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.
****************************************************************************************



31 May, 2007

Robbing Rector: Does the WSJ read before they editorialize?

Last week, a Wall Street Journal editorial set out to debunk a certain "myth that has become a key talking point among restrictionists on the right," namely, that low-skilled immigrant households impose a huge net-cost on American taxpayers. The major study on this issue is by the Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector, and it is that study that the editorial purports to refute.

The editorial, however, failed in its aim. In fact, the editorial willfully ignored differences among different immigrant populations and displayed little understanding of the administration of government benefits and services. The Wall Street Journal's analysis was so unresponsive to Rector's report that it would seem the editorial's author was simply unfamiliar with Rector's detailed findings.

The editorial noted that Rector's study, "The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to the U.S. Taxpayer," found that "`the average lifetime costs to the taxpayer will be $1.1 million' for each low-skilled immigrant household." Not to bicker over details, but Rector's paper actually puts the lifetime cost per low-skilled household at "nearly $1.2 million." That figure is based on the calculation that, in fiscal year 2004, low-skilled immigrant households received on average $30,160 in benefits and services (including means-tested aid, education, and population-based services like police and fire protection) and paid only $10,573 in taxes (including property and excise taxes and even lottery-ticket purchases). So the fiscal "deficit" of each low-skilled household is $19,588. About 60 percent of adult illegal immigrants lack a high-school degree and so are considered "low-skilled" in Rector's analysis.

The editorial attempts to reveal "one basic flaw" of Rector's study, not by examining his analysis of the extensive government data that support his conclusions, but rather by making reference to research from the Immigration Policy Center, the policy arm of the trade association of immigration lawyers.

It is true that Rector does not account for certain contingencies entertained in the IPC's research - for instance, the fact that among the population of high-school dropouts in American are included self-made billionaires Ray Kroc and Dave Thomas (the founders of McDonald's and Wendy's), and that such persons just might be lurking among the 4.5 million low-skilled immigrant households.

Yet it is not for this that the Wall Street Journal refers to the IPC research. Rather, it is because the IPC points out, rightly, that recent immigrants are not eligible for many federal welfare benefits. Of course, Rector's report acknowledges as much, which the writer of the editorial would have noticed if he had made it through page 9 of Rector's 70-page report.

Rector details the government benefits typically received by the pertinent households, fully accounting for the welfare ineligibility of recent immigrants - the result, we might add, of a provision in the 1996 welfare reform legislation that Rector is largely responsible for. As Rector explains, "Most of the tax and benefits estimates in this paper are unaffected by a low-skill immigrant household's legal status. . . this analysis adjusts for the lower use of government and benefits by illegal [and legal] immigrants."

The Wall Street Journal apparently doesn't understand that, while recent immigrants are ineligible for certain welfare benefits, their citizen children qualify for means-tested government aid. And Rector's calculations rely on the receipt of government benefits these households self-report to the Census Bureau.

After failing to make a careful accounting of benefits received and taxes paid by low-skilled immigrant households, the editorial then ignores the specific characteristics of these households by citing the incomes and contributions of immigrants in general, including college graduates. The editorial irrelevantly states that "immigrants who have just arrived have median household earnings of $31,930." Workers in the low-skilled households - i.e., the subject of the report ostensibly being debunked - have annual incomes of $18,490.

Robert Rector's careful analysis demonstrates that low-skilled immigrant households consume far more in government benefits than they pay in taxes. The Wall Street Journal's careless editorial demonstrates that his critics are unable to credibly disagree

Source



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

By Mark Krikorian

One of the achievements touted by Republican negotiators of the odious Senate amnesty bill was the inclusion of a program to import up to 600,000 additional foreign workers a year, with no path to citizenship. Sen. Jon Kyl marked it as a win that Ted Kennedy had acceded to the principle that "temporary means temporary."

We can't survive too many more wins like that. Guestworker programs suffer from two problems - they never work, and their very premise is morally wrong. As to the first, economist Philip Martin, one of the world's top scholars in this field, draws these three lessons from our experience with guestworker programs:

1. "There is nothing more permanent than temporary workers."
2. "The availability of foreign workers distorts the economy."
3. "Employers invest in lobbying to maintain the program, not in labor-saving or back-saving alternatives."

The first point is especially pertinent. Didn't it occur to anyone why Ted Kennedy was agreeing to something that the labor movement has been fighting against since it won passage of the Alien Contract Labor Act in 1885? He knows perfectly well that guestworker programs always lead to increased immigration, both from "temporary" workers who don't leave and from parallel flows of legal and illegal immigration sparked by the program. Our most recent experience was the "Bracero" program, which imported Mexican farm workers until it was abolished in 1964. During the 22 years the program lasted, annual Mexican immigration - permanent immigration, leading to citizenship - grew from little more than 2,000 to as high as 61,000, for total permanent settlement of more than a half-million Mexicans. This compares with a total of only a million or so Mexican men who actually took part in the Bracero program. During that same period, arrests of Mexican illegal aliens totaled 5.3 million, more than the 4.6 million admissions of guestworkers (some representing the same men multiple times).

Germany had the same experience with its postwar "gastarbeiter" program for Turkish and other workers. When it was discontinued after the 1973 oil embargo, the government expected the "temporary" workers would complete their contracts and go home, because of the supposedly "circular" movement of such people, going back and forth between Germany and Turkey (the same story that today's guestworker boosters are telling about Mexicans). Instead, the "temporary" workers not only stayed, they brought their families, too, causing Germany's foreign population to nearly double over the next 25 years.

Sen. Kennedy knows this full well - one more indication that Ted Kennedy negotiating with Republicans over immigration is like Gary Kasparov playing an elementary-school chess team. In fact, a congressional source tells me that last year Rep. Howard Berman (career grade of F from Americans for Better Immigration) was privately trying to persuade skeptical Democrats to agree to a guestworker program with the promise that, after all, they'd never really have to go back.

But what if we lived in some alternate universe where "temporary" really did mean temporary? Where the Senate bill's promise of a "two years here, one year home" foreign-worker program was something other than a trick? We would still be wise to answer, "get thee behind me, Satan."

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.

Unfortunately, most of the opposition to guestworker programs has come from the Left. The AFL-CIO has fought the guestworker provisions of the bill (though they're fine with amnesty and increased permanent immigration), most senators voting to kill the guestworker provisions were Democrats, and the Southern Poverty Law Center, of all places, recently published a report on the exploitative nature of existing guestworker programs (they found, for instance, that guestworkers yearned to be illegal aliens, since they could make a lot more money that way).

Of course, there are conservatives who get all this. Phyllis Schlafly has written that "Inviting foreigners to come to America as guest workers is equivalent to sending the message: You people are only fit to do menial jobs that Americans think they are too good to do," and has approvingly cited Theodore Roosevelt's warning that "Never under any condition should this nation look at an immigrant as primarily a labor unit." Likewise, Senators Vitter and Coburn voted last week to kill the guestworker provisions of the Senate bill.

But they were the only Republicans voting to kill the program, demonstrating that too many Republicans have bowed to the demands of cheap-labor employers (or been taken in by their false arguments about the "need" for such labor) and are prepared to fight to retain this immoral program. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said recently that the Bush administration would fight to overturn a Senate amendment that cut the size of the program to "only" 200,000 foreign workers per year. And Sen. Kyl said the whole deal would be off if he couldn't add back an escalator clause that would increase the number of visas if businesses wanted more than the available 200,000 captive foreign workers.

When a contemptible racket like the Southern Poverty Law Center has a better understanding of a public-policy issue than Republican senators, we're in trouble. The Left might actually end up saving Republicans from themselves, especially if the guestworker programs provide enough Democratic senators a liberal rationale to oppose the bill. We'd better hope so.

