans. Then again, they already have that today in droves. Why the sudden balls-to-the-wall push to get it all "kosher" right now? Mickey Kaus forwards a theory:

Chertoff and Kyl both seem to have answered that question recently, Kyl in his Wall Street Journal interview and Chertoff on Fox News yesterday: because businesses are starting to worry about efforts to enforce immigration laws at the local level. One state in the vanguard of that effort is Kyl's (and McCain's) home state of Arizona, where the legislature has passed numerous laws (usually vetoed) on the issue, and where the public voted for Prop 200 back in 2004.

To me that says something far more ominous than that Congress is being disingenuous or na‹ve on the matter. Far from simple being empty promises, this amnesty bill is actually a blatant attempt to head off any attempts at enforcement at all.

I think this is probably right. I think big business realizes that voters are going to extract some very explicit and unequivocal promises from their candidates next year. I think they realize at this point that a number of their champions on this bill are not coming back to Washington after the next election.

Big agriculture and big construction realize that they'll be faced with a new Commander-in-Chief, Democrat or Republican, who will likely have made a list of unequivocal promises to the voters during the campaign. Given the opportunity to build up public goodwill with a series of big, high-profile immigration busts in her first six months of office, does anyone think that President Hillary would pass it up? If she's anywhere near as calculating as her reputation suggests, there's not a chance she'll pass up that opportunity. A Republican President would feel less need for high-profile token efforts, but may bring in a Justice Department that actually cares about national security. (How crazy would that be?) If you're an employer who's been skirting the law for years with a wink and a nod, this change in the winds has to be keeping you up at night--with good reason. Some CEOs looking at public opinion polls and knowing their employment rolls haven't been even close to right with God, have to be dealing with some serious heartburn at the thought of angry villagers at the corporate gates demanding massive fines and/or a few years in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.

If the employers can just get across the line on this, they've significantly reduced their exposure. This Amnesty Bill represents a sort of "get out of jail free" card for these executives. Whether it'll actually work out that way is another matter. They see the writing on the wall, and they're pulling out the stops to protect their own hides, even if they have to wreck their own country to do it.

Of course, jamming this piece of shit down our throats only adds to the long list of reasons we're already pissed as hell at the employers and their elected cronies. This may be your time, fellas. You may have the upper hand now. The men in power are your boys, and you may get them to vote how you like, even against the clear will of the people who sent them there.

Enjoy it while it lasts, but don't forget it for a second: our time is coming. You have the cash, but we have the numbers. A whole lot of us have damn long memories. We're gonna remember every bit of this sordid ordeal. And payback, as they say, is a bitch.



Reid To Use "Unprecedented" Procedural Sham To Snake Amnesty Past Cloture

Post lifted from Ace. See the original for links

Here's how I understand it to work: Under Senate Rule XV, any Senator can ask that any amendment containing several parts be made subject to division. The person who decides whether the amendment can be divided will be the presiding officer: in this case whatever Democratic Senator is in the chair at the time, or VP Cheney if they think he might be needed to break a tie vote. The Senate as a body can appeal a ruling of "divisibility", but it only needs a majority vote to be upheld.

Because Senator Reid is the Majority Leader, he has procedural powers that trump every other Senator's in that he is privileged for recognition over any other Senator. Basically, it means he gets to go first. So what it sounds like he is going to do is offer the "Grand Compromise" as a Substitute and then make his own motion to divide his amendment into, say, 24 parts. The Dem Senator in the Chair will rule that the amendment is divisable and all of a sudden one amendment becomes 24 separate amendments.

Why is this important? Because Amendments under division are AUTOMATICALLY considered one right after the other. No other amendments can be considered while the divided amendments are chugging along.

This means that you now have to consider 24 Amendments right off the bat. In a post-cloture environment, you only have 30 hours to consider amendments before a Roll Call Vote on the underlying bill must be held. Even if other Amendments are pending (and would normally be brought up for a vote), once the 30 hours time limit hits, those amendments are washed away as if they never existed.

So, the Net Effect will be that even if say Sessions or Demint filed an amendment, it could not come up any earlier than 25th. Since the clock will be running continuously while the individual divided amendments are being discussed, and even during the roll call votes, this means that not only will anti-Amnesty GOP Senators likely not see their amendments called up, but that DEMOCRATIC "poison pill amendments" (like Dorgan's 5 year guest-worker sunset) won't see the light of day either, unless it is still in the text of the new amendment language that Reid is making divisible.

I never saw this procedure used as a way to fill the Amendment tree or to run out the cloture clock in my time working in the Senate. I think it is an unprecedented use of division by the MAJORITY to do this.





17 June, 2007

Does the Senate immigration bill matter?

Not as much as we might think, apparently. If the Amnesty bill ever does make it to the House of Reps., its chances there are exceedingly dim, it would seem. Or so the following story suggests:

House passes Tancredo measure to deny emergency funds to sanctuary cities

He's offered similar proposals at least seven times in the past three years and they've always failed by big margins. Today? 234-189, with no fewer than 49 Democrats voting in favor. The Rocky Mountain News says all sides are "stunned"; his own press release describes him as "exuberant." Not necessarily because he thinks the Senate's going to pass this but because of a certain Larger Truth that might just have materialized. From the RMN:

Tancredo said he thinks his amendment is an indicator that the House would crush the reform plan [i.e., amnesty bill] if it passes in the Senate.

"If I were (Speaker of the House) Nancy Pelosi, I'd be asking if she could pass a vote on amnesty on the House side," Tancredo said. "If she lost 50 Democrats on this one, and she says she needs 70 Republicans to pass the immigration plan, this is an interesting indicator of things coming down the pike, and that the times, they are a-changing."

Follow the first link and read Noam's post. Exit question: Did Tancredo just slay the dragon?

Source



David Frum on amnesty

I for one am absolutely open to considering an amnesty plan at any date after the FIFTH anniversary of the completion of border control measures, including an effective employment verification system.

I am open to an amnesty plan after the flow of new illegals has been halted and we have seen significant attrition from the existing illegal population.

I am open to amnesty after - and only after! - federal judges start assisting local law enforcement agencies that wish to enforce the law rather than forbidding them to do so.

I am open to amnesty after a US president demonstrates a willingness to respond with some modicum of respect to the immigration concerns of the American public - and is not looking for any transparent gimmick that will get him from here to the bill signing.

Hey, here's a thought: Why doesn't President Bush condemn the decision by federal judge Colleen McMahon to require the town of Mamaroneck, NY, to pay $550,000 to illegal aliens and create a center from which they may violate the immigration laws of the United States conveniently, publicly, and with impunity? If ever one legal case destroyed what little "confidence" remained in the seriousness of the US government on immigration, this was that case. And the president has said ... what exactly?

If we have learned anything from the hard experiences of the recent past it is that amnesty must be the last step in any intelligent program of immigration enforcement. When it is the first step, it rapidly becomes the only step - or rather, the first step to the next amnesty and the next after that.

We have learned too that the political leadership in Washington wants a radically different outcome to this immigration debate from that desired by the large majority of the American people.

Confidence? Well in the words of an expert on the subject:

"Fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again."

Source



On the lighter side

Two Iranian spies met in a busy restaurant, after they'd successfully slipped into the U.S.

The first spy starts speaking in Iranian.

The second spy hushes him quickly and whispers:

"Don't blow our cover!

You're in America now, for the love of Allah.....

Speak Spanish!!"





16 June, 2007

Amnesty Back On Senate Floor Next Week

Post lifted from Ace. See the original for links

They just don't get it. Some dogs take a couple of kicks before they get the picture. Others need to be, errrm, "brought to a nice big farm where they can run around and chase butterflies all day." We need to send a bunch of our "representatives" to that nice big farm.

There will be primary challenges -- and the conservative base is strongly united on this issue. If you think Big Daddy NRC can save you, think again. They can toss you some money but guess what? They can't actually donate votes to you. I'd vote for a goddmaned space mutant before I'll vote for an amnesty jagoff. We'll cull you. And then we're repeal your goddamnable amnesty.

Details of the immigration compromise remain to be finalized, but top Democratic sources say Reid has closely monitored the behind-the-scenes dickering over policy changes and a finite list of amendments due for consideration. Based on the latest updates on the policy and amendments, Reid will approve the compromise and move late Thursday to put the bill back on the calendar for Senate consideration in the middle of next week.

"He's going to bless it and he's going to get the Senate back in the business of dealing with immigration," said a source in the Democratic Senate leadership.

The principal change to the bipartisan immigration compromise that Reid shelved last week is the addition of $4.4 billion in added border security spending. That money will be added to the base bill to return to the floor. Any other changes to the immigration bill will have to be made through the amendment process.

We've already lost Larry Criag, by the way, who cast a vote against cloture last time but this time has already announced he's voting in favor of it.

Here's something that will surprise you not at all:

... the conservative leaders of the anti-amnesty movement are refusing to cooperate, and won't give Mitch McConnell a list of amendments that they want considered. My source tells me that the reason for this is that the game has now been rigged. McConnell is essentially promising to bring the amendments up in exchange for cloture votes, but he's publicly saying that they will strip any problematic amendments out in committee.

In other words, if the bill gets through the Senate and the House, the Democrats and the open borders Republicans will work together when the bills have to be reconciled in committee to strip out any amendments that the "grand bargainers" don't like. Therefore, at this point, it doesn't matter what amendments pass, because any tough enforcement provisions slip through will be rendered toothless when the bills are reconciled.

My source also noted that the cloture vote to end debate will be the "real" vote on the bill because if debate is closed off, the bill is sure to pass. Then, what will happen is that the votes for the bill will be counted, and a few Senators who are afraid that their election prospects will be jeopardized by a "yes" vote, will be allowed to vote against the bill.

So, the amendments will all be blocked and those few that are passed will be immediately stripped out in conference. And then they're going to try fool us by voting yes to cloture (guaranteeing passage) but no on the actual bill, so they can claim they voted against it.

Wrong, fellas. We're smarter than that. A vote for cloture is a vote for the bill itself, and we will never allow you to peddle your shoddy lie to the public without challenge.



Blacks Activists say Resuscitation of Immigration Reform Legislation Ignores Overwhelming Public Opposition

"It Doesn't Seem That Our Leaders Realize That What Didn't Work Then Won't Work Now."

As senators and the White House try to resurrect the already-failed immigration reform bill, members of the Project 21 black leadership network warn against betraying the public trust by pushing ahead on the highly unpopular legislation.

"If there was ever any doubt about what the elected really think about those who elect them, one need only consider their action on immigration reform," said Project 21 chairman Mychal Massie. "Pollster Scott Rasmussen found that 72 percent of the people he polled consider it very important to reduce illegal immigration, yet only 23 percent of the same group support the Senate's immigration reform bill and only 16 percent think it will work. These lawmakers seem to have divorced themselves from the reality that we matter, and they seem bereft of guilt for doing it."

Immigration reform legislation, which failed to receive enough votes to end debate, was pulled from the floor a week ago. Late on June 14, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced the bill would return to the floor with a limited number of amendments. The Bush Administration endorsed a plan to allocate $4.4 billion in funds for immediate border security and workplace enforcement measures that were previously enacted but not funded.

Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), a critic of the legislation, told The Washington Post, "I appreciate the effort to fund border security, but there's simply no reason why we should be forced to tie amnesty to it."

An analysis of the bill's initial failure by the Rasmussen Reports polling firm found that the legislation was opposed by "a broad cross-section of the American people" because it made legalizing the estimated 12 million illegal aliens in the United States a higher priority than keeping more from entering. The analysis noted: "Once the government actually enforces the border, then debate can begin on all other aspects of immigration reform."

"Lawmakers should know better. The backlash against this so-called comprehensive immigration reform is obvious," said Project 21 member Kevin Martin. "Even with the latest concession from the President, people are still worried about a lack of focus on border security and the overall cost and growth of government services that will come with totally assimilating those already living here illegally. It's going to be a repeat of what happened in 1986, and it doesn't seem that our leaders realize that what didn't work then won't work now."

Source



An example of "jobs Americans won't do"?

A 16-year-old girl endured being sold into prostitution by her mother but finally went to Houston police after seeing her younger sister also forced to perform sex acts, investigators said Wednesday. The teenager had complied with her mother - who even distributed business cards offering her daughters for sex - but feared that her 14-year-old sister would be hurt, officers said.

Nelsi Yolanda Latuda and her boyfriend, Pedro Espinoza-Escama, both of the 5500 block of Antoine, are charged with two counts each of compelling prostitution of a minor. They were ordered held in lieu of bail totaling $20,000 each. Latuda, 35, is the girls' mother, but they are not related to Espinoza-Escama, who is 21, Harris County Assistant District Attorney Justin Wood said.

Houston police declined to comment about the investigation or identify the suspects but confirmed that a couple were arrested Sunday on unrelated charges and later questioned about the allegations regarding Latuda's daughters. "They were interrogated, and they confessed to forcing the juveniles into prostitution," spokesman Victor Senties said.

Wood said the prostitution scheme went on for months and that Latuda and her boyfriend printed and passed out business cards near their northwest Houston home, offering the girls for sex.

The pair arranged meetings and delivered the girls, Wood said. "I have never dealt with a case where biological children were being prostituted out by their own mother," he said.

Police said Latuda and her daughters are from Honduras and have lived in Houston for about two years. The girls are staying with relatives, Wood said.

The story does not indicate what the immigration status is of the defendants or the daughters. It does indicate that Latuda has a previous arrest for possessing a controlled substance. Evidently her immigration status was not an issue then either as she served a 10 day sentence. She does not appear to be a person of high moral character. Mom of the year--not.

This case does add new meaning the the phrase jobs Americans want do.

Source





15 June, 2007

Disgusting immigration bureaucracy bows to publicity

What WAS the point of keeping a baby away from his legally-resident mother??

After two years of inaction, U.S. immigration authorities approved a request Thursday for the 3-year-old son of a U.S. citizen to emigrate from Morocco and join his family in Virginia.

Abdeloihab Boujrad and his wife, Leila Boujrad, have been trying since June 2005 to get authorities to allow their son, Ahmedyassine, to join them. The toddler has been living with an aunt in Morocco.

An Islamic civil rights group that took up Boujrad’s cause suspected that the delay was caused by a similarity in Ahmedyassine’s name to the founder of the Palestinian Islamic militant group Hamas, Sheik Ahmed Yassin, who was assassinated by Israel in 2004.

Approval of the application came a day after The Associated Press and other media detailed the Boujrads’ plight.

Source



The Inside Story On What's Happening With The Senate Immigration Bill

Post lifted from Right Wing News. See the original for links

Yesterday, a GOP aide, who is one of my sources in the Senate, gave me the rundown on what's happening with the Senate immigration bill (this is the same person who I talked to last week about the bill). First off, it does look like the Senate immigration bill is coming back. The conventional wisdom seems to be that it's going to be brought up right before the July 4th break, so that the Senate Republican leadership can try to use that as leverage to get votes (in other words, "vote for the bill or we'll have to waste your vacation time until you do").

This is despite the fact that the conservative leaders of the anti-amnesty movement are refusing to cooperate, and won't give Mitch McConnell a list of amendments that they want considered. My source tells me that the reason for this is that the game has now been rigged. McConnell is essentially promising to bring the amendments up in exchange for cloture votes, but he's publicly saying that they will strip any problematic amendments out in committee.

In other words, if the bill gets through the Senate and the House, the Democrats and the open borders Republicans will work together when the bills have to be reconciled in committee to strip out any amendments that the "grand bargainers" don't like. Therefore, at this point, it doesn't matter what amendments pass, because any tough enforcement provisions slip through will be rendered toothless when the bills are reconciled.

My source also noted that the cloture vote to end debate will be the "real" vote on the bill because if debate is closed off, the bill is sure to pass. Then, what will happen is that the votes for the bill will be counted, and a few Senators who are afraid that their election prospects will be jeopardized by a "yes" vote, will be allowed to vote against the bill. This enables those Senators to tell their constituents that they voted against the bill, but it will still allow them to collect campaign contributions from lobbyists who have a better understanding of how things work, and know that the bill couldn't have been passed without their support. Put another way, they get to reap the rewards of supporting amnesty while telling the voters in their home states that they opposed the bill.

My source also let me know that the White House and the Senate leadership, and Trent Lott in particular, are pushing very hard for this bill. I asked my source to speculate on why Lott was pushing so hard, and he said that Lott may be naive enough to think that this bill might help John McCain's presidential campaign. He told me that despite McCain's dip in polling since the bill hit the news, it was hard to miss the fact that the biggest supporters of this bill in the Senate, Jon Kyl, Trent Lott, and Lindsey Graham, are all solidly behind McCain in '08.

Before we finished up, I asked my source what he thought the prospects of passage were. He stated that it was a toss up, but that the pro-amnesty side had the momentum. I asked how that could possibly be given the outpouring of anger against this bill, and he told me that a lot of moderates were afraid of being called racists by people like Michael Chertoff, Luis Gutierrez, and Fred Barnes. He also noted that the Senate has a very insulated, clubhouse like atmosphere, and that a lot of these pro-amnesty Senators seem to be more worried about getting the President or Trent Lott mad at them than enraging the voters of their states. In addition, he told me that he thinks a lot of these Senators have "drunk the DC Kool-Aid", and believe that they're better off passing a bad bill, even one that won't ultimately become law if, as expected, the House kills it, so that they can at least tell the voters in 2008 that they did something about immigration.

PS #1: I asked my source what his boss thought the fallout from this bill would be. He advised me that his boss, and some of his boss's conservative colleagues in the Senate, believe that this bill could gin up so much outrage on the right that it could lead to the GOP having an even worse year in 2008 than they did in 2006. As is, conservatives are disillusioned and unmotivated, and he thinks this bill will only make things even worse.