Source



"You don't want to do what's right for America"

Post lifted from Dinocrat . See the original for links

We were told today that if you oppose the Senate immigration bill, "you don't want to do what's right for America". Well, then, it appears that most Americans of most demographic groups "don't want to do what's right for America". In an interesting slip of the tongue, President Bush admitted that "most Americans" are concerned first with border security, in his speech today on the Senate immigration bill, not that he let that fact interfere with his relentless pushing of this fantasy of "comprehensive" reform:

"the fundamental question is, will elected officials have the courage necessary to put a comprehensive immigration plan in place that makes it more likely we can enforce our border and, at the same time, uphold the great traditions of - immigrant traditions of the United States of America.

we're expanding the number of Border Patrol agents from about 9,000 to 13,000, and by the end of - we have expanded it - and by the end of 2008, we're going to have 18,000 agents. We will have more than doubled the Border Patrol in a relatively quick period of time.In this immigration debate, oftentimes people say, well, they're not doing anything to protect the border. Well, that's not - those folks just simply don't know what's going on. You do. Men and women who wear the uniform understand what's going on. There's a focused, concerted effort to enforce our border.Arrests have gone down by 27 percent over the past year on the southern border. That's a sign of progress.

Most Americans - many Americans say their primary concern is border security and ensuring that those who violate our laws face consequences. That's what you're hearing out there when you're listening to the debate.

Others say their chief concern is keeping this economy strong. There's a - a lot of employers need a legal way to fill jobs that Americans simply aren't doing.I remember the peach grower, Saxby, that you sent over to the White House. He's there saying to me, you've got to understand something, Mr. President, my business won't go forward unless I have some of these good people that are willing to work long hours in my peach orchard helping me harvest the crop. So a lot of people in this debate are concerned about getting a bill in place that will help keep the economy growing. Others say their main concern is to bring hardworking, decent people out of the shadows of our society.

A lot of Americans are skeptical about immigration reform primarily because they don't think the government can fix the problems. And my answer to the skeptics is, give us a chance to fix the problems in a comprehensive way that enforces our border and treats people with decency and respect.Amnesty.many of the authors of this bill oppose it. This bill is not an amnesty bill. If you want to scare the American people, what you say is, the bill is an amnesty bill. It's not an amnesty bill. That's empty political rhetoric, trying to frighten our fellow citizens.

Those determined to find fault with this bill will always be able to look at a narrow slice of it and find something they don't like. If you want to kill the bill, if you don't want to do what's right for America, you can pick one little aspect out of it, you can use it to frighten people.

We observe, among other things, that the Bush administration has notably failed to follow through on its previous commitments to expand border enforcement personnal. Pardon our skepticism and not wanting to be fooled twice.

UPDATE

When we look at the convoluted and soon to be weakened implementation plan, we can only think that the author of the President's speech was naive or stupid or perhaps a college professor. The real world does not work this way, as we have explained at some length. Here's the administration's take:

Under the bill, those who want to stay in our country who have been here can apply for a Z visa. At some point in time, those who are coming to work will get temporary work visas. Those who have been here already can apply for a Z visa. To receive the visa, illegal workers must admit they violated the law and pay a meaningful penalty, pass a strict background check, hold a job, maintain a clean record, and eventually earn English - learn English.

The hurdles to citizenship are going to be even higher. In other words, if somebody says, fine, I'll take my Z visa, I'm out of the shadows now, I've got an opportunity to not hide in America. I'll continue doing the work I'm doing, I'm going to keep my record clean. I'll pay the penalties necessary so I can stay here - that's what it says - but if you want to be a citizen, there's more hurdles. It says, the Z visa worker would first have to pay an additional fine. In other words, you have broken the law and there's a consequence for breaking the law. That's what the bill says.

Secondly, you've got to return home to file an application for your green card. If you want to be a citizen, you pay a fine, you touch base home to apply for a green card, and then you take your place behind those who have played by the rules and have been waiting in line, patiently, to become a citizen.

As Hugh Hewitt has ably demonstrated, no illegal immigrant is going anywhere after the bill is signed. And the notion that immigrants will leave the country to get back in and get in line is just cockamamie. We quote the NYT's editorial today on the Senate bill's "cruel path" to citizenship: "that path is strewn with cruel conditions, including a fine - $5,000 - that's too steep and hurdles that are needlessly high, including a `touchback' requirement for immigrants to make pilgrimages to their home countries to cleanse themselves of illegality." How long do you think the $5000 fee and the "touchback" provisions will survive after a bill is signed? We prefer our amnesty bills honest at least.





30 May, 2007

DeMint says immigration bill could be a disaster for GOP

If a compromise bill on immigration passes, it "could be a disaster for the Republican Party," U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint said. DeMint is leading Republican efforts in the Senate against the legislation that his South Carolina colleague U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham helped write. "It's definitely been a strain at this point -- strain in relationships," DeMint said Tuesday in a phone interview after meeting with Spartanburg-area residents to talk about the legislation.

But passing a bill that doesn't give people confidence in the country's immigration laws will help unite Democrats, DeMint said. "The Republicans are not going to get any gains from this," he said. "Politically, it could be a disaster for the Republican Party."

Graham's spokesman said he was not available to talk to a reporter. But Furman University political scientist Danielle Vinson said with President Bush and Graham and other Republican senators pushing to get the bill through the Senate, it doesn't make sense that Democrats would get all the credit.

Also on Tuesday, Gov. Mark Sanford -- a longtime Graham ally -- called on South Carolina legislators to act quickly on statewide legislation as he sidestepped questions about the federal illegal immigration proposal. The state proposal would make it a felony to harbor or transport illegal immigrants and bars government contractors from hiring illegal immigrants. It also forces businesses to pay state payroll taxes on illegal immigrants. There's not much time for the proposal to pass, though. South Carolina lawmakers are scheduled to adjourn next week.

The Graham-DeMint differences on the immigration bill played out two weeks ago at the state GOP convention. when Republicans booed and shouted "No" at Graham's explanations of the bill. But the crowd cheered DeMint, who said he'd work to defeat it if it appears to give illegal immigrants amnesty. By the end of the day, the state GOP had adopted a resolution saying it "adamantly opposes blanket amnesty for anyone who has not gone through the appropriate legal channels to enter our country."

After Tuesday's news conference, Sanford said he'll leave it up to Graham and DeMint to mend their differences. "The nature of any political battle is it's there for a day and gone the next day, so I'm sure they'll do just fine," he said.

Meanwhile, Democrats are enjoying the rare split within the GOP, which controls the state House, state Senate and eight of nine statewide offices. "It gives me no greater pleasure than to watch them fight each other over whose idea is worse," said state Rep. Todd Rutherford, D-Columbia.

Source



American IT industry against Senate immigration Bill

It truly is absurd that unskilled people can flock in while the highly skilled cannot

The US high-tech industry has opposed the immigration Bill being debated in the Senate aimed at dealing with an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, saying the measures as currently drafted would harm the American technology industry.

The Information Technology Association of America (ITAA), a lobbying group representing high-tech companies, says the Bill won't do enough to compensate for a shortage of skilled workers and will make it more difficult to hire qualified people from overseas.

In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, ITAA President and CEO, Phillip J Bond, said America's economy is strong and vibrant, but the country's future competitiveness rests on the ability of firms to recruit globally.

"As you know, the H-1B cap for fiscal year 2008 was reached in April, shutting out US employers from recruiting highly skilled foreign nationals, who are graduating from US institutions with degrees in computer science, engineering, mathematics and other scientific and technical fields," Bond said.

He added that vacancies were going unfilled and highly valued workers are forced to leave the country.

Source



Large-scale deportation of illegals IS possible

Operation Wetback was a 1954 project of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to remove about 1.2 million illegal immigrants from the southwestern United States, with a focus on Mexican nationals.

Burgeoning numbers of illegal aliens prompted President Dwight D. Eisenhower to appoint his longtime friend, General Joseph Swing, as INS Commissioner. According to Attorney General Herbert Brownell Jr., Eisenhower had a sense of urgency about illegal immigration immediately upon taking office. In a letter to Sen. William Fulbright, Eisenhower quoted a report in The New York Times that said: "The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican 'wetbacks' to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government."