PS #2: Another question I had for my source was whether he thought Harry Reid wanted this bill to pass. He replied that he thought Rush Limbaugh was right, and that Harry Reid would prefer to see this bill go away. As evidence for that, he pointed to Reid bringing Byron Dorgan's killer Amendment back three times. He also said that if Reid had really wanted the bill to pass, he would have kept it on the floor for another 2-3 days. At this point though, he said that Reid is probably content to let it come back because after the President's high profile lobbying, he can pin the blame for the bill on Republicans.



14 June, 2007

To lighten the gloom:

You might be an illegal alien if....

. . . your extended family can throw a reunion party without anyone having to leave their own house.

...You come to the United States so you can get a job at a Mexican restaurant.

You're getting tired of pulling yourself out of the bushes every time someone yells that the ICE cream man is coming!

If you can Vote but can't rent from Blockbuster...

...you spend two hours a day in 7/11 or Home Depot parking lots.

..If you know exactly how many adults can fit in the trunk of a '87 Impala .

...If you've ever given The Home Depot's parking lot as your home address.

....If you think that driving 20 MPH in the fast lane is being inconspicuous.

You might be an illegal alien if you use this mode of transportation to get to work in Los Angeles (or any other large metropolitan sanctuary city..)



. . your driver's license, SSN, utility bill, and passport all have different names on them - none of which is yours.

.... if you get love letters from Bank of America.

.... if your primary care physician's initials are E.R.

...if the only convertible you've ever driven had the words John Deere on it.

.. if your clothes hamper, your dresser, and your dinner table is the same piece of furniture.

.....You get a visit from an IRS agent who knows you owe back taxes but only wants your enchilada recipe.

...if you think public urination is a great way to control milkweeds.

...You don't barbecue, because the beans fall through the slots on the grill.

...The first three words in any recipe in your cookbook start with, "Steal a chicken..."

....Your favorite song is, This land is your land, this land is my land.



Dumb Britain to attack its highly skilled immigrants

But if you are a useless Muslim "refugee", that is fine of course

Close on the heels of the Commission for Racial Equality rapping the British authorities for discriminatory changes effected in the Highly Skilled Migrants Programme that affected mostly Indians, the shadow Immigration Minister Damian Green on Wednesday asked the government to keep the changes under suspension. In a letter addressed to Liam Byrne, Immigration Minister, Green suggested that all changes in the HSMP affecting those already in the UK, retrospectively, be suspended.

This comes after the Commission for Racial Equality claimed the changes to the HSMP breached race laws.

Green, who has been supporting the cause of the HSMP holders since November 2006 changes, said in his letter to the Immigration Minister, "I am interested to see that the CRE believes that the changes to the HSMP introduced last year may have breached the law. "As you know, I spoke and voted against these changes because of our objection to the retrospective element within them. We believe it is unfair that skilled and useful workers who have made a commitment to this country should have the rules of the game changed after they have arrived here," he said, adding the changes as "unfair".

"Since the CRE has raised a new point about the failures in consultation before these changes were introduced, I would ask that all measures affecting those who were already in the UK when the changes came into force should be suspended while the legality of the changes is tested. Due to the great interest in this matter, I am making this letter public."

Source



The costs of distrust -- in immigration and elsewhere

By financial journalist Martin Hutchinson

The failure (at least temporarily) of President George W. Bush's immigration bill Thursday evening had one overwhelmingly powerful cause: the American people don't trust the Bush administration to enforce immigration laws, so the tough enforcement provisions in the new bill were nugatory. This atmosphere of distrust is partly generational but highly damaging, particularly in the economic sphere.

In an ideal world, in which laws were obeyed or enforced and there was little leakage, the economically optimal immigration policy for the United States would be only moderately restrictive, allowing a fairly large number of immigrants annually, with a strong preference for those of high intelligence or special skills. There might be a modest preference for immigrants from countries with comparable living standards to the United States, sparing the world the spectacle of Bosnian doctors cleaning latrines in Queens.

From the point of view of the world as a whole, the economically optimal U.S. immigration policy would be closer to "open borders" but with an auction system for immigration permits, the money raised being split between the U.S. government and the government of the immigrant's home country, to help defray the cost to the latter of the immigrant's education and childhood upbringing.

Neither of these systems nor any compromise between them is ever likely to be put in place because of the leakage in the current immigration system and the consequent lack of credibility of any enforcement mechanisms that might be legislated. If the two sides to the debate believe respectively that the pro-immigration crowd has no interest at all in enforcement and the anti-immigration crowd is a bunch of racists whose ideal society was Apartheid-era South Africa, no compromise is possible.

The mutual distrust that prevents compromise is nevertheless rational. On the one side, the U.S. history of racial discrimination is sufficiently recent and widespread (covering Asians and Hispanics as well as African-Americans) that a distrust of motives is natural. On the other side, the total failure of the enforcement provisions in the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli legislation, and the laughable failure by the Clinton and Bush administrations to enforce laws against employing illegal immigrants, even after the 9/11 attacks had demonstrated that border control was a serious security problem, naturally destroy the credibility of new enforcement provisions. Had existing immigration provisions been enforced with reasonable rigor, there would be far fewer illegal immigrants -- and far fewer empty and unnecessary McMansions, rotting in the sun as the housing downturn hits.

Trust is an essential to commerce. I have written previously how oligarchic markets in some respect work better than fully competitive ones, because the level of trust between the participants is higher, and so there is less need for extensive legal documentation and less likelihood of catastrophic error through malfeasance or misunderstanding. Throughout human life, transactions become more difficult and perilous if trust is not present. Even in personal interactions a propensity to fabrication can doom the most promising relationship.

The commercial revolution of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was built largely on the ability of participants to trust one another. "My word is my bond," the motto of the London Stock Exchange since 1801, was not simply a polite fiction, it was essential to dealings between participants who did not know each other well and whose transactions either did not follow well established legal ground or in some cases (options dealings before 1822) were on the face of it unenforceable as gambling contracts. (This problem arose again on the invention of the interest rate swap market in the early 1980s; much legal talent was expended in finding a way around the apparent restrictions of the 1710 Statute of Anne which made gambling debts unenforceable.)

The Victorian and Edwardian periods didn't only introduce restrictive sexual morality, they also codified a commercial behavior pattern that involved very high levels of trust. J.P. Morgan testified to the Senate in 1913 that "a man I do not trust could not get money from me on all the bonds in Christendom." Thus in the London market in particular but also in New York, by 1900 it was essential to be trusted by ones business associates, and lack of such trust was a generally fatal obstacle to business success.

This pattern persisted until well after World War II. David Kynaston's "City of London" has harsh words for the oligarchic City of the 1950s and 1960s, in which Morgan Grenfell Chairman Vivian, Lord Bicester could in 1954 ask the Bank of England to prevent the takeover of British companies by the untrustworthy, but the system worked very well, producing by 1980 most of the innovations of modern finance, at a cost in terms of GDP a small fraction of the bloated financial services sector of today.

After 1980 or so, things changed. A number of factors were responsible for this. Generationally, the cohort which had indulged in sexual and psychedelic experimentation in the 1960s, and had rejected the morality and lifestyle of its parents, began to control a major portion of the financial system. In London, the merchant banks were wiped out by the abolition of the Accepting Houses Committee in 1981 and by the Financial Services Act of 1986. Globalization brought companies much more closely into competition with entities from other cultures with different behavior standards (Japanese behavior standards were at least as high as Western, but the "signals" were different.) The rewards for success for CEOs soared, as did the penalties for failure (no mainstream CEO before Enron's Jeff Skilling was given a 24 year jail sentence for going bankrupt.)

Most important, financing became cheap and relatively easy for outsiders to obtain. No longer did old Pierpont have to trust you; if you had a plausible track record, however doctored the figures you had used to generate it, you could leverage yourself into a major corporate purchase. In 1987 the Washington Post published a cartoon of a hayseed explaining that with no qualifications and no credit he had previously been unable to get a loan, but now the bank would help him buy any major US corporation he wanted. In 2007 that cartoon isn't funny.

As Bush has just discovered, a world without trust is a pretty hostile place. In the long run, without adequate levels of trust, economic prosperity must inevitably disintegrate. So the questions arise: how quickly can trust be regenerated, in the business world at least? (the political world is not my specialty.) What factors will cause trust to regenerate, and how can we nurture it?

Generationally, we may have some hope of improvement. The 1960s are not going to happen again, thank God, and the generation that was nurtured by them is finally passing from the boardroom. Subsequent generations have shown themselves in youth far less prone to rebel against the political, social and ethical norms of society, as evidenced by declining crime, drug use and illegitimacy. It is likely that as the current generation rises to power in the business world it will come to find itself less attracted by the quick wealth promised by hedge funds and the like, and more attracted by the chance of building something worthwhile in the long term.

More here





13 June, 2007

France: Sarkozy moves quickly to tighten immigration laws

President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to make it harder for foreigners to bring their families to France and he wants to do so quickly. This week, his immigration minister, Brice Hortefeux, put the finishing touches to a bill that would require family members of immigrants from outside the European Union to learn basic French before coming into the country and to acquaint themselves with French history and customs. According to extracts of the draft law published by the newspaper Le Figaro on Tuesday, it would also require immigrants to sign a contract agreeing to promote the integration of their families into French society.

The bill is still subject to possible modification by the Council of State, the highest French administrative court that must rule on draft legislation before it is submitted to Parliament. Hortefeux's office confirmed that it would be one of the first bills debated in a session this summer. "The spirit of the text won't change but there could be technical modifications," said the minister's spokeswoman, Nadia Angers-Di‚bold. The aim of the draft law, officials said, was to improve the integration process and to reduce the numbers of unskilled immigrants.

Since Sarkozy was elected last month, attention has been largely focused on his plans to revive the economy and reform the labor market. But the speed with which this bill was drawn up indicates that immigration will remain high on the political agenda, analysts said. Sarkozy, who was interior minister during the riots that shook France in 2005, gained a reputation for toughness after setting ambitious quotas for the deportation of illegal immigrants and passing two laws to restrict immigration. Last year he made waves by echoing a slogan of Jean-Marie Le Pen, the anti-immigration leader of the far-right National Front: "France, love it or leave it."

Hortefeux, who announced Monday that for the second year in a row the government's deportation target would be 25,000 people, is one of the president's closest allies. His ministry, which focuses on immigration and "national identity," caused controversy during the presidential campaign when Sarkozy proposed it.

Reuniting families is the largest source of immigration in France and has increasingly caught the attention of policymakers struggling to promote the integration of minority groups. In 2005, 94,500 French residency permits were issued to family members of immigrants, compared with 14,000 for foreigners arriving on work visas, government statistics show. Last July, the government passed a law requiring immigrants to prove that they could support family members without aid from the state.

The French legislation follows a trend also observed in other European countries, although the measures differ widely. In Austria, the government passed a law restricting the number of family members immigrants are allowed to bring into the country. In the Netherlands, family members have to learn Dutch before their arrival. In Germany, Britain and Italy, resident immigrants have to demonstrate adequate housing and financial provisions to care for any family members arriving from abroad.

Denmark, too, has tightened the rules on family reunification, insisting that a spouse from abroad must be at least 24-years-old to qualify for entry. Danish officials said the rule, which has been criticized by Muslim groups, was introduced to clamp down on arranged or forced marriages in which young Muslim women were being brought into the country, sometimes against their will.

But migration specialists warn that tougher rules on family immigration may be ineffective in limiting immigration and might also conflict with other government objectives. International conventions signed by EU countries grant immigrants the right to bring their families to their host country and national rules can delay, but not prevent, families from coming, said Jean-Pierre Garson, an immigration expert at the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. Such a delay tends to have a negative impact on integration because it deprives children of valuable years in school. And it carries the risk of inciting family members to try to circumvent the rules, increasing illegal immigration. "Governments would like to choose immigrants on the basis of their skills rather than accepting family members, but there is a limit to these policies," Garson said.

Source



Obstruction in Connecticut

City officials urged federal authorities Monday to suspend any more raids looking for illegal immigrants, saying an operation last week violated the law. New Haven Mayor John DeStefano said he is filing a complaint with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security over a raid Wednesday that led to about 30 arrests, including many in immigrants' homes. He said Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents failed to notify local authorities of the operation and lacked search warrants. "They pushed into homes without warrants," DeStefano said. "This was just very aggressive intervention."

The city plans to forward witness statements to federal officials describing how parents were arrested in front of their children. Agents refused to identify themselves and told those in the houses to shut up, according to the statements. Authorities took those arrested to facilities around New England, officials said. Bond hearings are planned later this week in Hartford. "I just can't see how you can't view them as frightening [raids on illegals were "frightening" -- Wow!] in terms of respecting the rights of people, whether they're documented or undocumented," DeStefano said.

DeStefano, who called for an investigation of the complaints, also said the operation raised concerns of racial profiling. Most of those arrested were Hispanic. {Wow! Most illegals are Hispanic! Who knew?]

Bruce Chadbourne, field office director for ICE, said officers had permission to enter the homes from those present and acted professionally. He said the agency did notify New Haven police weeks before the operation about executing warrants and denied engaging in racial profiling. Chadbourne said he would temporarily suspend the specific operation the city complained about because of the publicity. "I don't want to put the lives of my officers in jeopardy on the street," Chadbourne said. "We're going after some dangerous people. I don't want my officers hurt." But Chadbourne said enforcement actions against illegal immigration would not stop. "We're not apologizing for enforcing the immigration laws of the United States," he said.

Connecticut Sens. Christopher Dodd and Joseph Lieberman and Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro also asked Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff for clarification about the way in which the raid was conducted and its timing. "Several aspects of the enforcement operation have raised concerns for us, the mayor of New Haven, and many residents in Connecticut," the lawmakers wrote in a letter.

The operation came two days after the city approved a program to make municipal identification cards available to illegal immigrants. City officials say the raid appeared to be retaliatory for the ID cards, but ICE officials have said the raids had nothing to do with the city's approval of the ID program. New Haven has been more welcoming to immigrants than many places, offering federal tax help and prohibiting police from asking about their immigration status.

Although city police would not assist with such raids, DeStefano said local authorities should be notified in advance to ensure federal agents do not walk into a dangerous situation or interfere with a separate investigation.

Michael Wishnie, a Yale law professor who is representing most of those arrested, said there were deportation orders for four of 32 people arrested. "You can't use an arrest warrant to go into a home to arrest whoever happens to be there," Wishnie said. "They lacked consent and the lacked a search warrant. These home invasions were unlawful." [Unlawful for immigration agents to apprehend illegal immigrants?? That sure is one strange legal opinion]

Source



Hugh Hewitt interviews "bill-killer" Jeff Sessions

Highlighting sweeping amnesty provisions, ineffectiveness at stopping more illegals and lack of real border control



HH: Joined now by Alabama United States Senator Jeff Sessions. Senator Sessions led the fight last week that temporarily, at least put down the immigration compromise bill. Senator Sessions, welcome back, good to speak with you.

JS: Hugh, thank you.

HH: What's the status on the bill now, Senator Sessions?

JS: Well, it looks like we're going be voting now, right now, to go to the energy bill, which means they will have to actually move to proceed back, go back to immigration, they'll have to move to proceed to that, which is a debatable issue, too, because it would require a vote. So it's going to be more difficult now than it otherwise would have been the case to go back to immigration. But the President, I know, would like to go back to it. Others would. But I'm not sure most Senators want to go back into that killing field again.

HH: Now tell me about over the weekend. Were you contacted by any of the proponents of the compromise to see what Jeff Sessions thinks ought to happen if it's going to come back to the floor?

JS: Yeah, I've had some contacts, really, this morning, I guess, mostly, some good people wondering what I want to do. And let me tell you what I've told them, okay?

HH: All right.

JS: This is what, this bill, like Bill Kristol said last night on television, you know, of the Weekly Standard, he's been sort of for it, he said as he's studied it, it's just a bad bill. And that is true. The bill is flawed. So number one, what it does is, it comprehensively provides amnesty or legal status for everybody immediately, even those who entered last December, and got past the National Guard are covered. It promises, the promises for future enforcement are not real. Let me tell you, the Congressional Budget Office did an analysis. They found that the border illegality would only be reduced 25%, because there will be a lot of people coming on visas. We're going to have more visa overstays. The trigger that's supposed to guarantee enforcement before the amnesty occurred is very weak. It just covers current law. And Hugh, it basically, we're working on the exact numbers, but it looks like it will double the current rate of legal immigration. So it will double the legal immigration rate, and it will not reduce the illegal immigration rate. And that's just not what the American people have in mind when we talk about comprehensive enforcement. And no amendment here or no amendment there can fix such a monumental bill that's so out of kilter.

HH: So after they heard you discussing that, did they put their shovels on the ground and say okay, we're going to come back next year? Or do you still expect them to try and get this back to the floor somehow?

JS: You know, my position is that until we go back to square one, and we talk about this promised move to a merit-based system which I support, but was really not in it, except eight years down the road, until they really go in there and show us some of the advantages of the bill, and change some of the provisions that are in this current legislation, I don't see how I can support it.

HH: What about the other objectors, on both the left and the right, and there were some in the center on this, Senator Sessions. Did they have lists that if checked off would do it for them to get them back?

JS: I'm hopeful not. You know, sometimes, a bill will come up and a Senator will say well, if I can just get this amendment or that amendment, I'll vote for it. And I don't think one or two amendments could possibly fix the comprehensive failures in the legislation, frankly. So I'm hopeful that that won't be the case. But attempts are being made to do that right now, talk to people, well, if you get a vote on this, would that satisfy you, and could we count on your vote? But we need to slow down, get off this track, create a principled reform of immigration law, and not a pure, political patchwork project, which is what we've got here.