Eisenhower became increasingly concerned that profits from illegal labor led to corruption. An on-and-off guest-worker program for Mexicans was operating at the time, and farmers and ranchers in the Southwest were becoming dependent on additional low-cost labor. The operation was modeled after the deportation program that invited American citizens of Mexican ancestry to go back to Mexico during the Great Depression because of the bad economy north of the border. See Mexican Repatriation.

The operation began in California and Arizona and coordinated 1,075 Border Patrol agents along with state and local police agencies to mount an aggressive crackdown, going as far as police sweeps of Mexican-American neighborhoods and random stops and ID checks of "Mexican-looking" people in a region with many Native Americans and native Hispanics[citation needed]. Some 750 agents targeted agricultural areas with a goal of 1000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 aliens were caught in the two states. Around 488,000 people fled the country for fear of being apprehended. By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and the INS estimates that 500,000-700,000 illegals had left Texas voluntarily. To discourage re-entry, buses and trains took many illegals deep within Mexico before being set free. Tens of thousands more were put aboard two hired ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried the aliens from Port Isabel, Texas, to Veracruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles (900 kilometers) south.

Operation Wetback deported approximately 80,000 Mexican nationals in the space of almost a year, although local INS officials claimed that an additional 500,000-700,000 had fled to Mexico before the campaign began. The INS estimates rested on the claim that most undocumented people, fearing apprehension by the government, had voluntarily repatriated themselves before and during the operation.

Source



29 May, 2007

Latest from the Center for Immigration Studies

1. Mass Immigration vs. Black America

Statement of T. Willard Fair, President and CEO, Urban League of Greater Miami; Center for Immigration Studies Board Member before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, May 9, 2007

EXCERPT: "Of course, none of that means that individual immigrants -- or particular immigrant groups -- can be blamed for the difficulties facing black men. Being pro-Me should never make me anti-You. Nor can we use immigration as a crutch, blaming it for all our problems. The reality is that less-educated black men in America today have a variety of problems -- high rates of crime and drug use, for example, and poor performance at work and school -- that are caused by factors unrelated to level of immigration.

"But if cutting immigration and enforcing the law wouldn't be a cure-all, it sure would make my job easier. Take employment -- immigration isn't the whole reason for the drop in employment of black men; it's not even half the reason. But it is the largest single reason, and it's something we can fix relatively easily."

********
********

2. Low Salaries for Low Skills: Wages and Skill Levels for H-1B Computer Workers, 2005 By John Miano, Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, April 2007

EXCERPT: "Technology sector employers, who represent the largest share of H-1B visa users, tell the public that the H-1B program is vital to their ability to find the highly skilled workers they need. Yet Department of Labor data tell a different story. Previous studies have found that the H-1B program is primarily used to import low-wage workers. This report examines the most recently available wage data on the H-1B program and finds that the trend of low prevailing wage claims and low wages continues. In addition, while industry spokesmen say these workers bring needed skills to our economy, on the H-1B Labor Condition Applications (LCAs) filed with the Department of Labor, employers classify most of their H-1B workers as being relatively low-skilled for the jobs they are filling."

********
********

3. Illegitimate Nation: An Examination of Out-of-Wedlock Births Among Immigrants and Natives by Steven A. Camarota, Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, May 2007

EXCERPT: "The argument is often made that immigrants have a stronger commitment to traditional family values than do native-born Americans. However, birth records show that about one-third of births to both groups are now to unmarried parents. Moreover, unmarried immigrants are significantly more likely than unmarried natives to give birth. Illegitimacy may be especially problematic for children of immigrants because they need strong families to adjust to life in America."

********
********

4. Illegitimacy and Immigration Panel discussion transcript, April 24, 2007

Speakers:

Mark Krikorian, Executive Director, Center for Immigration Studies

Steven A. Camarota, Director of Research, Center for Immigration Studies

Nicholas Eberstadt, American Enterprise Institute

Robert Rector, Heritage Foundation

********
********

5. Immigration's Impact On American Workers

Statement of Steven A. Camarota before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, May 9, 2007

EXCERPT: "As discussed above, the impact of immigration on the overall economy is almost certainly very small. Its short- and long-term impact demographically on the share of the population that is of working age is also very small. It probably makes more sense for policymakers to focus on the winners and losers from immigration. The big losers are natives working in low-skilled, low-wage jobs. Of course, technological change and increased trade also have reduced the labor market opportunities for low-wage workers in the Untied States. But immigration is different because it is a discretionary policy that can be altered. On the other hand, immigrants are the big winners, as are owners of capital and skilled workers, but their gains are tiny relative to their income.

"In the end, arguments for or against immigration are as much political and moral as they are economic. The latest research indicates that we can reduce immigration secure in the knowledge that it will not harm the economy. Doing so makes sense if we are very concerned about low-wage and less-skilled workers in the United States. On the other hand, if one places a high priority on helping unskilled workers in other countries, then allowing in a large number of such workers should continue. Of course, only an infinitesimal proportion of the world's poor could ever come to this country even under the most open immigration policy one might imagine. Those who support the current high level of unskilled legal and illegal immigration should at least do so with an understanding that those American workers harmed by the policies they favor are already the poorest and most vulnerable."

********
********

6. Real Immigration Reform: The Path to Credibility

Statement of Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., Cornell University; Center for Immigration Studies Board Member before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, May 3, 2007

EXCERPT: "In its final report to Congress in 1997, the Commission on Immigration Reform defined what `a simple yardstick' for `a credible immigration policy' is: `people who should get in do get in, people who should not get in are kept out; and people who are judged deportable are required to leave.'

"The standard cannot be clearer. Congress and the Administration at that time did not listen and, sure enough, things have gotten far worse.

"It time to put aside the selfish pleas of special interest groups and to enact real immigration reform.

"Although some of my recommendations address issues not mentioned by CIR, all are consistent with those about which it did speak. All are intended to assure that our immigration policies are fair but firm and that they are congruent with the welfare of the nation's most valuable resource: it labor force."

********
********

7. Proposals to Improve the Electronic Employment Verification and Worksite Enforcement System

Statement of Jessica M. Vaughan before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, April 26, 2007

EXCERPT: "If the program were to be made mandatory tomorrow, most businesses would be able to comply. Even most small businesses already use the Internet and can access the system. Companies who don't want to do it themselves can pay their own accountant or lawyer or hire one of the many private-sector 'designated agents' to verify their workers."

********
********

8. Shortfalls of the 1996 Immigration Reform Legislation

Statement of Mark Krikorian before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, April 20, 2007

EXCERPT: "But there was one very large mistake made by Congress in the 1996 law, and that was rejecting the late Barbara Jordan's recommendations to cut overall legal immigration. The U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, headed by Jordan during most of its existence, spent years examining all aspects of the immigration issue and delivered reports on illegal immigration, legal immigration, refugees, and Americanization policy. .

"With regard to legal immigration, the Jordan Commission recommended a reduction of about one-third in total immigration, in particular focusing the family portion of the immigration flow more tightly and eliminating categories outside the nuclear family of husband, wife, and young children. Jordan's recommendations would also have eliminated the small but unjustifiable unskilled worker category (the Commission noted that `Unless there is another compelling interest, such as in the entry of nuclear families and refugees, it is not in the national interest to admit unskilled workers') and the egregious visa lottery."

********
********

9. Cease Citing Bible to Defend Bush's Immigration Bill By Steven Steinlight, Forward, April 29, 2007

EXCERPT: "Leviticus 19 commands us to love the stranger. Bush's cynical, reactionary bill, you can be certain, is not about love, and Leviticus 19 surely does not command us to exploit strangers as cheap labor or for political gain. Cherry-picking the Bible to support a shameful scheme to exploit poor immigrants at the expense of impoverished Americans to engorge the wealth of rich employers is a sacrilege. Why not just cite the Wall Street Journal?"

********
********

10. Speaking Out on Immigration By Steven Steinlight, The Jewish Advocate, April 23, 2007

EXCERPT: "Only Muslims are more anti-Semitic than foreign-born Hispanics according to solid survey research. Latino anti-Semitism hovers in the upper 40th percentile. Latinos loathe us less, but they'll have infinitely more power. If the Bush bill passes, Hispanics will soon control the American political system. Better to be hated by 2-3 million Muslims than strongly disliked by 100 million Latinos, a third of the population, who will outnumber us 50-1."

********
********

11. Immigrants Are People, Too. Moral decay doesn't stop at the Rio Grande By Mark Krikorian, National Review Online, May 2, 2007

EXCERPT: "The point is not that immigrants are worse than we are, any more than the open-borders crowd's claims that immigrants are better than we are. Instead, they're just like we are, subject to the same temptations of modernity, polluted by the same filth of popular culture, making the same bad choices with the freedom we can enjoy here.

"This may not be an argument for reducing immigration (there are plenty of those). But it certainly explodes any rational basis for arguing in favor of mass immigration based on a special immigrant commitment to traditional morality. There is no "family values gap," and the sooner policymakers understand that, the sooner we're likely to get an immigration policy consistent with our nation's interests rather than one marinated in myths and nostalgia."

********
********

12. Not a Dime's Worth of Difference: What kind of people does the White House think we are? By Mark Krikorian, National Review Online, April 10, 2007

EXCERPT: "The administration's calculation that it can make amnesty and increased immigration palatable if only they are packaged with enough anti-immigrant measures is an insult to immigration hawks. Our response must be unequivocal: No Amnesty. No Guestworkers. Period."



How immigration bill could make things worse

An interesting article below by far-Leftist economist Paul Krugman. He draws on economic history to confirm that a high level of unskilled immigration depresses wages for working class Americans but seems untroubled by that. He makes clear that the only change he wants to see is one that will increase the number of Democrat voters and thinks that the current bill does not go far enough in that direction. That the "guest workers" won't get to vote is his objection. What he says is fair warning.

A piece of advice for progressives trying to figure out where they stand on immigration reform: It's the political economy, stupid. Analyzing the direct economic gains and losses from proposed reform isn't enough. You also have to think about how the reform would affect the future political environment. To see what I mean - and why the proposed immigration bill, despite good intentions, could well make things worse - let's take a look back at America's last era of mass immigration.

My own grandparents came to this country during that era, which ended with the imposition of severe immigration restrictions in the 1920s. Needless to say, I'm very glad they made it in before Congress slammed the door. As supporters of immigrant rights rightly remind us, everything today's immigrant-bashers say - that immigrants are insufficiently skilled, that they're too culturally alien and, implied though rarely stated explicitly, that they're not white enough - was said a century ago about Italians, Poles and Jews.

Today, there's a highly technical controversy going on among economists about the effects of recent immigration on wages. No matter how that dispute turns out, it's clear that the earlier wave of immigration increased inequality and depressed the wages of the less skilled. For example, a recent study by Jeffrey Williamson, a Harvard economic historian, suggests that in 1913 the real wages of unskilled U.S. workers were around 10 percent lower than they would have been without mass immigration. But the straight economics was the least of it. Much more important was the way immigration diluted democracy.

In 1910, almost 14 percent of voting-age males in the United States were non-naturalized immigrants. (Women didn't get the vote until 1920.) Add in the disenfranchised blacks of the Jim Crow South, and what you had in America was a sort of minor-key apartheid system, with about a quarter of the population denied any political voice. That dilution of democracy helped prevent any effective response to the excesses and injustices of the Gilded Age, because those who might have demanded that politicians support labor rights, progressive taxation and a basic social safety net didn't have the right to vote.

Conversely, the restrictions on immigration imposed in the 1920s had the unintended effect of paving the way for the New Deal and sustaining its achievements, by creating a fully enfranchised working class.

But now we're living in the second Gilded Age. And one of the things making anti-worker, unequalizing policies politically possible is the fact that millions of the worst-paid workers in this country can't vote. What progressives should care about, above all, is that immigration reform stop our drift into a new system of de facto apartheid. Progressive supporters of the proposed bill defend the guest worker program as a necessary evil, the price that must be paid for business support. Right now, however, the price looks too high and the reward too small.

Source



Truly insane British immigration rules

Here's a quiz. Not a very good quiz because you will know the answer before you've finished reading the question. Whether you can comprehend it is another matter. An awful lot of immigrants are allowed into Britain these days and very few deported because they are undesirable. However, as a nation we must draw the line somewhere. So, using your understanding of How Britain Is, estimate which of the following four aspirant British citizens has been told to get out and stay out. And which three can stay?

1) Mouloud Sihali, Algerian. Lived at Finsbury Park mosque, breeding ground of Islamic terrorism. Described in court as "unprincipled and dishonest". Illegal immigrant.

2) Yonis Dirie, Somalian. Drug addict, armed robber and burglar. Convicted of raping a young woman in London. Illegal immigrant.

3) Tul Bahadur Pun VC, Nepalese. Won the Victoria Cross for taking out a Japanese machinegun post in 1944 in Burma single-handedly. Now 84, of unblemished conduct, suffering from heart problems and diabetes and would like treatment here. Legal applicant.

4) "AS", Libyan. Islamic extremist involved with Milan terrorist group. Court accepts that he is likely to try to kill us all again quite soon. Illegal immigrant.

You got it, didn't you? Old Pun's application was rejected because - and here's another punchline, in case the first wasn't funny enough - he "failed to demonstrate" that he had "strong ties with Britain". How much stronger do you want? There can be hardly a soul who wouldn't be happy to have Pun here. And not one who could make a case for allowing Dirie, the robber-rapist, say, to get preferential treatment. Some of us would have happily dispatched him back to Mogadishu strapped to a missile.

There is no great objection to immigration in this country; the objection is to how it is done and who benefits, exemplified by the cases I quote above. I suspect the public feels there are people who should be allowed in - people to whom we owe a profound debt of gratitude (like Pun), or those whose countries we have let down in one way or another (such as the Hong Kong Chinese or the black Zimbabweans). And yet it seems we do precisely the opposite.

Libyan and Algerian extremists who feel the regimes in their home countries are not sufficiently rigorous are allowed to stay because we worry they might be bumped off at home - regardless of what threat they pose to us. I would vote for any party that pledged to extricate us from the international legislation that insists on such absurdities. By then, however, it will most likely be too late for Tul Bahadur Pun VC. The Japs couldn't kill him - but we're not making a bad job of it.

Source



28 May, 2007

The Coming Collapse of the "Compromise"

Senator Menendez drove a nail into the compromise's coffin today when he blasted the "hateful rhetoric" in the country directed at McCain-Kennedy 2.0. I have spent a week interviewed guests and talking to experts and the callers, and there hasn't been any hateful rhetoric, nor have I heard it on other shows. What I do hear is profound suspicion of the Congress and perfectly reasonable objections to the obvious problems in the bill.

Blasting away at opponents --especially those who might have been won over by responsive amendments-- is a sign of desperation, as is the increasingly cement-handed massaging of the bill. Senators have a few hours left to make some dramatic changes in 2.0 that will give them some arguments for when they meet their constituents next week. Thus far zero big changes have been made, and cutting the number of guest workers to 200,000 doesn't qualify.

To keep their hope alive, the proponents of the compromise should not leave D.C. without mandating that the entire fence will be built before any Z visa issues, that the Border Patrol will be dramatically expanded and pay and training improved before any Z visa issues, by detailing the expanision in the staffs of the DHS and FBI charged with processing and investigating the Z visa applicants and by declining to extend to any illegal alien from "countries of special interest" any status whatsoever. The national security arguments against the bill are the most powerful, and the Senate is simply not responding in a serious way to those arguments and thus losing the opportunity to salvage the bill.