HH: Do you expect that the construction on the fence will slow down now that the bill looks like its dying? Or would you expect that they will try and increase credibility for the bill by increasing the tempo of the fence construction?

JS: Well, the money has been funded for a substantial portion of the fencing. And the law has already been passed to build it, for 370 miles is in the trigger. But the truth is last fall, we passed legislation to build 700 miles of fencing. So I think some fencing will continue, yes. And some improvement in the size of the Border Patrol will continue. But if the President would really move forward with enforcement, I think people would come to him. And then from a position of strength, he could say okay, I will agree to major reform, but you've got to have these principles involved in it, and he would have a better hand to play.

HH: Do you see any attempt like that? For example, that would require them to reach out to you and Senator DeMint and a number of the other critics. Has that happened beyond a feel for whether or not there are a couple of amendments that are silver bullet amendments for you?

JS: Yeah, maybe they're just trying right now to jam it through, still, and just say we are just a couple of malcontents. But you know, twelve Democrats voted against cloture, plus a majority of the Republicans, a substantial majority of the Republicans. So this was a bipartisan belief that this bill was not ready for final passage.

Source





12 June, 2007

The Republicans' Hispanic Delusion

Amnesty is not just wrong in principle, it's bad politics

George Bush's political strategists have long promoted amnesty for illegal aliens as a device for increasing the Republican vote among Hispanics. They also warn that denying rights to illegal aliens will hurt the GOP. A Hispanic backlash in California after Proposition 187 (the 1994 voter initiative that denied illegal aliens many publicly funded services) turned the state from red to blue, they claim; a similar rout awaits the party if it does not embrace liberal immigration policies.

There is scant evidence for either of these ideas. The 1986 amnesty signed by President Reagan did not trigger a Latino surge into the Republican Party. And California's Hispanics leaned as strongly Democratic before Prop. 187 as after it. Hispanic voting patterns in California have held steady since 1988-they vote approximately two-to-one for Democratic presidential candidates. California's shift from red to blue would have happened with or without Prop. 187, as defense-industry whites left the state, replaced by liberal high-tech professionals, and as the Hispanic portion of the electorate tripled from 7 percent to 21 percent.

"But Hispanics are Republicans waiting to emerge," counter the Bush strategists. Socially conservative on homosexuality and abortion, Hispanics just need to be invited into the party by an amnesty and not scared off by immigration enforcement. This "social values" argument has been around since the early 1980s, and it's still awaiting confirmation. The majority of Hispanics vote their perceived economic interests, rather than their social values (evangelical Hispanics may be an exception to this rule). Blacks are equally conservative on gay rights and other favorite liberal crusades, and that doesn't affect their allegiance to the Democratic party.

Even Republican Hispanics are not particularly conservative on economic issues. A 2002 poll by the Pew and Kaiser foundations found that 52 percent of registered Latino Republicans supported a higher-taxing, larger state sector, a higher percentage for big government than one finds among white Democrats, reports Steve Sailer. As for the majority of Latinos-poor and poorly-educated-the more government services, the better. Mexican consulates across the country are busily signing up illegal Mexicans for all the free government-funded health care that the consulates can find-that would be American- not Mexican-funded health care, mind you. "We have the right to health services," an illegal Mexican in Santa Clarita, California, told the Los Angeles Times.

This attitude of entitlement-not only among illegal aliens but also among legal Hispanic immigrants and their children-extends to the full array of welfare programs. In fact, welfare use actually increases between the second and third generation of Mexican-Americans-to 31 percent of all third-generation Mexican-American households.

The rising Hispanic population also means stronger unions. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is a harbinger of rising Latino political clout. A former union organizer for the Service Employees International Union and United Teachers Los Angeles, his ascent through California state politics was made possible by union funding and organizing. Los Angeles passed two "living wage" ordinances last year, a favorite union cause. California's public employee unions have successfully blocked Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's efforts to privatize some government infrastructure projects. "Democrats-we're not in the business of contracting out state services," said Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuez, a Los Angeles Democrat, according to the Los Angeles Times. "It doesn't fit well with our political diet."

The rapidly growing Hispanic population "helped decimate the California GOP," report John Judis and Ruy Teixeira. There is little reason to think that the outcome will be much different in other states. Republicans should craft their immigration policy based on principle, not on politics. But if they insist on deciding the future direction of American sovereignty based on political expediency, they should at least get their politics right.

Source



The Neglected Truths of the Immigration Debate

Most of the public debate over the immigration bill has taken place in a fantasy world where certain fairly immutable truths are blithely ignored. The vast gulf between the political elites and the bulk of the electorate is matched by the vast gulf between the announced intentions of "comprehensive immigration reform" and the inevitable results of their proposals.

Common sense is being strikingly disregarded. And most of the politically correct media are loath to puncture the fantasies of the reformistas. The result is that a majority of the discussion is pointless, and unusually few people have been either informed or persuaded by all the public discourse. The scandalous immigration crisis has been joined by the scandalous immigration bill debate. Leave aside the shameful accusations and implications of racism by critics of the bill heard from the highest levels of our government. Here are six basic hard truths that must be part of any realistic attempt to improve matters.

1. Any plan that can't be enforced is no improvement.

The sluggishness and limitations of the federal bureaucracy are well-known. Where are the people going to come from to run the background checks of any illegals who are given any sort of path toward legitimate residence? If the universe of "clients" is somewhere between 12 and 20 million, think of the size of the organization necessary to process them. The services of the existing immigration bureaucracy make getting a driver's license seem like a day at the beach (ask anyone who has tried to get legal residency), so don't even think about piling on additional massive doses of money, people, rules, regulations, and all the other "inputs" government bureaucracies use to measure their importance and flex their muscles.

If we go with a brand new bureaucracy, we all know what is going to happen. The government unions see a lot of new dues paying members. Ambitious bureaucrats see vast empires to be built, volumes and volumes of regulations to be written and interpreted; and of course lawyers see many years of litigation, test cases and judicial activism ahead. This will all cost years of effort and tens of billions of dollars at least. Inspecting airline passengers is a piece of cake compared to vetting illegal aliens, and that effort has been full of waste, inefficiency and occasional frightening incompetence.

2. Poor and unskilled immigrants are expensive for the rest of society.

America may not have quite as generous a welfare state as Scandinavia and a few other European countries, but poor people, including unskilled immigrants, are as a group large net consumers of government and charitable services. Robert Rector's Heritage Foundation study put the net cost for just ten million illegal immigrants at $2.6 trillion, and more if the number is 12 million or higher. Proposals for "ineligibility" for "welfare" ignore the deceptively-titled "Refundable Earned Income Tax Credit" that sends a check from the government to low income workers (citizen or not), instead of them sending in a tax payment. Health care expenditures, schooling, food stamps, and a host of other government services are used by low income workers but don't qualify as welfare. Compared to the incremental sales, property and Social Security taxes received, the costs of these services must be much higher.

3. A large supply of unskilled immigrant labor benefits some groups and hurts others.

Some big companies (packing houses and hotels, most visibly) benefit from lower wages. But hundreds of thousands of small businesses depend on this labor pool for their survival. Without cheap immigrant labor there would be far fewer restaurants and other service businesses. It is no exaggeration to say that the affluent urbanites among us, a mostly liberal group, have their lifestyles underwritten by taxpayers and the rest of society. Many second income spouses would have a hard time coping without nannies, take-out food, gardeners, restaurants, and other personal services available so cheaply. Before the first immigration "reform", middle class people rarely ate out, and didn't have housekeepers, gardeners or nannies.

The biggest losers are other potential employees who compete at the low skill and low experience end of the labor market. Teenagers almost never mow lawns any more, a summer source of pocket money that was a staple for males of my generation, and which was my very first experience with paid labor, along with shoveling snow in the Minnesota winters.

The jobs that remain for teenagers require somewhat more education and skills than gardening and other manual labor, especially language skills. This leaves out some of the more poorly educated and or inexperienced minority males in particular. The first rung of the employment ladder is hard for them to find a foothold on. Once employed, their wages are driven down by the inflated supply of willing labor from poor countries, whose wage expectations are much lower than their own.

4. There is nothing wrong in insisting that immigrants serve American interests, not vice versa.

Democrats and some Republicans mouth platitudes about the sacredness of family reunification, ignoring the basic point that families can remain unified by staying at home or returning there, if unification is so important to them. Americans have no obligation to bear a burden so that the families of those who violated our laws can live together here.

Some immigrants make an immediate contribution to economic and social welfare. But there is no reason why family reunification should be used as an excuse to import even more people who will place a net burden on our taxes and charity.

Our next door neighbor Canada has successfully used a point system to select a substantial minority of its immigrants, along with those admitted for family reunification and as refugees. Where are all the media stories on the Canadian success in creating jobs and wealth by favoring those who bring money and skills? Just go to Toronto and Vancouver, two towns with great restaurants and hotels, to see all the companies started by immigrants who in effect bought their way in with investments. It is most strange that star reporters haven't been flocking there to research this aspect of the Canadian approach. Any immigration program that gave priority to those who make an immediate net contribution to our economy, taxes and welfare would face far less opposition.

5. Citizenship is precious, and carries with it serious obligations.

There is absolutely no reason at all to grant a pathway to citizenship to those who failed to follow the law entering the United States. Humanitarian and economic considerations may weigh in favor of some form of residency or work permit for this group, but it is an intolerable denigration of the dignity of citizenship to pass it out as lagniappe for just showing up without papers. Those who violate the law have no legitimate claim to the reward of citizenship unless they bring some great benefit to the commonweal, such as military service. Those who bemoan the prospect of a "second class" group of citizenship-ineligible residents fail to reckon with the reality that it was bad behavior which created the class and made it inferior.

6. Border security is well within our grasp, and is a precondition for the success of any other immigration changes.

Vasko Kohlmayer demonstrated two days ago that even the most absurdly inflated estimates for the cost of building a border fence are well within our means, in this American Thinker article. Loyal reader Tom Caneris suggested that an intriguing comparison can be made with the scale of the federal project to construct tall noise barrier walls along our freeways.

Take a look at these freeway noise barriers and see that there is more than a passing resemblance to various wall designs for the border barrier. Of course a border fence would have to be more robust, and it would not have the advantage of a nice highway to bring workers and material to the worksite. But it is not be that many orders of magnitude bigger a project than the highway noise barrier system. Has the building of freeway noise barriers involved any national sacrifice? Have you ever fretted about how much money it has cost? Through the end of 2004, forty-five State DOTs and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico have constructed over 2,205 linear miles of barriers at a cost of over $2.7 billion ($3.4 billion in 2004 dollars), more than the length of the US-Mexico Border (1,951 miles).

7. Successful reform will come a step at a time, not all at once in a comprehensive package.

The worst argument in favor of a "comprehensive reform" effort is still and always will be that opponents are racists. But the second worst argument is that a piecemeal approach is wrong. Thanks to Senator Kennedy's earlier handiwork, we know how easy it is for the kind-hearted gesture of amnesty to create an even bigger crisis down the road. The public is rightly skeptical of grand promises.

Until our political class is collectively willing to face these basic common sense truths, any attempt at a comprehensive solution is far more likely to make matters worse. Instead we should start with a priority national project to build a wall. An expression of national will like that alone would send a signal of seriousness that has so far been lacking. Once that barrier is working we can look at the realistic probable outcomes of other changes.

Source



BUSH'S AMERICA: ROACH MOTEL

By Ann Coulter



Republicans' defense of President Bush's immigration bill is more enraging than their defense of Harriet Miers. Back then, Bush's conservative base was accused of being sexist for opposing an unqualified woman's nomination to the highest court in the land. Now we're racists for not wanting to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. I don't know why conservatives like Linda Chavez have to argue like liberals by smearing their opponents as racists. Oh wait, now I remember! Their arguments are as strong as liberals' arguments usually are.

Apart from abortion, no subject produces so much disingenuousness as America's immigration policy, both legal and illegal. For nearly 50 years, Americans have been intentionally lied to about our immigration laws.

In 1965, Teddy Kennedy overhauled immigration law with the specific purpose of effecting a dramatic change in the nation's demographics. Bobby Kennedy had civil rights, so Teddy needed something big: He would preside over a civil rights bill for the entire Third World! My word, but that man could drink in those days.

With his 1965 immigration act, Kennedy embarked on entirely transforming American culture for no good reason. (You know how people always say the same arguments against illegal immigrants today were once made about the Irish to show how silly those arguments are? If only the U.S. Senate had had an "Irish Need Not Apply" sign!)

Until that point, immigration law basically took a laissez-faire approach, with country quotas attempting to replicate the traditional immigration patterns. Most immigrants to America had historically come from Great Britain, Germany and Scandinavian countries. Consequently, immigration quotas roughly reflected that balance, with smaller numbers of immigrants admitted from other countries.

But in an angry, long-awaited payback to WASPs, Kennedy decided he was going to radically transform the racial composition of the country. Instead of taking 15 immigrants from England and three from China, America would henceforth take three from England and 15 from China. Payback's a bitch, Daughters of the American Revolution!

Some of those hardworking immigrants who just want a chance to succeed were arrested in a plot to blow up JFK Airport last week.

Most immigrants still come from a handful of countries; Kennedy simply changed which countries those would be. In 2005, according to the Department of Homeland Security, the overwhelming majority of immigrants came from only 10 countries, none of which had sent a lot of immigrants to America for the country's first 200 years: Mexico (161,445), India (84,681), China (69,967), the Philippines (60,748), Cuba (36,261), Vietnam (32,784), the Dominican Republic (27,504), Korea (26,562), Colombia (25,571) and Ukraine (22,761).

In 1960, whites were 90 percent of the country. The Census Bureau recently estimated that whites already account for less than two-thirds of the population and will be a minority by 2050. Other estimates put that day much sooner.

One may assume the new majority will not be such compassionate overlords as the white majority has been. If this sort of drastic change were legally imposed on any group other than white Americans, it would be called genocide. Yet whites are called racists merely for mentioning the fact that current immigration law is intentionally designed to reduce their percentage in the population.

We needed to have "more discussion" about Iraq for nearly two years before finally invading. When will we be allowed to begin discussion of a government policy enacted by stealth 40 years ago specifically intended to decimate one particular ethnic group in our own country?

If liberals think Iraqis are genetically incapable of pulling off even the most rudimentary form of democracy, why do they believe 50 million Mexicans will magically become good Americans, imbued in the nation's history and culture, upon crossing the Rio Grande? Maybe we should dunk Iraqis in the Rio and see what happens.

And as long as we're adopting an open borders policy for immigration, how about opening the borders for emigration? As it stands, anyone can come in and start plotting terrorist attacks or collecting government services right away. But the rest of us can never escape having to pay for it.

You can leave the country, you can renounce your citizenship - but you still owe taxes for 10 years. The government does not allow us to stop supporting welfare recipients in America, millions more of whom it plans to import under Bush's bill. That's not a free market - it's a roach motel.

If these free-marketeers at The Wall Street Journal want the free movement of people, how about letting us freely leave after they've wrecked the country?

In Samuel P. Huntington's book "Who Are We: The Challenges to America's National Identity", he asks: "Would America be the America it is today if in the 17th and 18th centuries it had been settled not by British Protestants but by French, Spanish or Portuguese Catholics? The answer is no. It would not be America; it would be Quebec, Mexico or Brazil."

I don't want to live in Mexico, Quebec or Brazil. But now I guess I have no choice, since "open borders" means I can never leave.

Source



11 June, 2007

A lame joke becomes reality

I don't know whether this sham of an immigration bill is dead or just resting "in the shadows" like a fine upstanding member of the Vampiric-American community

By MARK STEYN

About five years or so back, I started making references in columns to "fine upstanding members of the Undocumented-American community." But from the lame Steyn joke of yesteryear to the reality of tomorrow is a mere hop and a skip. A few days ago, Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, declared: "This week we will vote on cloture and final passage of a comprehensive bill that will strengthen border security, bring the 12 million undocumented Americans out of the shadows, and keep our economy strong."

Talk about "a fast track to citizenship"! Never mind probationary visas, Z-visas and Green Cards, in the eyes of the Democrat steering "comprehensive immigration reform" through Congress these guys are already "undocumented Americans." Was it simply a slip of the tongue? Or did Senator Reid mean it? If he did, the very concept of citizenship is dead, and the Senate might as well opt for really comprehensive immigration reform" and declare everyone on the planet a U.S. citizen with backdated Social Security entitlements.

I don't know whether this sham of a bill is dead or just resting "in the shadows" like a fine upstanding member of the Vampiric-American community. But, if it rises on the third night to stalk the land once more, I would advise its supporters to go about their work more honestly.

First of all, the only guys "living in the shadows" are the aides of American senators beavering away out of the public eye to cook up this legislation and then present it as a fait accompli to the citizenry (if you'll forgive the expression). That is an affront to small-"r" republican government, and, if intemperate hectoring mediocrities like Trent Lott and Lindsay Graham don't understand that, then their electors should give them a well-deserved lesson.

Second, the bill's supporters should stop assuming the bad faith of their opponents. On Fox News the other night, I was told by NPR's Juan Williams, "You're anti-immigrant!" Er, actually, I am an immigrant - one of the members of the very very teensy-weensy barely statistically detectable category of "legal immigrant." But perhaps that doesn't count any more. Perhaps, like Colin Powell's blackness, it's insufficiently "authentic." By filing the relevant paperwork with the United States government, I'm not "keepin' it real."

I wouldn't presume to speak for the millions of Americans who oppose this bill, but it's because I'm an immigrant myself that I object to the most patent absurdity peddled by the pro-amnesty crowd. The bill is fundamentally a fraud. Its "comprehensive solution" to illegal immigration is simply to flip all the illegals overnight into the legal category. Voila! Problem solved! There can be no more illegal immigrants because the Senate has simply abolished the category. Ingenious! For their next bipartisan trick, Congress will reduce the murder rate by recategorizing murderers as jaywalkers.

Back in the real world, far from those senators living in the nonshadows of their boundless self-admiration, the truth is that America's immigration bureaucracy cannot cope with its existing caseload, and thus will certainly be unable to cope with millions of additional teeming hordes tossed into its waiting room.

More here



Immigrants, education and social mobility

Post lifted from American Thinker. See the original for links

Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute points out the basic reason why the illegals present such a gaping hole for the US taxpayer: They have strikingly low levels of education (and therefore low earnings capacity) well into the third generation of illegal immigrant families. It would be nice to think that they would rise over the generations, as traditional (legal) American immigrants have. But MacDonald points out that it hasn't happened yet for the current crop of 12 million folks.

Anybody who thought US immigration law resulted from some rational process of thought has to be mind-boggled by the US Senate bill. We spend half a billion dollars testing a new medical drug before marketing it, with hundreds of scientific studies to test whether it is safe and effective. That's a pretty rational process, and if it fails, the manufacturer is liable for damages. But we can easily poison the body politic by bringing in millions of people who have no intention of assimilating to American culture --- and that decision is made in back-scratching deals between Senators who have absolutely no conception of the law's effects that will ripple through our society and economy for decades to come. They don't even care.

This is a mad and crazy way for a great nation to decide its future. Nobody in medicine, business, law, engineering or science would ever do it this way. And in Europe, the same perverse immigration policies have pushed Britain and France to the brink of demographic destruction. President Bush means well, I'm sure. But good intentions are not enough. It's time to stop and think, before we make it all much, much worse.



If Uncontrolled Illegal Immigration Is A National Security Threat, Can We Now Do Something About It, Please?

Post lifted from Ace. See the original for links

During the debate over the amnesty bill, the pro-amnesty champions often echoed the complaints of conservatives. Illegal immigration without controls results in us not knowing who's here in America (they're in the shadows!) Uncontrolled immigration diverts precious law enforcement resources from tracking "terrorists and drug-dealers" to hounding "landscapers." Etc.

Well -- it seems we're all in agreement about that! That being the case, will the Administration and open-borders forces now unite to begin enforcing current immigration laws, finally getting that employment verification system up and running, punishing employers who hire illegals, finally fixing the visa computer system so that we can track who's here illegally and who's overstaying their visas, and -- dare to dream -- putting additional border agents and a fence to help lighten the patrolling load on the border? Or was all that national security talk just a lot of crap to sell the amnesty?

Bush, McCain, Chertoff, Graham and even Teddy Kennedy have made representations to us about the national security threat uncontrolled immigration poses. Having made the case, they are duty-bound now to actually address it. They cannot claim one week that uncontrolled immigration jeopardizes this country's security and the next week take the position that America can only address this issue so long as agri-business and the open-borders lobby are getting paid off with guest-worker programs and amnesty for 15+ million. Either it's a threat, or it's not -- and if it is, it has to be addressed, whether or not special interests are getting paid off in the deal.

This isn't politically impossible. Byron Dorgan, as liberal a Democrat as one could wish, expressed a desire for enforcement-first as the solution -- at least a first-step solution -- to the problem. Liberals like him are animated by pro-union, pro-wage-inflation sentiments, but so what? They're more reliable votes for enforcement-first than most Republicans. Dorgan seems to want to control the border just to control the border (and thus reduce the unending influx of cheap labor), which puts him, oddly enough, on the non-WSJ conservative, sovereignist side of the table. There are enough Democrats like him to garner a majority, or even sixty votes, for enforcement-first measures, when combined with a unified or near-unified block of Republican voters. (Okay, we'll lose Specter, Hagel, McCain, and Graham -- the usual assholes.)

Various improvements for border security either garnered majority support in the Senate or -- this is the larger category -- would have garnered majority support had the amnesty bloc not been so determined to beat down any amendment to the bill. Even common-sense why-aren't-they-doing-that-now? provisions -- like Coburn's proposal we actually enforce the law as written -- were beaten back by the amnesty-bill block, but almost certainly would pass if offered as stand-alone provisions.

How delicious will the campaign commercials be if Congressmen continue voting against actually enforcing the law as written? Few Congressmen, and fewer statewide-elected Senators, have such job security that they can afford to do so. So let's take Senator Lott's advice and start voting, start legislating.

Are we men and women, Mr. Lott, or merely mice? Bush, McCain, Graham, and Kennedy -- and Kyl, and Lugar, and Lott, and all the rest -- have told us repeatedly that "doing nothing" is "not an option." Good. It seems we have a consensus. Doing nothing is not an option. So let's do something -- first, improve security beyond laughably-inadequate status. Then we can actually begin having a discussion about amnesty and guest workers.



Grass Roots Roared and Immigration Plan Collapsed

The heading above and article below are from the NYT and most of the media follow the lead of the NYT. The article credits the failure of the Senate immigration bill to the GOP -- which is only partly true -- but giving the GOP the credit will probably win the GOP votes in 2008. I wonder if the NYT had that in mind!

Mrs. Thibodeaux, an office manager at a towing company here in suburban Detroit, became politically active as she never had before. Guided by conservative Internet organizations, she made calls and sent e-mail messages to senators across the country and pushed her friends to do the same. "These people came in the wrong way, so they don't belong here, period," Mrs. Thibodeaux, a Republican, said of some 12 million illegal immigrants who would have been granted a path to citizenship under the Senate bill. "In my heart I knew it was wrong for our country," she said of the measure.

Supporters of the legislation defended it as an imperfect but pragmatic solution to the difficult problem of illegal immigration. Public opinion polls, including a New York Times/CBS News Poll conducted last month, showed broad support among Americans for the bill's major provisions.

But the legislation sparked a furious rebellion among many Republican and even some Democratic voters, who were linked by the Internet and encouraged by radio talk show hosts. Their outrage and activism surged to full force after Senator Jon Kyl, the Arizona Republican who was an author of the bill, suggested early this week that support for the measure seemed to be growing. The assault on lawmakers in Washington was relentless. In a crucial vote Thursday night, the bill's supporters, including President Bush, fell short by 15 votes. While there is a possibility the legislation could be revived later this year, there was a glow of victory among opponents on Friday.

"Technologically enhanced grass-roots activism is what turned this around, people empowered by the Internet and talk radio," said Colin A. Hanna, president of Let Freedom Ring, a conservative group.

Mr. Hanna suggested the passion and commitment were on the side of the opponents. "The opposition to the amnesty plan is so much more intense than the intensity of the supporters," said Mr. Hanna, speaking of the bill's provisions to grant legal status to qualifying illegal immigrants, which the authors of the legislation insisted was not amnesty.

More here



10 June, 2007

Immigrants themselves are split

As heated as the debate over the immigration overhaul was on Capitol Hill this past week, the divisions may run even deeper among immigrants themselves. The measure is pitting computer-science Ph.D.s against strawberry pickers, legal immigrants against illegal ones, and those who want it all against those who are grateful for whatever the bill offers.

"Our only hope is immigration reform," said Connie Yoon, a Korean immigrant living illegally with her parents and sister in Chicago. "The chance of legalization - it means everything to us."

The legislation before the Senate could lead to the most sweeping changes in U.S. immigration policy in decades. The bill stalled late Thursday and was pulled from the floor. Its authors pledged to bring it back in coming weeks.

But America's immigrants do not speak with one voice. The nation's 35 million foreign-born residents hail from more than 100 countries. Some are illiterate, and some hold advanced degrees. They live amid the bustle of New York City, and in sleepy rural backwaters. Some sneaked across the border, others followed all the rules to get here. Even the approximately 12 million here illegally - who arguably have the most to gain - are split.

The bill contains a provision that would allow them to stay and work, and eventually become residents. But for that, they have to pay thousands of dollars in fees and fines, learn English, and return to their home countries while immigration officials clear a backlog of residency applications, a process expected to take eight years. These demands are pushing people who once marched side by side for immigration reform into opposite camps. Some consider the bill woefully inadequate. Others support any route to legal residency, however arduous. "Right now, we have nothing - just immigration sweeps and deportations," said Nora Sandigo, a Nicaraguan immigrant who is in Miami legally and helps newcomers without documents who are afraid to speak out. "It doesn't matter if they impose conditions. Anything is better than nothing."

But El Salvador native Reina Isabel Flamenco took a day off from working as a home health care aide for the elderly to join a crowd of immigrants gathered outside the San Francisco office of Sen. Dianne Feinstein to call for the bill's defeat. "Who will take care of my children if I go back to my country to wait for years for my turn to become legal?" said Flamenco, who has not seen her sister and parents since she crossed the border illegally 16 years ago. "They don't understand our reality."

Other illegal immigrants said registering with the Homeland Security Department, as the bill requires, would mean exposing themselves and risking the measure of stability they have found working here. Frantz, a 24-year-old Haitian immigrant who has been living in the United States illegally since he was 9, sends his grandparents $200 a month from his bartending job in Miami. He is one year away from finishing a degree in business administration and hotel management and is afraid returning to Haiti's political turmoil to await his turn in the long legalization line will derail his career and hurt his grandparents. "There's no food for them to eat if me and my family don't send them something," said Frantz, who did not want his last name used for fear of being deported.

Among other things, the bill would make it harder for immigrants to bring over family members. Instead, the government would rely on a point system that rewards job skills and education when deciding who should be allowed to enter. Well-educated professionals are, of course, pleased with that provision, which would replace a system in which employers sponsor would-be immigrants for admission to this country. "The point system - overall it's great," said Gautam Aggarwal, a software engineer from India working for a Silicon Valley start-up. "Employers won't be able to exploit employees anymore, because skilled persons could apply for a visa on their own."

But Rita Zabala, who has picked grapes and oranges in California's San Joaquin Valley since she was 15, said a point system would be unjust for people like her. "These are very hard jobs that we are doing out here," said Zabala, 35. But she does support the bill's guest worker program, which would allow immigrants to work temporarily in the United States. "I have a lot of faith that something fair will happen as far as immigration," she said. "I have a lot of hope."

Source



No Preferential Treatment For The (Formerly?) Illegal Immigrants

Post lifted from Discriminations. See the original for links

Today Ward Connerly and a group of other worthies (and one considerably less worthy: me) have signed a full page open letter, published in the Washington Times, calling on Congress to bar immigrants legalized by the legislation currently before the United States Senate from receiving preferences based on race, sex, national origin, or color. Here is the text of the letter, minus the fancy layout and graphics:

Immigration Reform Must Address Race Preferences

For many years now, our nation has debated the merits of race preferences ("affirmative action"). This debate has been conducted in our legislatures, our courts, our schools, our communities and at the ballot box. Now, our nation is engaged in a debate about immigration. This debate is wide ranging and many people honorably and strenuously disagree over what course America should take. However, immigration and race preferences cannot be considered in isolation. Under existing laws and policies, the majority of immigrants coming to America will automatically be eligible for race preferences and privileges not provided to the great majority of Americans.

This is unfair! As voters in California, Washington and Michigan made clear in their overwhelming support of ballot measures banning government mandated racial preferences - and as voters in five other states will have the opportunity to prove again in November 2008 - the American people strongly oppose the idea that our government should treat us differently based on race, ethnicity, sex or national origin. They understand that while preferences were aimed at giving a helping hand to those who had historically suffered discrimination, in practice they have served above all to compound injustice, needlessly breeding resentment by systematically privileging some Americans over others. Yet, immigrants cannot even claim to be victims of the historical discrimination that "affirmative action" was designed to redress. It is essential that any new immigration legislation not perpetuate - indeed not exacerbate - these injustices. Any new legislation should include carefully drafted provisions to ensure that the new immigrants and their children not be afforded any special privileges that put existing Americans, including minority Americans who have suffered actual discrimination in the past, at a disadvantage. We, the undersigned, hold a variety of views about immigration. But we are united in the conviction that each individual should be judged on his or her merits. While immigrants and their descendants should be afforded the right to compete fairly and freely in every aspect of American life, they should receive no special benefi ts on the basis of race, sex, ethnicity or national origin. We have drafted language that would enable the Congress to preserve this very important objective.

Ours is a nation dedicated to the proposition that all of us should be treated as equals under the law. Those who seek to join the American family should likewise be treated as equals. No individual or group of individuals should bring to our land an expectation for a future entitlement to preferential treatment - and under no circumstances should we grant it.

Now that the immigration bill is dead, for now, or at least dormant, there will be time to consider the best way to prevent illegal immigrants from receiving preferential treatment before the next attack of "comprehensive reform."

My suggestion? A provision barring preferential treatment based on ethnicity or national origin to anyone - both native born and naturalized citizens; both legal and illegal immigrants; permanent resident aliens, guest workers, everybody - in all federal programs and programs receiving any federal assistance. In other words, sort of a junior version of the state civil rights initiatives.

It has never made any sense to give preferential treatment to immigrants, legal or illegal, or to native born Hispanics who have been here in some instances longer than either blacks or whites.



9 June, 2007

Bill to be revived?

President Bush, trying to recover from a stinging setback on immigration, will personally try, in a visit to the Capitol next week, to revive the embattled plan for legalizing millions of unlawful immigrants.

Bush's scheduled lunch on Tuesday with GOP senators is part of a campaign by the White House and allies in both parties to placate or outmaneuver conservative Republicans who blocked the broad immigration measure this week. They said Friday they would try again to reach accord on the number of amendments the dissidents could offer. Opponents of the bill promised to continue fighting all such efforts.

Democratic leaders accused Bush of being too tepid in pushing the legislation, which would tighten borders and offer employers more temporary workers from abroad in addition to providing lawful status to an estimated 12 million illegal aliens and putting many of them on a path toward citizenship

Many Republicans defended the president's role. But the bill's backers nonetheless welcomed his plan to attend the GOP senators' weekly luncheon in the Capitol for the first time in five years.

The visit was scheduled before this week's immigration votes, and Bush will discuss numerous subjects with Republican senators, said White House spokesman Scott Stanzel. "But certainly immigration is a topic" high on the list, he said.

Senate backers of the immigration bill fell 15 votes short of the 60 needed Thursday to limit debate and allow a vote on the measure itself. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., then set the measure aside, calling it "the president's bill" and saying Bush's direct intervention was crucial to reviving it.

On Friday, some key Republicans agreed. "Whose bill is it?" Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said in a news briefing held by bill supporters. "Harry Reid says this is the Bush proposal. Harry Reid is right."

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, talking with reporters traveling with Bush in Europe, said the president "continues to be regularly briefed" on the legislation. The administration, she said, is encouraging Reid "to keep the debate open. It's a very important issue; people want to have conversations about it."

Several Senate conservatives continue to say they have not been allowed to offer enough changes to the bill. Some of their proposals would make it easier to detect and deport immigrants who have overstayed their visas or committed other violations. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., a key opponent, said the bill as written "still unfairly burdens taxpayers, doesn't ensure secure borders and guarantees amnesty" for illegal immigrants.

Source



A succinct comment on the death of the Senate immigration bill

As surely as Sonny Corleone was left for dead at that toll plaza, McCain-Kennedy will not become law in anything like its current form. Even the author of the grand compromise, John Kyl, voted against cloture. As far as John Kyl is concerned, I think we have enough good stuff in the bank to get through this little episode. The fact that he voted the right way tonight means he can remain our favorite Senator. He's certainly in no danger of having Trent Lott steal his place in our hearts.

And what is the media reward to the Republican Party for this insanely misguided misadventure? MSNCB.com now leads with the headline, "Bush-backed immigration bill stalls in Senate." Thank you Senator McCain for so courageously once again reaching across the aisle and getting your party yet another stick in the eye.

As far as the putative Republican crack-up is concerned, allow me to offer a dissenting theory. I have never seen the Republican Party more united than in its hatred for this bill. On one side you have George Bush, Lindsey Graham, Trent Lott and John McCain. On the other side, you have virtually every other Republican in America save the Wall Street Journal editorial board. 30 million people united against roughly 13 individuals - when you think about it, that's pretty good unity.

And there's even better news. The Democratic nominee for president will likely be a Senator who hasn't done a blessed thing to secure the border during her/his time in office. And best of all, the Republican nominee will definitely not be a Senator.

Source



8 June, 2007

The Inside Story Of How The Senate Immigration Bill Died

Post lifted from Right Wing News. See the original for links

A GOP Aide, who's one of my sources in the Senate, gave me the rundown on what happened to the Senate bill today. After the 2nd cloture vote failure at noon on Thursday, Harry Reid could not get unanimous consent to call up amendments to the bill because Jim DeMint refused to give his consent. This was extremely problematic for Reid because he wanted to get in votes on 6 more amendments before the last try at a cloture vote.

At that point, all the senators who were participants in the "Grand Compromise" AKA the "Masters of the Universe" by the opponents of the bill, leaned on DeMint to try to get him to give consent for the bill to move forward. Unfortunately for them, DeMint wouldn't budge. This essentially killed the entire afternoon that the pro-amnesty side hoped to use to shore up support for the bill.

While DeMint was gumming up the works, the opponents of the bill, including most prominently Jim DeMint, Jeff Sessions, and Tom Coburn, huddled and came up with a list of conservative amendments they wanted considered. The "Grand Compromise" crowd didn't want a lot of these amendments to be voted on because either some of the amendments would have been accepted and it would have killed the bill or alternately, they would have had to vote against common sense enforcement measures and made themselves look bad. Eventually, after the process was tied up all afternoon and failed a third cloture vote, Harry Reid yanked the bill even though the opponents of the bill said they were willing to stop gumming up the process as long as all the amendments they wanted were voted on today.