When I heard Todd Bensman was to appear on Laura Ingraham's show this morning I knew that his crucial set of articles had broken through decisively, even though not many senators seem to have read them. The point of his series --that many terrorist sand terrorist sympathizers have certainly entered the country illegally across our borders-- is an issue ignored by the bill's proponents, and when confronted with it, they attempt to argue that it would be better to get their fingerprints and legalize their work and travel around the country --and back and forth from abroad to the U.S.-- than to keep them in the position of a lawbreaker. This is not credible, and thus the bill is not credible. The four areas bolded above are each part of dealing with this threat, and the refusal to do so dooms the bill.

Source



The Rube Goldberg immigration bill

It makes it virtually impossible to DENY admission to immigrant workers. Post lifted from Dinocrat. See the original for links

In our piece, A law that mocks itself, we explained that the new immigration bill is dishonest in the sense that it creates a reasonable expectation on the part of illegal immigrants that they will be able to line up to have their tickets punched to be here legally, but creates no practical implementation mechanisms for actually dealing with the implications of that gargantuan task. (Consider this: the number of people who need to be processed is at least 25x the size of the US Army, and think of all the bureaucracy required to deal with them.) Hugh Hewitt and his law professor guests say that the courts will wind up making many of the rules; here they discuss but one tiny matter among many, how a Z-visa might be revoked:

"[JE] When I give a property interest, or something that looks like a property interest, an entitlement, and I define the scope of this entitlement by a statute that includes certain limited due process protections, not the full set of protections that we would give to traditional property before I take it away from you, the Court said, severed the property interest that was granted by the statute from the procedures that went along with it, and now created a property interest standing alone, and said all of the due process protections of the 5th Amendment or the 14th Amendment apply. And that means that once you gave an interest to these people, the limited Z visa or what have you, the Court would determine what process was due, not the statute..

[HH] What happens the day after the bill passes? And gentlemen, the triggers are in the bill, but section 601, treatment of applicants, reads this way. I want to make sure you hear it. "An alien who files application for Z non-immigrant status shall upon submission of any evidence required under paragraphs F and G, and after the Secretary has conducted appropriate background checks to include name and fingerprint checks, that have not by the end of the next business day produced information rendering the applicant ineligible, shall be A) granted probationary benefits in the form of employment authorization pending final adjudication of the alien's application, B) may, in the Secretary's discretion receive advance permission to reenter the United States, C) may not be detained for immigration purposes determined inadmissible or deportable, or removed pending final adjudication of the alien's application, unless the alien is determined to be ineligible for Z non-immigration status." Erwin, what rights does that endow upon, give to the Z applicant?.

[EC] I think it would require some form of due process before taking that status away..the leading Supreme Court case, Matthews V. Eldridge, says that in deciding what procedures are requires, a court's to balance the importance of the interest of the individual, the ability of hearings to lead to more accurate decisions, and also the government's interest, including administrative efficiency. I think courts would approve some form of deportation hearing that is relatively minimal in terms of procedure, but there has to be some procedure, and I think that's a good thing, not a bad thing.

[JE] the scope of the hearing would not need to be a full-fledged trial that we have for other kind of loss of interest under the Constitution. But it would not be defined by what the statute sets out with minimal things. It will be defined by the courts, and it will be balanced, as Erwin has said, by the relative weight to be given to the interest, and the government's need in efficiency. And the courts have opened the door for things like well, immigration law and eligibility is a very complicated thing. Will the courts require that in order for there to be fair due process, then in fact every one of these Z visa holders be afforded an attorney paid for by taxpayers before they can be deported? That's certainly within the realm of possibility. Will there be a right to an appeal? And a stay of the lower court's judgment before the appeal, or the hearing officer's judgment before the appeal runs, given how significant the weight is if they're going to be returned to a home country that is poor, and may be lots of claims of political persecution for having come here in the first place, or what have you. All of these things will now be decided by the courts for everyone, and it will be decided the day after this legislation takes effect.

[HH] I just think as expecting good lawyers, as the community of lawyers are on behalf of people not in the country legally over the years have become, they will seize on 601H, subparagraphs 1C, and say they have to be determined to be ineligible for Z non-immigrant status. We can't even make that conclusion until the regulations for Z non-immigrant status are produced and ratified by a court. And so I think the entire illegal population becomes non-deportable the day after the law passes for a long period of time.

This is an unwise, unsustainable, dragged-out, unfair and chaotic way to deal with 12 or 20 million people; therefore, we believe that the situation will devolve into a blanket amnesty pretty quickly, as these unwieldy procedures swamp the courts and render incoherent many provisions of the legislation. If Congress wants amnesty, it should pass amnesty. It should not hide amnesty in a Rube Goldberg machine that clearly will not function in the real world. We find ourselves having lost respect for all those who back the intellectually dishonest mess that is the Senate bill.



Arizona Senate OKs penalties for hiring illegal workers

Arizona employers who knowingly hire illegal workers would get one chance to correct the problem before losing their business license under a bill passed by the state Senate on Wednesday. On a 23-4 vote, senators revamped an employer-sanctions bill passed earlier this year by the House. The Senate bill also is similar to a ballot initiative under way. The sanctions would be the most important immigration measure of the current legislative session.

But the Senate bill may not be enough. The driving force behind the ballot drive, who also is the sponsor of the House bill, said the Senate version smacks of amnesty for employers. "There are some things that need to be cleaned up," said Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, sponsor of House Bill 2779. His opposition means the bill will be negotiated between House and Senate members instead of proceeding to a full vote of the House.

Most business groups continue to oppose any state action, arguing that employer sanctions must be meted out by the federal government. State sanctions could put Arizona at a competitive disadvantage with other states, they say.

Still, with passage of the Legal Arizona Workers Act, senators said they would be shutting down the magnet of illegal employment that fuels much of the state's illegal immigration. "We are doing something Congress has failed to do, and that is to act," said Sen. Chuck Gray, R-Mesa, adding that he was "thrilled" to cast his vote in favor of the sanctions bill.

The vote comes days after the U.S. Senate opened debate on a wide-ranging illegal-immigration bill that includes its own set of penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegal workers.

The Arizona version would give employers found to have hired illegal workers three business days to file an affidavit swearing they had fired the illegal workers and would not hire such workers again. If the business owner failed to do so, his or her business license would be suspended. A second offense would bring about permanent revocation of the employer's business license.

Employers can defend themselves against such actions by using a federal computer-based program that verifies an individual's Social Security number and immigration status. Mandatory use of the Basic Pilot Program would be required as of March. The Basic Pilot Program is required of employers in Colorado and Georgia. Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry earlier this month signed a similar requirement into law.

Missing from the Arizona legislation is the key provision of the employer-sanctions bill that won approval in the House two months ago: a requirement that all Arizona employers sign an affidavit asserting that they have not made any illegal hires. That approach was criticized as cumbersome to administer as well as striking a presumed-guilty tone. Senators jettisoned it as they worked to turn the bill into a close copy of the ballot measure that Pearce and former gubernatorial candidate Don Goldwaterlaunched earlier this spring, said Sen. Bob Burns, R-Peoria, who led many of the lengthy work sessions on the bill.

Sen. Ken Cheuvront, D-Phoenix, cast a reluctant "yes" vote, noting that federal immigration reform could make the Arizona effort moot. The threat of losing a business license should make business owners sit up and take notice, he said. "This bill, as an employer, is pretty significant," said Cheuvront, who runs a contracting business as well as a wine-and-cheese bar. "I hold two business licenses. I know, by not fulfilling this, I put my livelihood in jeopardy."

Disappointed business groups watched the action from the Senate gallery but stuck to their stance that curbing illegal hires is the federal government's duty. "We continue to be opposed," said Jessica Pacheco, lobbyist for the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The statewide chamber group on Wednesday also came out in support of the bipartisan plan that the U.S. Senate started debating this week. "We feel this compromise has a strong foundation," Glenn Hamer, the chamber's president and chief executive officer, said in a prepared statement. "It begins to address the issues necessary for enacting comprehensive immigration reform."