My source told me that he thinks this will kill the bill because the Senate has now voted against cloture 3 times and that means that if they want to bring it back up, they'll probably have to start from scratch and go through the regular committee process.

PS: I asked my source if his boss has been hearing from his constituents on this bill and what the for and against ratio was. He said that his boss' office received thousands and thousands of calls and the ratio was something like 95%-98% against the bill.

PS #2: I also asked my source why he thought so many Republicans had been supporting such an incredibly unpopular bill. He gave three reasons:

First off, there was what he referred to as the "Rovian School of thought," which says that passing this bill would capture the Hispanic vote for the GOP for decades to come.

Next up, there's the "Chamber of Commerce" vote. He says these Republicans were heavily influenced by business groups that want cheap labor no matter what the cost is for the rest of the country.

Then there was the last group, the smallest group in his opinion, who were willing to sign onto a terrible bill just so they could say they were part of a big reform that had bipartisan support.



Senate Amnesty Could Strain Welfare System

Newest Data Shows Latin American Immigrants Make Heavy Use of Welfare

As they debate legalization for illegal immigrants, Senators would do well to keep in mind the most recent data on welfare use by the people in question. According to the Department of Homeland Security, nearly 60% of illegal aliens are from Mexico and 80% of the total are from Latin America as a whole. A Center for Immigration Studies analysis of 2006 Census Bureau data, which includes legal and illegal immigrants, shows use of welfare by households headed by Mexican and Latin American immigrants is more than double that of native households. Among the findings:

51% of all Mexican immigrant households use at least one major welfare program and 28% use more than one program. – 40% use food assistance, 35% use Medicaid, 6% use cash assistance.

45% of all Latin American immigrant households use at least one welfare program and 24% use more than one program. – 32% use food assistance, 31% use Medicaid, 6% use cash assistance.

20% of native households use at least one welfare program and 11% multiple programs. – 11% use food assistance, 15% use Medicaid, 5% use cash assistance.

Among Mexican and Latin American households, welfare use is somewhat higher for households headed by legal, as opposed to illegal, immigrants. Thus legalization will likely increase welfare costs still further.

90% of Mexican and Latin American households have at least one worker. Their heavy welfare use reflects their low education levels and resulting low incomes – and not an unwillingness work.

– 61% of all Mexican immigrants have not graduated high school.

– 48% of all Latin American immigrants have not graduated high school.

There is a common but mistaken belief that welfare programs are only for those who don’t work. Actually, the welfare system is designed to provide low-wage workers, or more often their children, things like food assistance and health care.

It is the presence of their U.S.-born children coupled with their low education levels that explains why so many immigrant households use the welfare system.

Most recently arrived immigrants are barred from using welfare programs and this would likely apply to those legalized by the Senate bill – however this is not true in every state, nor does not apply to all programs. Most important, the bar does not apply to the U.S.-born children of immigrants, who are immediately eligible.

There are an estimated 1.4 million households headed by illegal aliens using at least one major welfare program. If even half these families returned to their home countries, the savings for taxpayers could be substantial.

If we do not wish to make a large share of illegals return to their home countries, then the United States has to accept the welfare costs. There is no other option.

Programs examined in the analysis are food stamps, WIC, school lunch, Medicaid, TANF, SSI, and public/rent-subsidized housing.

If Illegals Stay, So Will Welfare Costs: The heavy use of welfare by immigrants from those parts of the world that send the most illegals is relevant to the question of whether to allow illegal immigrants to stay or, alternatively, to enforce the law and cause them to return home. The figures reported above are drawn directly from the best government data available, and show that allowing illegals to stay creates significant welfare costs. Many of the welfare costs described above are due to the presence of U.S.-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth. Thus, the prohibition on new immigrants using some welfare programs makes little difference because their U.S.-citizen children will continue to be eligible. We estimate that nearly 400,000 children are born to illegal aliens each year.

Welfare Use by Working Immigrant Families: Most immigrants from Mexico and Latin America hold jobs. Their heavy use of the welfare system is due to the fact that a very large share have little education and as a result are able to earn only low incomes in the modern American economy, even though they work. The welfare system is geared toward helping low-income workers, especially those with children. Their education levels and the presence of U.S.-born children means welfare use will be extensive.

Tax Payments: Of course, immigrants, including illegal aliens, also pay taxes. However, because of the education level and resulting incomes levels of Mexican and Latin American immigrants, their tax payments are much less than natives on average. The same is true for illegal aliens. In a 2004 study, the Center for Immigration Studies estimated that illegal alien households used about $2,700 more services than they paid in taxes at the federal level only. We also found that households headed by a legal Mexican immigrant created a net fiscal drain at the federal level of roughly $15,000, and for those with only a high school degree the drain was a little over $3,700. However, those with more education were a fiscal benefit. A new Heritage Foundation study estimated the net fiscal drain at all levels of government created by households headed by high school dropout immigrants at about $20,000 a year. A 1997 National Research Council study found the same pattern – less-educated immigrants create a net fiscal drain and educated immigrants create a net fiscal benefit.

Data Source: The data for this analysis come from the Annual Social and Economic Supplement of the Current Population Survey (CPS) collected by the Census Bureau in March of 2006. It includes legal immigrants and most illegal immigrants. Like the Department of Homeland Security, we distinguish legal from illegal immigrants based on the socio-demographic characteristics of those who responded to the survey. By design our estimates of illegal immigration closely match those of DHS.

Source



$6 Billion a Year for Mexican "Anchor Babies?"

Another major flaw in the Senate immigration bill is the failure to repeal the provision that babies born to illegal aliens in the U.S. get automatic U.S. citizenship. This is known as birthright citizenship. Birthright citizenship is one of the media's powerful tools to advance the Senate immigration bill. The media use young children, even babies, as showpieces, arguing that if the government does not legalize, or grant amnesty to their parents, then these children will be left without mothers and fathers if their parents are deported. It's one sob story after another.

An example was a May 20, 2007, article in the Washington Post Style section using a color half-page photo that covered the entire upper fold of the front page with the picture of a young girl crying while being held in her mother's arms. The photo ran with the headline "Poster Child." It showed a March 7 photo of 2-year-old Tomasa Mendez, "crying in her mother's arms because her father was suspected of being in the U.S. illegally..." Mendez was born here; her parents were not. Her father was taken into custody by immigration authorities for doing illegal work at a Massachusetts clothing factory that makes backpacks for U.S. military personnel. The implication however was clear--that her father, and perhaps her mother, might be deported, and the poor child would be left behind.

The Post and Illegals

Notice that the Post says her father was "suspected" of being in the U.S. illegally when there is absolutely no doubt he and his wife entered the country illegally and had this child. We can't even expect the basic facts of the story from the Post because they tend to make the parents look bad. And sympathy for illegals is a given at this paper. The Post, of course, is the paper associated with the Philip L. Graham Fund, which provided funds to Casa de Maryland, an illegal alien support group.

The Post exploits the little girl, Tomasa, and calls her photo "iconic" of the immigration debate, rather than use photos of illegal aliens climbing over border fences, or of illegal alien terrorists that were responsible for planning terrorist attacks here on U.S. soil, or of illegal alien sex predators, or of the illegal aliens that commit crimes here in the U.S.

This is the face--a crying girl--that pro-illegal alien supporters and illegal aliens themselves are using to support their cause. The Post even claims that Tomasa has come to "symbolize" the national debate on immigration. According to the Post, "thousands of posters and fliers featuring Tomasa's tearful visage" have been made to influence the public and Congress and that the same photo was used on "placards carried by marchers at immigrant-rights rallies from Denver to New York to Washington."

But Tomasa is not the face of immigrant rights; she is the child of illegal aliens. Tomasa lives in New Bedford, Massachusetts, and on March 6, ICE agents raided a factory there and detained 361 workers that the Post calls "suspected of being in this country illegally," including Tomasa's father, Hector Mendez. The factory that the U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) raided where 361 suspected illegal aliens were working was Michael Bianco Inc.

This is not a case of innocent until proven guilty. Tomasa's mother Dominga asked the Post to not print her last name, which is different from her husband's, "for fear that authorities would detect her own undocumented status." In other words, she's an illegal, too. Dominga and Hector came to the U.S. from Guatemala six years ago, and had Tomasa on U.S. soil, making her a U.S. citizen. They are responsible for their own plight. They knowingly violated U.S. laws. A spokesperson for ICE, Pat Reilly, responded to the Post's insinuation that the government is to blame for the girl's predicament. Reilly said, "You should look back to the decision the parents made in coming to this country without legal status."

The Plan

These families knew exactly what they were doing when they came to the U.S. and had a child born on U.S. soil. And we know and understand exactly what they're doing. For illegal immigrants, having a child born in the U.S. becomes the Golden Ticket to staying here in this country. Numbers USA calls these children of illegal alien mothers "anchor babies" because they become eligible to sponsor for legal immigration most of their relatives, including their illegal-alien mothers, when they turn 21 years of age, thus becoming the U.S. "anchor" for an extended immigrant family.

Although birthright citizenship was never intended to be the law of the land, and is a flawed interpretation of the 14th Amendment, birthright citizenship accounts for more than 380,000 children each year, born to illegal alien mothers that become citizens simply because their mothers gave birth on U.S. soil. However, even this figure could be low. The Federation for Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimates there are between 287,000 and 363,000 children born to illegal aliens each year. These numbers are based on the crude birth rate of the total foreign-born population (33 births per 1,000) and official estimates of the size of the illegal alien population--between 8.7 and 11 million.

However, the Bear Stearns investment firm and others have concluded that the actual number of illegal aliens in the United States could be as high as 20 million. When using the higher estimate of 20 million illegal immigrants and FAIR's 33 births per 1,000, this would roughly double FAIR's estimate to approximately 574,000 to 726,000 anchor babies born in the U.S. each year.

Having a child born in the U.S. does not prevent the illegal alien mother or father from being deported. But this rarely occurs, especially for the illegal alien mother. Numbers USA reports that "In some cases, immigration judges make exceptions for the parents on the basis of their U.S.-born children and grant the parents legal status. In many cases, though, immigration officials choose not to initiate removal proceedings against illegal aliens with U.S.-born children, so they simply remain here illegally." The real solution is for the illegal alien parents to return to their native countries with their children. That avoids the potential or theoretical problem of deportation.

Focusing on another such case, Dimitri Vassilaros of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review asks, "...is there even one American standing in the way of an alien family leaving intact to return to its country of origin? Deportation threatens unity only when a foreigner would rather be here illegally than back home preserving his family. Many Americans believe in traditional family values. It's too bad more illegals don't."

Illegal aliens have a child in the U.S., according to Professors Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith, because "The present guarantee under American law of automatic birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens can operate...as one more incentive to illegal migration and violation by nonimmigrant aliens already here [.] When this attraction is combined with the powerful lure of the expanded entitlements conferred upon citizen children and their families by the modern welfare state, the total incentive effect of birthright citizenship may well become significant."

Exploiting America

The provision is being used by people all over the world. According to Numbers USA, "Thousands of pregnant women who are about to deliver come to the United States each year from countries as far away as South Korea and as near as Mexico so that they can give birth on U.S. soil." These expectant mothers come either on legal travel visas or illegally across the border, but the purpose is always the same: "Once the child is born, they get a U.S. birth certificate and passport for the child, and their future link to this country is established and irreversible."

To compound this problem, those mothers who illegally enter the U.S. to have their anchor babies have little to no health insurance. But they will not be turned away from hospitals because the law requires that they be treated. All uninsured people, regardless of citizenship, receive medical care in hospital emergency rooms under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1985 (EMTALA). The act requires hospitals to treat any patient that enters an emergency room for "emergency care," which can include anything from a cough to drug addiction to a gunshot wound to depression to being HIV-positive. The Act requires emergency rooms to treat anyone that comes in, but does not require patients to pay for their care. Instead, the costs are passed on to the American taxpayers and those with health insurance through rising premiums. Some hospitals can't afford the care for the illegals.

According to Marjorie Greenfield, MD, on the Dr. Spock website, in 2001 the average cost of having a baby in the U.S. ranged from $6,000 to $8,000 for a normal vaginal delivery and $10,000 to $12,000 for a cesarean birth. If the $8,000 cost is used for 2007 births, and all 380,000 babies born to illegal immigrants in the U.S. all had normal deliveries, this would cost hospitals around the country approximately $3 billion. But if there are 726,000 anchor babies born in the U.S. each year, the cost skyrockets to nearly $6 billion. And if there are any complications with the pregnancy, or if the child is born prematurely and needs to be admitted into a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, the cost rises by tens of thousands of dollars.

Illegal alien mothers aren't the only ones benefiting. There are reports that some pregnant Mexicans are entering the U.S. for the sole purpose of giving birth and having the costs paid for by Americans. A survey conducted by the University of California found that of new Hispanic mothers in California border hospitals, 15 percent had crossed the border specifically to give birth.

Misinterpretation

It has been argued that the legal basis for birthright citizenships derives from the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Although the original intent of the 14th Amendment was to give former slaves citizenship after the Civil War including the right to due process, the Amendment has gone on to have far-reaching implications beyond the intent of the writers. The specific part that is being used to justify birthright citizenship comes from Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment which states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

The question though is whether illegal aliens are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Illegal aliens do not have the right to vote in federal elections, do not have to register for the draft, and do not pay taxes, unlike American citizens, because they are foreign nationals living within the borders of the United States. However, supporters of birthright citizenship claim that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States has no real meaning and is just another way of saying "born in the United States." For illegal alien supporters, they believe the Fourteenth Amendment requires that any child born on U.S. soil be granted U.S. citizenship.

However, as Numbers USA points out, scholars "have looked to the original Senate debate over the Fourteenth Amendment to determine its meaning. They conclude that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment did NOT want to grant citizenship to every person who happened to be born on U.S. soil." Numbers USA concludes that "The jurisdiction requirement was added to the original draft of the Fourteenth Amendment by the Senate after a lengthy and acrimonious debate. In fact, Senator Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan proposed the addition of the phrase specifically because he wanted to make clear that the simple accident of birth in the United States was not sufficient to justify citizenship...Sen. Howard said that 'this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.'"

Even though it is a misinterpretation of a Constitutional amendment passed almost 40 years ago, the Supreme Court has never decided the issue. According to Numbers USA, the closest the Supreme Court has come to ruling on the matter was "a case involving the U.S.-born child of lawful permanent residents in which, of course, it held the child to be a U.S. citizen." Therefore, without a ruling by the Supreme Court, or congressional action to end this practice, the status quo remains and anyone born on U.S. soil even though their mother is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States will continue to be given citizenship.

Time for Action

The practice of birthright citizenship has been all but done away with in the industrial world. According to the New York Times, in June, 2004, Ireland, which was the last country in the European Union to still grant citizenship to anyone born in the country regardless of where the parents come from, overwhelmingly approved a plan to do away with a constitutional provision granting automatic Irish citizenship to any child born in Ireland. The United Kingdom, which has struggled with a growing Muslim and Southeast Asian population, ended birthright citizenship in 1981. Due to immigration pressures, it restricted birthright citizenship to requiring that one parent be a legal resident.

Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA) introduced H.R. 1940, the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007, which would eliminate birthright citizenship for the children born to illegal aliens in the United States by limiting the granting of such citizenship to the children of: U.S. citizens or nationals; lawful permanent resident aliens residing in the United States; and aliens performing active service in the armed forces. On April 19, 2007 the bill was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. The bill has only 46 co-sponsors in the U.S. House, listed here.

No "reform" of the immigration system will be complete without the provisions of the Deal bill becoming law. But the media, led by the illegal alien-supporting Washington Post, will fight any such change every step of the way.

Source



7 June, 2007

Even Worse: Amnesty Bill Allows Illegal Aliens To Work By Specifically *Forbidding* Employers From Checking Status Before Hiring

Post lifted from Ace. See the original for links

That's right, yo. The "tough, strong" enforcement provisions of the amnesty bill forbid an employer to even check if a job applicant is illegal (whoops, there goes any effectiveness of that tough, strong new employee ID card).

Instead, an employer is required to hire "blind" -- assuming an employee is legal -- and then, only weeks or more likely months (years?) after the strong, tough federal agency has completed its background check, fire the employee if found to be illegal (or, of course, retain him if legal).

Which means that new illegal immigrants have a strong new incentive to come here illegally -- they can work for months at a time at a job without fear of having their status discovered. And when they're fired -- they can just move on to the next employer, who's also forbidden from conducting a legal-employment check on them before hiring.

Also at the link: McCain now claims anyone who disagrees with him on this reckless, ill-considered abortion of a bill...

...would intentionally make our country's problems worse ...

Intentionally, no less! He's further warning of (threatening?) Paris-style car-burnin' riots if his bill isn't passed.

And amidst all the claims that the GOP desperately needs to pass this bill to have any hope of wooing Hispanic voters, Fred! surges five points amont Hispanic Republicans while strongly opposing the bill, while John "General Jack T. Ripper" McCain loses an equivalent amount.



Senator Sessions finds 20 Amnesty Loopholes

Post lifted from Ace. See the original for links

If there ever comes a time when someone decides to declare a man the "Last Conservative Standing", I have a feeling Alabama's Junior Senator Jeff Sessions will walk away with that title.

He has been one of the Senate's most stalwart advocates of conservative principles since his election in 1996, and he may be the single most effective opponent of the amnesty bill that opponents have, despite having to face overwhelming pressure from Alabama's Agricultural interests, which represents one of the most powerful voting/political blocs in the State.