Although most business groups have argued that the state should stay out of the immigration-law business, lawmakers feel they cannot wait. GOP leaders in the Legislature have made employer sanctions one of their key goals, and the votes this year have drawn support from Democrats, as well. Wednesday's Senate vote drew the support of six Democrats, while four voted against it. Three were absent.

But state legislation must get through Pearce before it can move forward. Specifically, he does not like the "two-strikes" nature of the Senate bill. "I'm not going to send up anything that is amnesty," he said, adding that he feels the temporary business-license suspension, with conditions to get it revoked, could be construed as giving employers a free pass. "I'm not sure I'm going to allow a two-strikes system," he said. Pearce also said he does not like the March effective date, feeling it should have full force of law 90 days after the end of the legislative session. That would be sometime late this summer. Still, Pearce said, he is open to negotiations with his Senate counterparts and characterized the bill as needing "tweaks" more than an overhaul. He has been noncommittal about whether he would abandon the ballot drive if the Legislature enacted a sanctions bill and Gov. Janet Napolitano signed it. Last year, Napolitano vetoed a wide-ranging immigration bill. She called the employer-sanctions provisions in the bill "amnesty."

Senate Majority Whip John Huppenthal, R-Chandler, said lawmakers believe they've crafted something that the Democratic governor can embrace. "If she were to veto this, she would own the initiative," he sai

Source



27 May, 2007

2000 words





Border control is the big doubt in the new bill

I really like the WSJ's editorial page - I don't know what we'd do without them. But they have a nasty, condescending streak when they get on their high horse, as they do with their signature position on immigration. I'm glad they find this issue so easy. For me, it's excruciating.

How can as smart a guy as Paul Gigot say something as stupid as that we wing-nuts at NR want to "harass" businesses as part of our "enforcement first agenda"? The WSJ cares a lot more about business than I do. I'd like to see the law followed by everyone, but I don't have an agenda related to business other than, I suppose, that I'd like to see some honesty from the pro-business lobby - I'd like to hear them acknowledge that they want illegal workers because it is a way around paying the prohibitive wages they'd have to pay Americans to do the same jobs (even as business rolls over and plays dead while another economically irrational raising of the minimum wage is enacted).

But here's what really fries me. I don't want to kick the illegals out of the country. I'm not a restrictionist; I believe, if thoughtfully regulated, immigration is good for the United States. I prefer legal immigration, but you'd have to be an idiot not to concede that a substantial portion of the illegal population is comprised of good, hard-working people - the kind we'd love to have here legitimately.

I also happen to think DHS Sec'y Mike Chertoff is one of the brightest, ablest guys I've ever met; he's as committed as anyone to fighting terrorists and other bad guys. I have the same feeling about Senator Kyl. These are died in the wool national security guys. If they say they think we need legalization because we need to know who is in the country and that that can only realistically be done with some kind of legalization process, that, to me, is a serious argument for legalization. (Although, I must say, it's long been important to know who is in the country, so I'd love to know why the illegal population has been allowed to explode, rather than being scrutinized and reduced, since 9/11.)

As a human being, I want to support legalization, even though everything in my experience tells me it is always a mistake to reward illegal behavior, and the equities tell me that (a) the illegals have chosen to be illegal so it's not unfair to make them live with that choice, and (b) legalization would be a slap in the face to the people who have respected our laws and tried to immigrate lawfully.

Despite those two weighty considerations, I think I could swallow hard and go along. Except for one thing: I don't believe the government is serious about enforcement. I've been in government, so I don't doubt their good faith - I don't doubt that they really hope and intend to do a better job. I just won't believe they'll follow through for any sustained amount of time until they actually do.

After decades of laxity, you don't get to tell me you're now serious based on what seems like 10 minutes of stepped up enforcement, with promises of a few hundred miles of fence and some additional border agents thrown in for good measure. You gotta prove it to me, and that's going to take time. And remember, the people making the promises are going to be gone soon. What assurance do I have that there will be follow through on enforcement if the Democrats win in 2008? After all, they are only going along with the enforcement terms now as the necessary political price of getting the bill passed - what they want are the carrots, not the sticks, so why should I believe they'll honor the sticks if and when enforcement becomes their responsibility?

If I thought the proposed legalization was really one time only, and that we had figured out a good way to separate the good, decent people from the terrorists, gang-bangers and assorted felons, I'd get beyond my hesitation (and probably my better judgment) to make accommodations for those millions to continue to work hard and enjoy a better life with their families - like my immigrant ancestors got to do. I'd rationalize that it was the humane thing to do even if it might not be the smartest thing to do. But I need, up front, to be confident it is not a ruinous thing to do.

That, Mr. Gigot, is why I want enforcement first. It's not about business. It's about being responsible when you are considering a big risk. The current 12 to 20+ million illegal alien population could easily swell to two or more times that amount if this isn't done right. You're then talking about a population of non-Americans the size of England or France. That's not acceptable. If the government can prove it is serious about managing this problem - by actually managing this problem - I could go along. But I need proof, not promises.

Source



The Coleman defeat reveals that law enforcement is not seriously contemplated

Minnesota's Senator Norm Coleman offered a very good amendment to the immigration bill --one which ought to have enjoyed unanimous and instant support given the bill's proclaimed status as a comprehensive overhaul of the immigration law: The amendment would have ended the "sanctuary city" movement which purports to put local governments in opposition to federal mandates on immigration. If the new law is the solution, that solution should surely include insistence that the federal government's policies would be enforced and obeyed by the state and local authorities. This is not a federalism issue as the Constitution clearly commits this area of the law to the national government.

Coleman's amendment failed by one vote. Seven Republicans voted against it. Really, how the proponents of this bill expect to survive when it cannot even deliver the obvious coherence it promises is a mystery, as are the votes of these seven. Powerline's John Hinderaker has the names. You won't be surprised.

Congrats to Coleman for a sound proposal. Perhaps it will be resurrected further along in the debate as a sign of seriousness on the part of the law's sponsors.

Source



Thompson criticizes immigration measures

Says secure the border first

Fred Thompson, a potential Republican presidential candidate, suggested that the 1986 immigration law signed by President Reagan is to blame for the country`s illegal immigrants and he bemoaned a nation beset by "suicidal maniacs." He made the comments Thursday night as he discussed the 1986 immigration reform bill and the Senate`s current legislation to overhaul the immigration system during a speech to people attending the annual Prescott Bush Awards Dinner in Stamford, Conn.

Thompson, the actor on NBC`s popular drama "Law & Order," is widely expected to enter the GOP presidential race this summer. His backers bill him as a conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan who can beat the Democratic nominee in November 2008. "Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship," Reagan said in a statement on Nov. 6, 1986, as the bill became law with his signature.

Thompson, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani all oppose the measure to varying degrees, even though all three have made statements in the past in which they appeared to support a similar measure the Senate previously considered. "We should scrap this bill and the whole debate until we can convince the American people that we have secured the borders or at least have made great headway," Thompson said last week.

"I travel around the country extensively and that`s certainly not the impression I have," McCain said. "I have not detected a nation full of suicidal maniacs."

"He was probably referring to the risk we now run that if we have borders that can be easily penetrated, well then, even though it`s a small group, terrorists can come in that way, drug dealers, other criminals," Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, said in a telephone interview.

Source



26 May, 2007

An amazing double victory for immigration critic

Remember the liberal, pro-amnesty for illegal aliens mantra following the 2006 elections? The one that had it that politicians in any way critical of illegal immigration lost because of that stance?

Despite the best efforts of the mainstream media to get that message out, it wasn't true then; it's not true now, and it's unlikely to be true in the future. Consider the fate of Lou Barletta, the Republican Mayor of Hazleton, Pennsylvania. Barletta, a former businessman faces with saving his town from rampant violence and crime by illegal aliens, personally and heavily promoted local legislation that would punish landlords who rent to and businesses that hire illegals.