Today, he delivered a speech highlighting what he termed "sneaky lawyer tricks": a series of loopholes in the bill that should enrage every American citizen.

Sessions has identified 20 of them. I am going to cut and paste them all in the extended entry, as the list and their explanations are quite long. I encourage everyone to read them, and to forward them to anyone who might want a few more reasons to oppose the bill.

Finally, I should note that my friends on the Hill tell me that Sessions may be facing a challenge by Alabama's Democratic Agricultural Commissioner, in large part due to his stance on this bill. Apparently, Alabama's Ag Community is more concerned with importing slave labor than returning a good man to Washington. If you are looking for a conservative Senator to get behind in the 2008 election cycle, you should consider giving Senator Sessions a look, if only to say "Thank You" for his continued willingness to fight the good fight.



British immigration reforms?

Applicants for British passports would face a points-based system linked to their employment and community work under proposals to be outlined by ministers. The proposal to introduce “earned citizenship” is intended to send a message that becoming a British citizen with all its benefits is not something simply to be handed out to anyone. The plan is being put forward by Ruth Kelly, the Communities Secretary, and Liam Byrne, the Immigration Minister, in a Fabian Society pamphlet published tomorrow.

The existing citizenship requirement that a person must have lived in Britain for five years, pass a test in English and demonstrate knowledge of life in Britain would be expanded to include points awarded for civic and voluntary work.

The ministers will propose that credits or points be awarded for the amount of money that a person brings with them, their employment record and for any voluntary or other work in the community. Points could be deducted from an applicant who is convicted of an offence that does not lead to deportation and for antisocial behaviour. The ministers will suggest that the “journey” towards citizenship should in future reflect each migrant’s commitment and contribution to society since arriving in Britain. They believe that such a system would help a person to integrate while reassuring the existing community that newcomers are truly committed to British values, laws and way of life.

Mr Byrne said last night in a speech in London: “I believe we should clarify the contract between our country and newcomers. On the one hand we need to do more to help newcomers understand our values and the British way of life when they decide to stay. But for those who decide to make the UK their future, we need to make it clearer that citizenship isn’t simply handed out, but something which is earned.”

The ministers will also suggest a national British day that would either be an existing Bank Holiday or another date on which British citizenship would be celebrated, including the contributions made by groups such as war veterans.

Mr Byrne admitted that record numbers of asylum-seekers and the huge inflow of East European migrants had damaged public confidence in the immigration system. He said: “At a time of great change the public felt three shocks to the system. First the huge spike in asylum claims we saw at the turn of the century, then the unpredicted influx of newcomers from the new Eastern Europe. And the crisis of foreign prisoners released without a review of whether they should be deported.”

It is the second time within weeks that Mr Byrne has admitted that the public has been shaken by the scale of migration. In May he said that large scale immigration had damaged the poorest communities in the country and that inequality and child poverty were two side-effects of migration, running at record levels since Labour came to power. Last night he said that while migration was vital to Britain’s prosperity, the wider impact on public services and existing communities had to be considered when deciding who could enter the country. His latest admission comes as the Government is preparing new measures in which cooperation with foreign countries will be tied to their willingness to tackle immigration abuses.

The minister also announced fresh details about the plan for a forum to advise ministers on the social and economic impact of immigration on existing communities. Representatives from the police, the NHS and magistrates are to join the Migration Impact Forum, which holds its first meeting this month. They join representatives from local councils, education authorities, business and trade unions. “In other words, when we make migration decisions, business will not be the only voice we listen to because others have a claim to stake,” Mr Byrne said.

A new international strategy, drawn up by the Home Office and Foreign and Commonwealth Office, will make cooperation on migration a key part of bilateral and international relationships. In the past No 10 has suggested tying aid packages to some countries to their willingness to accept the return of failed asylum-seekers and illegal immigrants

Source





6 June, 2007

CBO: Bill would only reduce illegals by 25%

The Senate's immigration bill will only reduce illegal immigration by about 25 percent a year, according to a new Congressional Budget Office report, Stephen Dinan will report Tuesday in The Washington Times.

The bill's new guest-worker program could lead to at least 500,000 more illegal immigrants within a decade, said the report from the CBO, which said in its official cost estimate that it assumes some future temporary workers will overstay their time in the plan, adding up to a half-million by 2017 and 1 million by 2027. "We anticipate that many of those would remain in the United States illegally after their visas expire," CBO said of the guest-worker program, which would allow 200,000 new workers a year to rotate into the country.

And in a blow to President Bush's timetable, the CBO said the "triggers" -- setting up the verification system, deploying 20,000 U.S. Border Patrol agents to duty and constructing hundreds of miles of fencing and vehicle barriers -- won't be met until 2010. Those triggers must be met before the temporary worker program could begin, and Mr. Bush had hoped to have them completed about the time he leaves office in January 2009.

CBO's report said the new bill's effects on future illegal immigration were "uncertain." The analysts said past enforcement measures have "historically been relatively ineffective," but said but said new enforcement measures -- extra agents, prosecutors and investigators, fencing and workplace sanctions -- will have some effect.

"CBO estimates that those measures would reduce the net annual flow of unauthorized immigrants by one-quarter," the report said. Still, with estimates of hundreds of thousands to one million illegal aliens per year, CBO is assuming a large problem will remain.

Source



New law not aimed at stopping illegal immigration at all

Post lifted from SCA. See the original for links

Hugh Hewitt has by far, the best analysis and insights into the proposed new immigration law, bar none. The posts are a must read for anyone looking past the hype and agendized talking heads promoting or obfuscating the finer points of the proposed legislation. We believe the proposed immigration legislation is flawed because it is not really an attempt to address immigration. but rather, we see it as a primarily political effort.

Highly skilled illegal aliens (everyone from skilled construction craftspeople to software engineers won't have to pay a single penny of that $5,000 `fine,' because their employer will pay up for them. These skilled workers are making their employers a bundle. If those employers won't front the money, another employer will.

The next level of illegal immigrant is semi skilled, has skills that are in some demand or is a hard worker. A lot of landscape, concrete, retail and even some health care jobs are filled by these workers. They will pay their own way and employers will reluctantly keep most of them on because qualified replacements are hard to find or take a long time to train. Employers will regard the necessary pay increases and tax obligations to these workers as the cost of doing business which will be passed on to the consumer.

The largest segment of the illegal aliens are unskilled workers. They have absolutely no incentive to seek legal status, because if they do, they will not be hired. It is in the best interest of the farmer or meat packer to keep the costs down. Lower costs means that products are more affordable. Employers will seek out those unskilled workers that have not sought legal status and thus will not burden them with higher costs and legal obligations. To do that would be to double the grocery store price of many agricultural and food products overnight. No employer who wishes to remain competitive in the market will pay higher wages for unskilled labor.

For every semi skilled or unskilled illegal alien who attempts to `legalize' him or herself, at least two more will cross the border, willing to stay in the shadows and work for lower wages. The implications of that are almost beyond comprehension. The added burden on health care, school systems, welfare and social services will be enormous. Add to that social tensions and the cultural demands that will pit minorities against each other- and against everyone else for a slice of `guvamint cheese,' and the outcome will be nothing short of disastrous. The proposed legislation is about politics and votes, and nothing more. Connect the dots.



Immigration Reform Begins in Mexico

As the debate over the issue of immigration reform rages, we would all be wise to examine, honestly, the reasons why more Mexicans emigrate to the United States than die in Mexico each year. While the common argument is that they come here seeking work, the true root of the problem is that the Mexican government has allowed corruption to reach such alarming levels - in both government and business - that the average Mexican cannot survive within the borders of his own country.

The above statement is not an exaggeration. In 2006, 559,000 Mexican nationals emigrated from Mexico to the United States while the Mexican Demographics Agency reported a total of 501,000 deaths among Mexico's population. The question that begs to be asked regarding the massive emigration is why? Mexico is a country rich with natural resources. With its wealth of petroleum, silver, copper, gold, lead, zinc, natural gas and timber, it has all the resources a country would need to keep it from becoming a destitute Third World country.

Further, the median age in Mexico is 25.6 years of age and the literacy rate for the total population is at 92.2%. This demographic, combined with their abundant natural resources and central location in the Western Hemisphere, are a perfect catalyst for an employment sector that would - under normal circumstances - compete on the First World economic stage.

According to a recent report produced by the World Bank titled, Democratic Governance in Mexico: Beyond the Capture of the State and Social Polarization, a majority of the identifiable problems facing the Mexican economy are directly related to bureaucratic corruption. From the "untouchable" special interest monopolies that stifle the competitive environment to the ineffective and corrupt tax system that feeds the status quo, the Mexican government has consistently refused to do the hard work of governmental and economic reform, instead opting for short-cuts that allow corruption to thrive.

A byproduct of these short-cuts is that they allow the corrupt special interest robber-barons to run roughshod over the Mexican economy, facilitating an economic environment that encourages the mass emigration of Mexican citizens to the United States. In essence, the Mexican government, through its lack of courage to engage in governmental and economic reforms, which would strengthen its economy to the benefit of its citizens, is exporting its most crucial economic problems - unemployment and an impoverished citizen class - to the United States.

The Embassy of the United States for Mexico lists the amount of US foreign aid received by Mexico through USAID in 2004 for its development assistance, child survival and health programs and economic support at $33 million. This on-average annual and re-occurring aid package comes on the heels of a stunning $20 billion 1995 US aid package that helped to avert a monetary (peso) crisis of global proportions. At the same time that massive amounts of US taxpayer dollars are allocated to the corrupt Mexican government through US foreign aid, the same taxpayers are shouldering the burden of Mexico's impoverished citizen class right here on American soil.

Putting aside the fact that each and every Mexican national who has illegally entered the United States has broken US law and that the common argument that illegal Mexican border-jumpers are simply "doing the work that Americans won't do" (a canard aimed at portraying the employers of illegal workers as the victims of a generation of American slackers), the impoverished Mexican population residing in the United States physically drains resources from the US economy.

The Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform cites statistics provided by The National Academy of Sciences that tally the fiscal cost of illegal immigration - specifically from Mexico to the United States - at $226 per household or over $20 billion. These costs culminate through taxpayer funded education, healthcare and an array of entitlement programs. In addition to draining taxpayer dollars from a system built to support the economically compromised among the American citizenry, much of the unlawful wages paid to illegally employed Mexican nationals is sent back to Mexico. According to a 2003 report by The Financial Times, figures released by the Bank of Mexico show that by June of 2003 over $6.13 billion in remittance was successfully transferred from the United States to Mexico. Today, because of the additional influx of Mexican nationals illegally entering the United States since 2003, logic mandates that this amount is much higher.

As American taxpayer dollars pour out of the United States and into Mexico, additional taxpayer generated revenue is used to financially support Mexican nationals here illegally, even as they facilitate the transfer of this ill-gotten wealth out of the US economy. Meanwhile, American lawmakers, blinded by political opportunism, propose opening the doors to the financial and political ruin of our country.

In the most recent legislation concocted by our elected officials - gleefully endorsed by our Executive Branch - legislators propose a $5,000 fine and considered the payment of all back taxes by any "undocumented worker" before they can be cleared for a pathway to citizenship. It is astounding that this needs to be pointed out: If Mexican nationals here illegally could afford to pay a $5,000 fine and all back taxes (the fine alone works out to be over 53,900 Mexican pesos) they wouldn't be here in the first place as they would be comfortably ensconced in the Mexican middleclass.

I have stated time and again that I am in favor of meaningful immigration reform. Our country needs an updated 21st Century immigration policy that takes into account the trials and tribulations of the world while we continue to embrace the principle of e pluribus unim. That said, the currently proposed immigration reform proposal does nothing for the elimination of the problem; all it does is benefit the politicos on the backs of the American taxpayers and at the price of very real threat to our country's future. It is imperative that we, the American people, insist that before any immigration reform proposals are proposed, debated or even entertained, that:

* The federal government first successfully and completely secure our borders.

* Government officials enact policy that ties any future US foreign aid to Mexico and any future trade agreements with Mexico with the reform of their government and economic community.

Then - and only then - should our elected officials tackle the important issue of immigration reform. There isn't one good reason to have the issues of immigration reform and border security addressed as one. We all need to speak clearly on this point when we contact our elected officials.

American taxpayers would be justified to threaten Election Day revolution targeting both the political opportunists of the Republican and Democrat parties should we see one more penny of our hard earned money lining the pockets of a corrupt Mexican system. US Immigration reform starts in Mexico City, not in Washington DC.

Source



5 June, 2007

Illegal immigration issue could save Republicans

Post lifted from Don Surber. See the original for links

Well, at least those that reside outside of Washington DC. I don't think voters are in the mood to give amnesty to DC Republicans who sold out on illegal immigration. The Washington Times reported: "Opposition to amnesty pays for state GOPs."

"President Bush's immigration bill is hurting fund-raising by the Republican National Committee, but fierce grassroots opposition to the legislation is helping several state Republican parties, Ralph Hallow will report Monday in The Washington Times.

Tina Benkiser, chairwoman of the Republican Party in the president's home state of Texas, says raising money has been successful "in large part to our principled stance against illegal immigration."

Since the beginning of 2006, when substantial immigration debate began, "the Republican Party of Texas has experienced an exponential increase in direct mail donations from supporters statewide," she said.

It is not just Texas and it is not just illegal Mexicans that are ticking people off. Michigan is a hotbed of Middle Eastern immigration, and it has been for generations. The Republican chairman there said opposing amnesty is a winner. The Times added, "Similar reports from other state GOP officials in Arizona, Colorado, Iowa and Delaware indicate that opposition to any form of amnesty for illegals is a fund-raising winner."

This is not a surprise. Americans expect laws to be obeyed. Rewarding lawbreakers with something better than citizenship - a super-duper visa and tax forgiveness - is an insult.

Nationally, the Republican Party lost its small contributors. Hell, if we're going to suffer Democrats, why not real ones. DC Republicans do not get it. Bush got 62 million votes in 2004. Two years later, Republican congressional candidates could not muster even half those votes.



Senate immigration bill is racist

Unless it is radically amended, it privileges Hispanics -- saying that their lawbreaking is unimportant

Contrary to some stated opinion on both sides of the US political aisle, being against a blanket amnesty (any bill that holds past criminal offenses as unimportant is one that proposes amnesty) for illegal immigrants is not a racist stance. Instead, it is a pro-American sovereignty position. Note: Those who still believe that the United States has the right to be a sovereign nation are meeting with increasing opposition. However, until Congress passes a law that states the invasion of the US via its borders is legal it is still against the law.

The "immigration reform bill" currently in the US Senate again places those of Hispanic origin who cross the US southern border illegally above other races attempting to enter the US legally. And this proposed bill also discriminates against those individuals of Hispanic origins who entered, or are working to enter, this country legally. That's the true racism-the bigotry and discriminatory practices in the mold of patently xenophobic groups such as La Raza ("The Race"), MEChA and the Mexica Movement.

It is not racist to insist that the laws of one's country be upheld. It is, however, racist to draft laws that offer advantages and perks only to a specific race or races of people-while not providing these same rewards for others.

As of 2006, it is estimated that 10% of the total population of Mexico is living in the USA-that's Mexican nationals. For decades US citizens have been paying an increasing percentage of their taxes to fund the illegals-who-cross-our-southern-border's assault on US services-including healthcare and schooling. Multiple US healthcare facilities have been forced to close, due to the onslaught of illegals demanding-and receiving-free health care. Our public school system also provides free education for non-US citizens. But, none of these free services to those in our country illegally are enjoyed by our own citizens. Instead, our own healthcare and educational costs and taxes continue to rise-our costs go up because schools and healthcare organizations are subsidizing the illegals. Our taxes go up because we're, also, paying for the illegals. In other words, we-the-people are being assaulted in our checkbooks and pockets at least twice.

It is not racist for citizens to balk at having their own services diminished and costs increased due to the invasion of illegal immigrants. It is, however, racist for US lawmakers to draft and pass bills that benefit only those who have entered the country illegally and then tax and penalize legal citizens to pay for the illegal ones. It is called taxation without representation. Only the illegals are now being represented. But, if this Amnesty Bill passes both Congressional houses, with one stroke of a pen millions of people will be instantly legal. It is also NOT racist to protect our borders.

Former President Theodore Roosevelt-not a racist-gave a speech in 1917 in which he said: "It is our boast that we admit the immigrant to full fellowship and equality with the native-born. In return we demand that he shall share our undivided allegiance to the one flag which floats over all of us" and told the Kansas City Star in 1918: "English should be the only language taught or used in the public schools." He then wrote to the President of the American Defense Society on January 3, 1919: "In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Roosevelt's statements are as correct and pertinent today as they were almost 100 years ago. What a shame and tragedy that our lawmakers have either forgotten the principles and laws upon which this country was founded-or have chosen to ignore them-in order to gain the illusion of political power. One thing remains certain. These same lawmakers and law-enforcers are no longer listening to the country's legal citizens.

Source



Rage from the NYT at unthinkable amendment: Lawbreaking to be PUNISHED!

The Senate plans to resume debate today on its proposed immigration overhaul, which has withstood more than a week of bombardment from critics right and left. More than 100 amendments are circling, many designed to make the tortuously drafted compromise meaner, narrower and nastier. The coalition that struck the deal has so far stood firm against efforts to gut its more generous and sensible provisions. While there is so much to do to improve this flawed bill, the senators also must make sure it doesn't get worse. That means beating back a particularly noxious amendment from Senator John Cornyn of Texas.