Well, Mayor Barletta just won the Republican primary nomination for his third term - getting an almost unheard of 94 percent of the vote, according to the Associated Press. Oh, and by the way, Mayor Barletta also won the Democratic nomination - with a write-in campaign that he began only several weeks ago. Our congratulations to Mayor Barletta, Republican, Democrat, Hero of Hazleton and a political symbol of those who fight for what is right. His stunning victory should send a strong signal to politicians both local and national whose courage in the face of mobs has thus far been significantly less noticeable.

Source



Something for everyone to dislike

Post lifted from Dinocrat. See the original for links



It is interesting that virtually all significant demographic groups of United States citizens oppose the Senate Immigration bill, according to the details of this Rasmussen poll. For example, black Americans are against the bill by a whopping 62% to 19% margin. Captain Ed put it this way:

Not a single demographic in the study favors this proposal, except under Race:Other. Democrats oppose it 51-28. Republicans oppose it 47-25. Men and women both clearly oppose it. Only people ages 30-39 come close to overcoming opposition, 34-32 in opposition. But when the subject turns to border security, the numbers turn even more dramatic. Every single demographic - race, gender, age, and political orientation - has majorities that show border security as "very important".almost all.score in the 70s or higher.

Maggie's Farm has a very good update on this bill which is apparently offensive to the common sense of most citizens. By the way, speaking of polls, the latest CBS/NYT poll, which says that the majority really like Democrats and dislike Republicans, sampled 39% D to 26% R, the highest ratio of D to R that we recall seeing in a poll. That doesn't necessarily make the result wrong, but it does make it rather tautological.



France to Pay Immigrants to Return Home

New French President Nicolas Sarkozy made immigration a central issue of his campaign. Now, his new minister for immigration and national identity says its time to start paying immigrants to leave the country. France is home to over 5 million immigrants -- and the new conservative-led government doesn't plan on making things any more comfortable for them. While the new regime in Paris is determined to curb illegal immigration, it is also looking to encourage legal migrants to reconsider their decision to stay in France -- by paying them to go back home.

New immigration minister, Brice Hortefeux, confirmed on Wednesday that the government is planning to offer incentives to more immigrants to return home voluntarily. "We must increase this measure to help voluntary return. I am very clearly committed to doing that," Hortefeux said in an interview with RFI radio. Under the scheme, Paris will provide each family with a nest egg of _6,000 ($8,000) for when they go back to their country of origin. A similar scheme, which was introduced in 2005 and 2006, was taken up by around 3,000 families.

Hortefeux, who heads up the new "super-ministery" of immigration, integration, national identity and co-development, said he wants to pursue a "firm but humane" immigration policy. The new ministry was a central pledge in Nicolas Sarkozy's election campaign, who had warned that France was exasperated by "uncontrolled immigration." He was accused by the left of playing on public fears of immigration during his campaign, in an attempt to appeal to the supporters of the far-right National Front. In the end, Sarkozy won comfortably with 53 percent, and Hortefeux says this shows that the French people have clearly decided on what immigration policy they want. He also pointed to an opinon poll in the Le Figaro newspaper, which found that three in four people in France approved of the ministry.

Since he was appointed by the new president last Friday, Hortefeux has insisted that "co-development" will be an important plank of French immigration policy. He argued that the system of voluntary return can be seen as a means for investment in developing countries. He said that the method of transferring funds via returning immigrants to their country of origin was a better policy than providing aid for development.

Hortefeux is also talking tough when it comes to dealing with illegal immigration, insisting that there are no plans for a mass legalization of the estimated 200,000 to 400,000 illegals in France.

The new minister voiced concern that the majority of legal immigration into France was that of existing immigrants bringing in relatives, while only a small proportion were granted visas due to their professional skills. "To be integrated, you need language skills and a professional activity," he told RFI, and said he is considering introducing a language test to prospective immigrants.

France is home to an estimated 1.5 million immigrants from mostly Muslim North Africa and 500,000 from sub-Saharan Africa, according to the 2004 census. Asked on RFI about how the notion "national identity," fits into the new ministry -- the term has been fiercely criticized by the French left -- Hortefeux said: "This should not be understood as something menacing, but on the contrary, it is initiative with the aim of bringing coherence."

Source



25 May, 2007

'Gang of 12' Mulls Over Immigration Bill

Just off the Senate floor, a dozen Democratic and Republican senators huddle twice a day to decide whether proposed changes to a bipartisan immigration compromise are acceptable tweaks or fatal blows to their fragile agreement.

Survival of the deal that would allow 12 million unlawful immigrants to stay in the U.S. legally - regarded as the best chance to overhaul immigration this year - depends in large part on how effective this ``Gang of 12'' is in insulating the plan from major changes.

The team grows or shrinks according to what the issues are. At its core are the unlikely partners who cut the deal, led by liberal Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and conservative Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. Assistance comes from GOP centrist Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Mel Martinez of Florida and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

They sit in overstuffed crimson leather chairs; Senate aides and senior White House officials look on. The team pores over lists of proposed amendments from both parties. Some are deemed acceptable, while others are deal-breakers that must be killed or modified to avoid alienating a key bloc. ``There is a real commitment to absolutely do our best to see that the agreement is not unraveled,'' Kyl said. ``We're trying to avoid killing the deal.'' Added Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo.: ``We need to stay true to the principles'' underlying the bipartisan deal.

It is a risky strategy on an issue as contentious as immigration. Lawmakers in both parties are eager to express themselves and bristle at accepting a measure developed by a small group of senators in private with the White House.

The measure would toughen border security and institute an employment verification system to bar undocumented workers from getting jobs. It would create a merit-based point system that would evaluate future immigrants and prioritize employment criteria over family ties.

The bill unites conservatives and liberals who regard enactment of an immigration measure this year as an imperative that can deliver political benefits and long-standing policy objectives to their respective parties.

Many lawmakers are suspicious of the group. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., derisively refers to them as ``the masters of the universe.'' Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., is seeking far-reaching changes to the immigration measure and wants to remove the legalization program for unlawful immigrants. ``A lot of us don't feel like they're speaking for us, that this idea that we can't offer an amendment or it's going to blow up the deal is a bunch of nonsense,'' DeMint said. ``This is something that every member of the Senate should be participating in - not a small group,'' DeMint said. ``There's never been a more emotional issue for people back home. They feel betrayed and violated. They don't trust our Congress.''

The approach, however, may be the only way to ensure the bill makes it through the Senate and has a chance of being signed by President Bush. It is not uncommon for informal bipartisan groups to band together to navigate complicated and controversial measures through the Senate. It takes only one senator to block action and most major bills essentially require the assent of 60 members. A group comprising Democratic and Republican centrists came up with the Medicare prescription drug bill in 2003 and hung together to keep it intact during a heated debate. A similar team - branded the ``Gang of 14'' - worked out a deal in 2005 to avert a filibuster showdown over Bush's judicial nominations.

Still, the immigration group is unusual for the diversity of its members, who represent two dramatically different views on immigration. They united to oppose a liberal, organized labor-backed attempt by Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota to scrap the bill's guest worker program. It failed on Tuesday.

Not considered a deal-breaker was a proposal by Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., to slash the guest worker program from up to 600,000 visas annually to just 200,000. It passed the Senate overwhelmingly Wednesday. Still, the group of lawmakers agreed to seek to make that cap adjustable as market conditions demanded.

They were negotiating with Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, in efforts to revise his proposal to deprive foreigners whose visas were revoked of court review before being deported. ``Once somebody's identified as wanting to make the bill better, we sit down and tell them how the amendment would affect the overall bill and see if we can accommodate them,'' Graham said.

The group is not all-powerful, though. The lawmakers failed to fend off a proposal by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., to toughen the border security and workplace enforcement triggers. They would have to be in place before the temporary worker program or the legalization of unlawful immigrants could go into effect. It passed Wednesday without a recorded vote - a tacit acknowledgment by the group it lacked the support to stop it.