Its ostensible purpose is to "close a gaping loophole" that Mr. Cornyn says would allow terrorists, gang members and sex offenders into the country. But his real target is bigger than that. He had no appetite for the bipartisan compromise and now wants to destroy it by attacking one of its pillars: a path to legal status for an estimated 12 million immigrants. Mr. Cornyn would do this by significantly expanding the universe of offenses that make someone ineligible for legalization. Some people who used fake identity papers - a huge portion of the undocumented population - would be disqualified. The amendment would also expand the definition of "aggravated felonies," an already overbroad category of crimes, to include the act of entering or re-entering the country illegally.

Even more perversely, the amendment applies retroactively. So people who crossed illegally years ago - even those whose sentences have been suspended - would be subject to the drastic consequences of being declared "aggravated felons." They would face mandatory detention and deportation under already negligible protections of due process. Under the system Mr. Cornyn wants, someone who comes forward to immigration authorities in good faith and admits using a fake Social Security card could end up not on a path to earned legalization, but arrested and deported, depending on the whims of zealous prosecutors....

Source



4 June, 2007

Excerpt from Gingrich -- U.S. will not be ABLE to implement new bill

Part of his interview with Chris Wallace on Fox

GINGRICH: Just take this week. An American with tuberculosis shows up at the border. We're in the middle of a debate over immigration and controlling the border. He shows up at the border. The computer says do not let him enter and only deal with him in a hazardous suit.

And the border patrol currently is so ill-trained, or the immigration service is so ill-trained, that the guy lets him in - looks at him with his eyeballs and says, "you know, I don't think he looks sick," and lets him in.

You learn that there are three illegal terrorists in New Jersey who were in the U.S. for 23 years illegally, intercepted by the police 75 times in the last six years, and it was never indicated that they were here illegally.

You go through this list. You say to yourself this government - I mean, not just the president. This is not about the presidency. The government is not functioning. It's not getting the job done.

WALLACE: But you compare George W. Bush to Jimmy Carter, which, as you well know, is fighting words among Republicans.

GINGRICH: Look, the functional effect in public opinion is about the same. Now, Republicans need to confront this reality.

If you were at 28 percent, 29 percent, 30 percent approval, and if things aren't working, and now you have a fight which splits your own party - and this immigration fight goes to the core of where we are.

If you read Peggy Noonan's column last Friday, which was devastating - and I think it resonates with where the base of this party is right now. The base of this party is looking up going, "What are we in the middle of - why are we ramming through an omnibus Teddy Kennedy bill, and attacking Republicans who criticize it, and calling us," for example, as one senator did, "bigots, when all we're saying is this government couldn't possibly implement this bill?"

There's no evidence at all that this government is capable of executing this.

Source



1986 Redux: Proposed Senate Immigration Reform Repeats Past Failure

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 legalized individuals who had resided unlawfully in the United States continuously for five years by granting temporary resident status adjustable to permanent residency. That law failed to curb the influx of illegal immigration. The lesson for Congress is that granting amnesty overwhelms subsequent efforts to enforce the law and create appropriate legal avenues for South-North migration. Congress should strip provisions granting probationary status to individuals unlawfully residing in the United States from the Senate's proposed immigration bill and work to create a truly viable temporary worker program that will be popular with both potential employers and employees.

A Blast from the Past. Like the current Senate legislation, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was a bipartisan compromise and strongly supported by the President. When President Reagan signed the bill, he declared, "It will remove the incentive for illegal immigration." He believed that because the bill addressed the status of those illegally in the country and promised to reduce further mass illegal migration through more rigorous enforcement of the law and a temporary worker program.

Like the Senate's current bill, the 1986 law granted immediate legal status to individuals unlawfully in the United States. Like the current proposal, the 1986 law included additional conditions such as a criminal background check, payment of application fees, and acquisition of English language skills. The core of the law was nevertheless an amnesty that excused the intentional violation of American laws. The impact of granting amnesty undermined the deterrent effect of subsequent efforts to enforce immigration law.

In all likelihood, the current bill would spark the same result. But today illegal immigration is more prevalent, and so the stakes are higher. About 2.5 million individuals applied for legalization under the 1986 law. Now the unlawfully present population in the United States is estimated at five times that number.

The framers of the 1986 Act promised rigorous enforcement of immigration laws. This included an employer verification system and a focus on workplace enforcement. These efforts failed to stem the growth of the undocumented workforce. Nevertheless, the authors of the current bill propose a similar strategy.

The 1986 law also proposed a temporary worker program for agricultural workers. The program, however, was highly bureaucratic, inflexible, and unresponsive to the needs of the labor market. As a result, many employers opted to continue to rely on the undocumented workforce. The temporary worker program now proposed by the Senate suffers similar shortcomings.

Finally, the 1986 bill did not address border security. In effect, neither does the current Senate bill. The current bill only restates border security requirements that are already in law. In addition, the "security triggers" in the current bill would, at most, only delay the implementation of a temporary work program.

The 1986 bill granted amnesty, then tried to enforce the law, and created a poor alternative to undocumented labor. It failed. The current bill follows exactly the same strategy. It will fail as well. Responsible reform legislation has to adopt a different course. Congress must do three things:

Reject granting amnesty;

Enforce the law; and

Create a realistic, flexible, and practical temporary worker program as soon as possible.

Any proposed immigration reform that does not satisfy these three fundamental goals is as flawed as the 1986 law.

Source



The Senate bill is worse than current law for skilled immigrants.

The Senate immigration bill continues to take lumps from all political sides, with some criticisms more deserving than others. The vote last week to halve the size of a guest-worker program for low-skilled workers is a big step in the wrong direction; skimping on visas will only lead to more illicit border crossings. But the bill's handling of high-skilled immigration is even more troubling: The proposed changes are worse than current law.

Ostensibly, the goal here is to move immigration policy away from a system based on family connections and toward one based on skills. The Senate measure calls for a "merit" system that awards points to would-be immigrants based on their education and work experience. But employers who recruit foreign professionals--and aren't too keen on Uncle Sam taking over those duties--are balking at the proposal on grounds that it will introduce all sorts of inefficiencies to their hiring.

U.S. businesses aren't looking for skilled workers in general; they're looking for people with specific skills. And in the high-tech industry especially, where the demand for new products and services is constantly changing, employers need the flexibility to fill critical positions as quickly as possible. The last thing Hewlett-Packard or Texas Instruments needs is uncertainty about whether the workers they want to hire will pass some bureaucratic point test. If the Senate wants the U.S. to keep attracting the world's best and brightest, this bill is an odd way of showing it.

Last month the supply of H-1B temporary visas for foreign professionals not only ran out in one day, but did so six months before the October start of the 2008 fiscal year. It's the fourth straight year that companies have exhausted the supply before the start of the year, which is a clear market signal that the cap should be raised, if not removed.

The Senate bill would increase the supply of H-1B's by 50,000 to 115,000 and put in place a market-based escalator that couldn't exceed 180,000. That's an improvement, but it will still leave too many firms in the lurch. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects growth of about 100,000 jobs per year in computer and math science occupations between 2004 and 2014.

Worse, the visa increase is combined with other provisions that seem designed to make employing foreign professionals both costly and cumbersome. Larger companies can probably live with the proposed increase in the fee for each H-1B visa hire (and renewal) to $5,000 from $1,500. But companies would also be forced to prove for the year surrounding the hiring of a foreigner--six months before and six months after--that a U.S. worker has not been displaced. This requirement is so burdensome that under current law it's used to punish companies that have been caught violating program rules. The Senate bill would needlessly apply it to everyone.

"The H-1B program is already costly, and all things being equal there's already a heavy incentive to hire Americans," says Robert Hoffman, Oracle's vice president of government and public affairs. "But there comes a point where the program is so costly that we have to decide if it's better to move this work offshore. And that's something that can't be in our overall national interests."

It's obvious that the immigration bill was written with the fate of 12 million illegal aliens foremost in mind. But we hope Congress is mindful that foreign professionals also fill important niches in the U.S. labor market that help keep American companies competitive and jobs stateside.

Immigration policies should acknowledge that the U.S. is not producing enough home-grown computer scientists, mathematicians and engineers to fill our labor needs. Last year, U.S. universities awarded more than half of their master's degrees and 71% of their Ph.D.s in electrical engineering to foreign nationals. It's foolhardy to educate these individuals and then effectively expel them so that they can put their human capital to work for U.S. competitors. There's no shortage of countries that would be thrilled to benefit from a U.S. brain drain.

The best way to keep that from happening is by raising the quotas for employment-based visas and green cards to realistic levels consistent with market demand, and by allowing U.S. firms to make their own decisions about which workers are best suited to fill their labor needs.

Source



3 June, 2007

Getting the Government the Third World Deserves

I know that people get the government they deserve; what bothers me is that I'm going to get the government they deserve. You should be bothered, too. With the "people" changing radically through Third World immigration (Ted Kennedy's 1965 immigration act ensures that 85 percent of immigrants come from the Third World and Asia), it's legitimate to wonder how demographics influence democracy. And it's not hard to understand how these folks will shape government, for they have done so before - in their own lands.

Since our largest immigrant group hails from Mexico, let's look south of the border. Mexico is a thoroughly corrupt country, not at all unique in the Third World but certainly emblematic of it. For instance, they have the dubious distinction of possibly having the most corrupt police force in the world, as Mexican authorities enforce whatever law pays them the most. According to a documentary on the subject, you can buy your way out of a fatal hit-and-run for 450 dollars.

But the corruption is so systemic that many of us have heard the stories ourselves. I remember being told of a man who traveled to Mexico and was mugged by the police (a documented example of theft by Mexican police can be found here). Then I heard about a hapless soul who had to sell his home to pay tribute to a family with more clout and a grudge against him; the police paid him a visit and told him he'd be shot if he didn't. Most recently, an acquaintance told me how he was pulled over for running a stop sign that didn't exist and had to pay the crooked cop a bribe so he could continue on his way. And this corruption is mirrored in every aspect of Mexican society, in the bureaucrats, the courts and, of course, the politicians.

This is why cultural equivalency doctrine is nonsense. People may complain about corruption here, and while it certainly exists, it's the exception, not the norm; by and large, we are still governed by the rule of law. We don't fully appreciate this because in just the same way some of us take our lifestyle for granted - not realizing ours is a life of silk and satin as compared to most of the world - we also take for granted that one will be able to conduct everyday business and others will play by the rules. But in most of the world this is the exception, not the norm.

In other words, if we want to descend into a culture of corruption, all we need do is continue the mass importation of Third Worlders through immigration, both illegal and legal. Naturalization won't inculcate virtue immediately; rather, they will bring their passions, ideology and voting habits with them and lend their support to the same kinds of corrupt leftists they supported in their native lands.

It is quite true that previous waves of immigrants, from the Irish to Italians, Jews, Poles, and others, were also criticized at the height of their mass arrival on these shores, only to assimilate and become highly accomplished members of our civilization and society. But those who castigate today's critics of immigration on this basis usually fail to note that real problems were associated with the mass emigration at the time, and that the Immigration Act of 1924 (often denounced as racist, but also enacted in response to perceived problems) provided a half century-plus of minimal immigration, precisely the period in which assimilation worked its wonders on these earlier waves of immigrants, turning them into real Americans.

Moreover, in today's world of satellite television, cheap air travel, inexpensive internet telephone connections, and other communications advances, there is far, far less reason for arrivals to assimilate than earlier. Immigrants from Mexico, a bus ride away, where the schools teach that much of the American West properly belongs to Mexico, and where the American representative to the Miss Universe Contest in Mexico City was loudly booed Monday night, may have limited enthusiasm for assimilation and face community pressures to remain defiantly apart.

First-time Hispanic voters cast ballots for Bill Clinton by a staggering margin of fifteen to one. So, while Bush once said that family values don't stop at the border, it certainly seems that free market ones do. Preying on this, there is a tacit offer being made by the traitorous politicians among us:

Listen, come here with millions of your fellow travelers and vote for us, and, oh, oh, the rape shall commence. We'll give you the wealth of the native people; we don't know how to say it in Spanish, but we have a nice euphemism: "Redistribution." And the provincialists who would call it theft are simply too stupid to understand that if we make it legal, it cannot be wrong.

Whenever I sound this alarm, I always receive emails from those who call me an alarmist, if not something worse. They state with assurance that these Third Worlders will assimilate, just as Americans always had. They dream.

If you want a glimpse of things to come (unless we reverse course), just study states in which Third Worlders have settled. California was once a place where Ronald Reagan reigned supreme, a conservative citadel. Now, with the majority of its population being of Third World and Asian heritage, it's on the cutting edge of societal devolution. Its senators are Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein, and it has become a metaphor for politically correct insanity. Reagan could be resurrected with all his charm and oratorical splendor, and he would not win his home state.

Arizona is another prime example. Once synonymous with Barry Goldwater, it now elects senators such as John McCain and Jon Kyl, amnesty advocates both. Hey, they know their constituency. What do you think will happen when the Third World invasion hits your region? Is your state possessed of a special aura that will magically transform these groups' collective ideology? The truth is that once the whole nation looks like California, you'll be pressing two for English.

If you're a leftist such as Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton, you welcome this importation of socialist-minded voters. If Lady Macbeth is her party's nominee, California will be a lock, and if the whole nation looked like the Golden State... well, her biggest worry would be competition from the left. Yes, just imagine, if we become Mexico North, we'll have a Hillary Clinton or Al Gore on the right against a Hugo Chavez on the left. Talk about the lesser of two evils.

Many have opined that this demographic trend spells doom for the Republican Party. This epitaph is premature, however, so be not afraid if you're comforted by the sight of an office holder with an "R" beside his name. Political parties are remarkably malleable; like water, they take the shape of the vessel in which they find themselves. Sure, the Republicans will initially struggle to "rehabilitate" their image as an entity not given to nanny state, cradle-to-grave giveaways and perennial pandering to minority angst, but they shall persevere. You'll get your candidates with the R's. Although they may need to have Z's to the left of them.

As for those welcoming this cultural suicide, they will learn the hard way that one must be careful what he wishes for; you see, by and large, they know not what they sow. The politicians are blinded by power, the business interests by money, and the Mexicans by ethnic patriotism. And, ironically, it is the last group that will probably be most unhappy as we devolve into Mexico North. The only concerns of politicians and business are, respectively, power here and now and money here and now. Most of these people are fairly old, and life beyond the next few elections or few dozen financial quarters is of no consequence. If they are still around, perhaps assimilating into the culture of the French Riviera by joining the locals in mockery of boorish Americans, their Gulfstream jets will spirit them away to lands of milk and honey and their plunder will buy them all the political favors and favorable court rulings a Master of the Universe could ever need.

The hapless Third Worlders, like most of the rest of us, won't be so fortunate. Languishing in a nation reminiscent of Blade Runner (that is, assuming America remains intact), they won't have pockets deep enough in which to keep police, bureaucrats, judges and politicians.

Of course, one group that will welcome this cultural and economic breakdown is the Islamists. A corrupt, balkanized land where political correctness carries the day is fertile soil for those who prey on desperate souls yearning for meaning and moral order.

Be assured, though, immigration will come to an end. Once the rape of these United States is complete, with money redistributed, productivity and wealth creation squelched and currency devalued, immigrants will stop coming here. People generally don't go from one Third World country to another.

With the picture I've painted, one might think I have stock in the maker of Prozac. Theoretically, though, we could still right the ship. But the first step is the termination of an abusive relationship: Our love affair with mass immigration. The historical norm is to protect your shores from culturally imperialistic foreign elements, not invite them in. And the only reason this simple truth escapes us is that we have fallen victim to immigration and diversity dogma, to a sinister salesmanship, a leftist juggernaut that could sell a full-length burka to a NOW member. And, in a way, that's exactly what they're doing. Or perhaps it's more like selling pork carnitas to a jihadist. No, actually, it's more like selling death to a civilization.

Source



Can Any Immigration Bill Be Saved?

Comment by Hugh Hewitt

Another day of interviews and calls, and my overwhelming sense is that the immigration bill as drafted is as dead as dead can be. The president's speech on Tuesday had the effect of throwing gas on the flames, and the anger has multiplied, and it isn't nativist in the least.

Could the bill be saved? Only if the Republican leadership comes back with a package of amendments which it announces beforehand and insists be voted on serially and all of which must be adopted if cloture is to be invoked on the final amended version. The choice before the Democrats is whether they will accept genuine enforcement (the whole fence first, big hikes in federal law enforcement beyond the Border Patrol, a burden of proof requirement on non-Spanish speaking immigrants from countries with jihadist networks and perhaps even for gang-age Spanish speakers etc.) What happened over the past ten days was a huge shift against the bill so that the amendment package must be real reform of the reform or the dead end will be reached. John McCain knew what he was doing when he demanded a jam down --the bill has lost support with every day of scrutiny.

Quick: Name one person who went from undecided or opposed to supporting since the bill was unveiled. Proponents have produced such a bad bill and marshalled such bad arguments that they have brought no one to their cause.

Expect more and more Democrats to try and keep the bill as it is because of the inferno on the right. Even lefties pushing for more family member migrations etc have got to see that unity in pushing the present version forward will splinter the GOP as surely as the Corn Laws did Peel's Tories or as Ireland did Gladstone's Liberals. If the GOP doesn't get its amendment package out and adopted, the Republican Leader has got to call a halt to the meltdown. See this story for a clue on the deep damage done to the GOP over the past few days.

At this point I take out my Harriet Miers Fan Club charter membership card and put it on the table: This push for this bill is a disaster, Mr. President. Much much worse than the Miers nomination on which you had many good arguments, or the ports deal, on which you had fewer. On this issue there is no place to stand, and you are asking your friends in the Senate to go down fighting for a bad bill. It is a bad bill because no one believes the government can conduct millions of background checks (many spokesmen for the bill don't even pretend to know where the paperwork will go!). No one believes the bill will halt the next 12 million. No one believes you are going to assure the fence gets built. No one believes that the employer verification system will get done or work when some half-assed version of it does get done. No one believes that the probationary visas don't automatically convert illegal aliens with few if any rights into Due Process Clause covered legal migrants, with a Ninth Circuit ready and waiting to keep them here for decades.

No one believes passing the bill will help catch the jihadist sleepers already in the country. The constituency that has always been with you except on the ports deal --the security voter-- has left the room. If you want them back, act quickly. This isn't a talk radio fueled shout from the far right. It isn't the Minutemen or the Tancredo people. It is the GOP faithful who don't want it, nor anything like it.

Huddle up, D.C. GOPers, and unveil a new and very different, very improved version. Couple it with the argument that Hillary is coming and this is the best we will get if we lose the White House. But the deal has to be one worth taking, not the same deal we'd get under a second President Clinton. That's why the political rebelion is here: This looks like a bill that Hillary would have sold as tough on enforcement. We can wait two years for that. Time's awasting. It is just not believable. Fix it or kill it

Source



Get in Line, Einstein

Beware legislative behemoths. Beware "comprehensive immigration reform." Any bill that is 380 pages long is bound to have nooks and crannies reflecting private deals, quiet paybacks and ad hoc arrangements that you often don't learn about until it's too late.

The main provisions of the immigration reform monster are well known. But how many knew, before reading last Saturday's Post, that if Einstein were trying to get a green card, he would have to get in line with Argentine plumbers and Taiwanese accountants to qualify under the new "point system" that gives credit for such things as English proficiency and reliable work history? Good thing Albert was a patent office clerk, and that grooming isn't part of the point system.

Until now we've had a special category for highly skilled, world-renowned and indispensable talent. Great musicians, athletes and high-tech managers come in today under the EB-1 visa. This apparently is going to be abolished in the name of an idiotic egalitarianism.

I suspect this provision is a kind of apology for one of the few very good ideas in the bill -- taking skill, education and English proficiency into account rather than just family ties, thus cutting back on a chain migration system in which a Yemeni laborer can bring over an entire clan while the engineers and teachers desperate to get here languish in the old country.

The price for this lurch into rationality appears to be the abolition of the VIP fast track, which constitutes less than 2 percent of total immigration and, from the point of view of the national interest, is the most valuable. This staggeringly stupid idea is reason alone to vote against the immigration bill. Beyond stupidity, the bill offers farce. My favorite episode is the back-taxes caper. John McCain has been going around telling everyone that in order to be legalized, illegal immigrants will, among other things, have to pay back taxes. Such are the stern requirements on the "path to citizenship."

Problem is, McCain then discovered that back taxes were not in the bill. The Department of Homeland Security had argued that collecting on money paid under the table -- usually in cash, often with no receipts -- is pretty much impossible. Indeed, the cost of calculating and collecting the money would probably exceed the proceeds.

Now, nonpayment of taxes is not the kind of thing you want to defend when trying to sell immigration reform to citizens who do pay their taxes -- back and otherwise. So last week John McCain proposed an amendment to restore the back-taxes provision. A somewhat sheepish Senate approved this sop -- unanimously.

But the campaign for legalization does not stop at stupidity and farce. It adds mendacity as well. Such as the front-page story in last Friday's New York Times claiming that "a large majority of Americans want to change the immigration laws to allow illegal immigrants to gain legal status."

Sounds unbelievable. And it is. A Rasmussen poll had shown that 72 percent of Americans thought border enforcement and reducing illegal immigration to be very important. Only 29 percent thought legalization to be very important. Indeed, when a different question in the Times poll -- one that did not make the front page -- asked respondents if they wanted to see illegal immigrants prosecuted and deported, 69 percent said yes.

I looked for the poll question that justified the pro-legalization claim. It was Question 61. Just as I suspected, it was perfectly tendentious. It gave the respondent two options: (a) allow illegal immigrants to apply for legalization (itself a misleading characterization because the current bill grants instant legal status to all non-criminals), or (b) deport them.

Surprise. Sixty-two percent said (a). That's like asking about abortion: Do you favor (a) legalization or (b) capital punishment for doctor and mother? There is, of course, a third alternative: what we've been living with for the past 20 years -- a certain tolerance of illegal immigrants that allows 12 million to stay and work but that denies them most of the privileges and government payouts reserved for legal citizens and thus acts as at least a mild disincentive to even more massive illegal immigration.

Indeed, unless the immigration bill is fixed, that alternative is what the country will in essence choose when the bill fails. My view is that it could be fixed with a very strong border control provision. But let's make sure we know what's really in the bill and not distort what the American people are really demanding, which is border control first. And for God's sake, keep Einstein on the fast track.

Source





2 June, 2007

The Amnesty Fraud

By Thomas Sowell

Every aspect of the current immigration bill, and of the arguments made for it, has Fraud written all over it. The first, and perhaps biggest, fraud is the argument that illegal aliens are "doing jobs Americans won't do." There are no such jobs. Even in the sector of the economy in which illegal immigrants have the highest representation -- agriculture -- they are just 24 percent of the workers. Where did the other 76 percent come from, if these are jobs that Americans won't do?

The argument that illegal agricultural workers are "making a contribution to the economy" is likewise misleading. For well over half a century, this country has had chronic agricultural surpluses which have cost the taxpayers billions of dollars a year to buy, store, and try to get rid of on the world market at money-losing prices. If there were fewer agricultural workers and smaller agricultural surpluses, the taxpayers would save money.

What about illegal immigrants working outside of agriculture? They are a great bargain for their employers, because they are usually hard-working people who accept low pay and don't cause any trouble on the job. But they are no bargain for the taxpayers who cover their medical bills, the education of their children and the costs of imprisoning those who commit a disproportionate share of crime.

Analogies with immigrants who came to this country in the 19th century and early 20th century are hollow, and those who make such analogies must know how different the situation is today. People who crossed an ocean to get here, many generations ago, usually came here to become Americans. There were organized efforts within their communities, as well as in the larger society around them, to help them assimilate.

Today, there are activists working in just the opposite direction, to keep foreigners foreign, to demand that society adjust to them by making everything accessible to them in their own language, minimizing their need to learn English. As activists are working hard to keep alive a foreign subculture in so-called "bilingual" and other programs, they are also feeding the young especially with a steady diet of historic grievances about things that happened before the immigrants got here -- and before they were born. These Balkanization efforts are joined by other Americans as part of the "multicultural" ideology that pervades the education system, the media, and politics.

The ease with which people can move back and forth between the United States and Mexico -- as contrasted with those who made a one-way trip across the Atlantic in earlier times -- reduces still further the likelihood that these new immigrants will assimilate and become an integral part of the American society as readily as many earlier immigrants did.

Claims that the new immigration bill will have "tough" requirements, including learning English, have little credibility in view of the way existing laws are not being enforced. What does "learning English" mean? I can say "arrivederci" and "buongiorno" but does that mean that I speak Italian? Does anyone expect a serious effort to require a real knowledge of English from a government that captures people trying to enter the country illegally and then turns them loose inside the United States with instructions to report back to court -- which of course they are not about to do?

Another fraudulent argument for the new immigration bill is that it would facilitate the "unification of families." People can unify their families by going back home to them. Otherwise every illegal immigrant accepted can mean a dozen relatives to follow.

"What can we do with the 12 million people already here illegally?" is the question asked by amnesty supporters. We can stop them from becoming 40 million or 50 million, the way 3 million illegals became 12 million after the previous amnesty.

The most fundamental question of all has not been asked: Who should decide how many people, with what qualifications and prospects, are to be admitted into this country? Is that decision supposed to be made by anyone in Mexico who wants to come here?

Source



Rasmussen poll shows that credibility the real issue on immigration "reform"

There's a simple reason the immigration bill being debated by the U.S. Senate is unpopular with voters-the general public doesn't believe it will reduce illegal immigration. And, in the minds of most voters, that's what immigration reform is all about.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 16% of American voters believe illegal immigration will decline if the Senate bill is passed. Seventy-four percent (74%) disagree. That figure includes 41% who believe the Senate bill will actually lead to an increase in illegal immigration.

If voters had a chance to improve the legislation, 75% would "make changes to increase border security measures and reduce illegal immigration." Just 29% would" make it easier for illegal immigrants to stay in the country and eventually become citizens."

Voters who believe that the current bill will succeed in reducing illegal immigration favor its passage by a 51% to 31% margin. Those who believe the bill will lead to even more illegal immigration oppose its passage by a 70% to 12% margin.

Overall, despite a major push by the President and others over the past week, support for the Senate bill has not increased at all. In polling conducted last night (Tuesday, May 29), 26% of voters favor passage of the bill. That's unchanged from the 26% support found in polling conducted the previous Monday and Tuesday. Forty-eight percent (48%) of voters remain opposed.

Source



Australian PM wants diseased migrants and refugees kept out

PRIME Minister John Howard says he wants procedures in place to stop migrants and refugees with contagious diseases from coming to Australia. The Australian National Audit Office found that the Immigration Department knowingly approved visas for migrants with serious communicable conditions, despite authorities' inability to monitor them.

Mr Howard said today that a review of the situation was imminent and the best outcome would be a ban on migrants and refugees who were HIV-positive or who had leprosy. "My view is the best result is that no one with those sort of ailments is allowed into the country," Mr Howard said on Macquarie radio. "I'm going to review the current position, and I want procedures put in place that see as far as possible that that doesn't happen. "We are looking at it the next week or so."

Fairfax newspapers reported today that HIV-positive migrants could be forced to report to health authorities within a month of arriving or face losing their visas. Health Minister Tony Abbott and Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews had advised Mr Howard to adopt the policy. The report said the Federal Government could also advise state health authorities of new HIV-positive migrants, but was weighing up the policy against privacy considerations. The federal Health Department would also audit state and territory guidelines for dealing with people who knowingly expose others to HIV.

Last month, Mr Howard said he did not believe HIV-positive people should be allowed into the country, but would seek advice on the matter. Victorian Health Minister Bronwyn Pike last month partly blamed HIV-positive migrants and residents from interstate in a rise in HIV infection numbers in Victoria.

Source





1 June, 2007

The incredible US immigration bureaucracy again

It is almost bad enough to justify illegal immigration

As a child, Traci Hong came from South Korea to the United States as a legal immigrant. Fifteen years ago, she became a U.S. citizen. Yet in March, when Hong, now 37, applied for a congressional staff job, an employee screening system that is the linchpin of the Senate's immigration legislation told a different story: It flagged her as being here illegally.

Hong spent eight days navigating the bureaucracy to correct a database error and convince officials that she was entitled to work here - and she's an immigration lawyer, a graduate of the University of Texas at Austin and its law school. "It really made me realize how difficult it would be for someone who does not have a legal education, higher education, English skills and an understanding employer who allows them to take time off," she said.

The screening system, called Basic Pilot, is run by the Department of Homeland Security. So far, it's being used by only about 16,700 employers - 2,100 or so in California - out of 7 million nationwide. But it would dramatically expand into a national electronic employment verification system under the Senate proposal; within 18 months, it could be used to check every new hire in the country. As the legislation is written, all 150 million workers in the U.S. would have to submit to the checks within three years.

Supporters call Basic Pilot an efficient blueprint to increase enforcement of laws that bar the hiring of illegal immigrants. It is a central component of what has been dubbed the "grand bargain" between Democrats and Republicans on immigration; in fact, the bill's proposed guest worker program couldn't begin until the verification system was capable of screening every new hire in the country. "That's going to be very hard. It's complex," said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), a leading backer of the bill. "It's going to have to work."

But opponents - who include conservatives, small businesses, human resource managers and civil liberties groups - are dubious. They say the current program infringes on privacy, doesn't stop identity fraud and will become more expensive and cumbersome as it expands, bogged down by technical problems and a database with inaccurate information. "We're handing over the power to the federal government to tell us yes, we can work, or no, we can't work, and because the database isn't what it should be, there are people who are going to be told they can't work," said Tyler Moran, employment policy director for the National Immigration Law Center, which advocates for immigrant rights. "This is going to affect every single worker in the country, and this is going to affect every business in the country."

Businesses check eligibility by submitting information from an I-9 form, required of all new hires, which includes Social Security and other documentation showing an employee's right to live and work in the U.S.

If the information is valid, the system sends the business a confirmation. If not, a "tentative nonconfirmation" is returned, and the business asks the employee to provide additional proof of identity or citizenship. Files are even checked by hand before the government finally identifies an employee as illegal. Although the Internet-based process usually takes seconds, any glitch can take days to resolve, said Homeland Security spokesman Chris Bentley. About 200 businesses join the program each week; so far this year, Basic Pilot has processed 1.7 million inquiries - the same as in all of 2006.

Even as more businesses join the program, Bentley said, the system's error rate of 5%[That's a lot of people] is falling. But a Social Security Administration report last year estimated that 17.8 million Social Security records, or 4.1%, contained discrepancies that could tie up the system.

Traci Hong, for example, was stopped because her records, like those of 7% of naturalized foreigners, failed to indicate that she had been granted U.S. citizenship. A change in immigration status, marriage or divorce needs to be reported to Social Security, said Moran of the National Immigration Law Center.

Basic Pilot has become popular as workplace enforcement becomes a grass-roots issue. Communities across the country - including in Mission Viejo; Valley Park, Mo.; and Hazleton, Pa. - have passed laws requiring screening for city employees. This year, lawmakers in 41 states are considering legislation to strengthen workplace enforcement of immigration laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The Tennessee Senate approved a bill this spring mandating the use of Basic Pilot by all employers in the state; Rhode Island lawmakers are considering a similar measure. Proponents say it is the most affordable way to crack down on illegal immigrants.

Source



Immigration and multiculturalism

A comment from Canada

Western European democracies (Canada included) are proud of their multicultural and immigration policies. The argument is that we are open and welcoming, and tolerant of many cultures, ethnic groups, and religions. Recently, another argument of considerable pride has been added: since our populations are ageing, we are clear-headed about bringing in immigrants from other areas of the world to pay the taxes we need to afford the old-age pensions and rising health care costs as we grow older. In Canada, these sentiments are daily enforced by the media and politicians alike. It almost amounts to a national belief system. To question whether immigration policy has any costs or whether it really achieves our interests and values is considered insulting. One is quickly dubbed xenophobic, racist or intolerant.

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, most opinion makers in our societies believe that we must reach out even more to the Islamic and Arab worlds as if to compensate for the global war on terror. I question whether the benefits are as great as heralded. I also suspect real costs and weaknesses of these policies are being pushed under the table. I do not deny the benefits. We have a historical record to show the strength of open societies. French Protestants found a safe have in the Netherlands when Romanist persecution was intense. Countless Jews found in America an escape from world-wide persecution. Today, many Arabs and Muslims who feel oppressed in radical Sunni or Shia societies can still find a refugee in the West. Beside freedom, immigration offers economic opportunities and has clearly contributed to Western prosperity.

Now consider two problems with the current patterns of immigration. First, for the last twenty years radical Wahhabi Islam has greatly increased its influence in Saudi Arabia and other Sunni areas in the Middle East. As the author Dore Gold in his masterful book "Hatred's Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism" illustrates beyond doubt, the combination of Wahhabi teaching and global Saudi 'charitable' foundations has spread a politically violent ideology from Morocco via the Middle East and Pakistan all the way to the Philippines. This militant politico-religious vanguard is now abusing immigration and Muslim immigrant communities to try and undermine Western civilization. The evidence coming from the bombers in Madrid and London, and the imminent attackers in Toronto make this plain.

Second, Mark Steyn in his book "America Alone: The End of the World as We Know it" describes the real reason behind our immigration policies. Secular Westerners have plummeting birthrates because they are enmeshed in hedonist lifestyles. They prop up this lifestyle with unsustainable welfare policies. Marriage rates and fertility rates in most of Western Europe are catastrophic. As the fertility rates of Muslim immigrants holds strong, most of these countries will switch dominant cultures and religions by 2040. So instead of multiculturalism, we are really letting our own culture die out and replace it with another culture. The combination of fertility rates and one person one vote will take care of it.

These problems demand radical change, not self-congratulation. We need to greatly increase security screening of newcomers. We need to demand strict integration values, and forbid Mosque leaders to spread Wahhabi teaching. Second, rather than trumpeting immigration and multiculturalism, our societies need to return to the sacred values of family and the ancient responsibility of raising our own children to take our places.

Source



DHS To Become the Nation's HR Department

Post lifted from Jawa Report. See the original for links

I rarely agree with the ACLU, but on this issue, we're on the same page:

US citizens who apply for a job will need prior approval from Department of Homeland Security under the terms [of an] immigration bill passed considered by the Senate this week...

Even current employees will need to obtain eligibility approval from the DHS Within 60 days of the Immigration Reform Act of 2006 becoming law.

"EEVS would be a financial and bureaucratic nightmare for both businesses and workers," said Timothy Sparapani, ACLU Legislative Counsel. "Under this already flawed program no one would be able to work in the U.S. without DHS approval - creating a ‘No Work List’ similar to the government’s ‘No Fly List.’ We need immigration reform, but not at this cost."

What this will mean, in practice, is even more bureaucratic headaches for legitimate employers and more unpunished lawbreaking by the unscrupulous.

I'm not going to deny that my opinion on this provision, along with many others in this bill, is colored by the fact that it'll be George Bush and his incompetence-ridden administration (not) enforcing it. When/if we get a President with a real committment to effectively following the law as written, I'll be willing to give ideas like this a little bit more benefit of the doubt.