Source



Some illegals are terrorists

But the latest bill treats then just the same as poor Mexicans

Though most who cross America's borders are economic migrants, the government has labeled some terrorists. Their ranks include:

Mahmoud Kourani, convicted in Detroit as a leader of the terrorist group Hezbollah. Using a visa obtained by bribing a Mexican official in Beirut, the Lebanese national sneaked over the Mexican border in 2001 in the trunk of a car.

Nabel Al-Marahb, a reputed al-Qaida operative who was No. 27 on the FBI's most wanted terrorist list in the months after 9-11, crossed the Canadian border in the sleeper cab of a long-haul truck.

Farida Goolam Mahammed, a South African woman captured in 2004 as she carried into the McAllen airport cash and clothes still wet from the Rio Grande. Though the government characterized her merely as a border jumper, U.S. sources now say she was a smuggler who ferried people with terrorist connections. One report credits her arrest with spurring a major international terror investigation that stopped an al-Qaida attack on New York.

The government has accused other border jumpers of connections to outlawed terrorist organizations, some that help al-Qaida, including reputed members of the deadly Tamil Tigers caught in California after crossing the Mexican border in 2005 on their way to Canada. One U.S.-bound Pakistani apparently captured in Mexico drew such suspicion that he ended up in front of a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay.

"They are not all economic migrants," said attorney Janice Kephart, who served as legal counsel for the 9-11 Commission and co-wrote its final staff report. "I do get frustrated when people who live in Washington or Illinois say we don't have any evidence that terrorists are coming across. But there is evidence."

According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection apprehension numbers, agents along both borders have caught more than 5,700 special-interest immigrants since 2001. But as many as 20,000 to 60,000 others are presumed to have slipped through, based on rule-of-thumb estimates typically used by homeland security agencies. "You'd like to think at least you're catching one out of 10," McCraw said. "But that's not good in baseball and it's certainly not good in counterterrorism."

Source



24 May, 2007

The "Amnesty" Bill

Comment by Jonah Goldberg

Okay, so I've been reading up. I recently spoke with someone in the administration about the bill. I debated it in part this morning with Peter Beinart for a forthcoming installment of "What's Your Problem?" So I'm beginning to form an opinion about a still moving target. Here's what I think, so far, in no particular order:

1. The White House has an enormous political tin ear and was caught very much off-guard about how immigration plays with the base of the party. It is simply amazing how the Rovian approach wants things both ways. On the one hand, they want to govern by pleasing the base in a 50-50 country (which isn't fifty-fifty anymore) while at the same time they're stunned when the base gets miffed when the White House betrays the base in the name of bipartisanship, and then proceeds to mock the base as a bunch of yahoos (see #8).

2. The chief cause of misunderstanding is the issue of trust. The White House thought that that if they had all sorts of conservative mechanisms in the bill that conservatives would be placated. What they didn't understand is that the anti-"amnesty" wing of the Republican party simply doesn't believe any of these enforcement measures will implemented until they in fact are implemented. "Trust but verify" has simply become "verify." And until there is real enforcement - both in terms of current law and new laws - the base simply doesn't care about any other bells and whistles. "Been there done that" is the de facto official policy of the base when it comes to promises of enforcement, i.e. "No more promises, just enforcement. Then we'll talk" (This basic reality is why I came out in favor of a wall on the border).

3. I think this is a fair, legitimate or, at minimum, understandable position for a very frustrated constituency to take.

4. That said, I think much of the bill is actually very good. The end to unlimited family unification, the fines, the language requirement, the point system, ID requirements and all of the rest sound good or at least defensible and I think a serious, passable, immigration bill should have many of them.

5. But, again, the issue comes back to trust. The base of the party doesn't really care about the details because they've been promised nice-sounding details before only to see them evaporate in the sausage-making process, remain unenforced restrictions in name only or prove to be smokescreens. Sign a deal with Ted Kennedy and you'll end up with cider in your ear.

6. Hence we're at a stalemate. No law that can pass will receive the support from the anti-"amnesty" crowd, and no law that this crowd wants will pass without some kind of "amnesty" attached to it.

7. I used quotation marks around "amnesty" because I don't think that's really what it is and that conservative opponents have succeeded in calling anything short of victory (variously defined) as "amnesty." How smart this tactic proves to be in hindsight remains to be seen.

8. My guess: the law doesn't pass. The status quo endures. Bush suffers even more erosion of his support (in part because many of his most loyal supporters relish the opportunity to vent their more generalized anger at him on a non-Iraq issue). And David Frum is proved correct on points 1-7, particularly 6 and 7. I'm not sure about 8.

Source



The Immigration Bill Sells Out the Poor

The immigration debate so far has focused on trying to make legal that which is illegal, in the name of being fair to the very people who care little of legality. We are told that someone needs to pick our food from the farm fields and do jobs that American's won't. But automation has been steadily decreasing the need for agricultural labor for over a century and a half, and the trend continues.

So do we need 12 million illegal immigrants to pick our crops? How many people actually do pick our crops? I had to check. The best I can figure is around 300,000 people, based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics for non managerial positions. Click "Occupational Employment Statistics" and then choose "occupation for multiple geographical areas"

We have more than enough unemployed people to fill the need for agricultural labor several times over. It is true that unemployment is still hovering around only 4.5%. But most people don't consider that with the ever expanding population (due in no small part to immigration legal and illegal), the 4.5% of 10 years ago represents fewer people than today. The ranks of the unemployed are in fact growing, evcen as the unemployment rate stays comparatively low.

Currently there are approximately 6.8 million people actively looking for work. From the data, it is clear that blacks (8.2%) and teenagers (15.3%) need jobs and are disproportionately affected by unemployment. If you'll remember what happened at Swift & Company, 950 employees were found to be illegals. Swift & Company have replaced all of those illegals with those who are entitled to earn a living here in the US. It may have been necessary to raise wages a bit in order to fill all of the jobs, but that is what market clearing of supply and demand are all about. If packing plant workers are able to make a better living, is this something that we want to bemoan? Higher wages, after all, provide an incentive for greater automation, and are an engine for economic growth and a rising standard of living.

The fact that all of those 950 jobs were filled with legal employees discredits the notion that illegals only fill those jobs Americans won't do. Flooding the market with low skilled people from other countries is bad social policy which hurts the poor and unskilled by both depriving them of jobs and driving down wages.

In 1990, the US had approximately 250 million people; today we have just over 300 million people. These 50 million more people represent a 20% increase in population over 15 years. It should be obvious to all that a 20% increase in population will cause a significant increase in energy consumption, and increase demand for housing, transportation and schools in some proportionate manner. Those who worry about energy consumption should realize that by moving to the United States from a poor country like Mexico, a person's energy consumption and "carbon footprint" automatically increase dramatically.

In the last few years we have experienced price hikes in gasoline directly as a result of refinery capacity limits when it came to hurricanes, formulation changes and now cold winters. Why cold winters? Refiners are forced to choose between cracking oil for gasoline versus home heating fuel in the run up to the winter season. Now let's add to this equation that by 2025 (less than 20 years away) there will be approximately another 50 million people living in the US, bringing the total population to 350 million or a further 20% increase in population. So, how will we supply gasoline given the difficulty of building new refineries?

It is clear that Congress and those who advocate continuing unrestrained immigration are dealing with yesteryear's notions of America and its needs. This is the Twenty-first Century, a new century, a new set of sensibilities. The silence of Al Gore and other environmentalists on the impact of a rising population through immigration is deafening.

Do we feel empathy with those who want to come to America and find their fortune? I can safely say yes. However, the responsibility does not rest upon the US government or the taxpayer for the welfare of every resident of the planet. The responsibility for any national belongs first with the country of birth or citizenship. By allowing illegal immigration and other misguided immigration policies that don't serve the interests of US citizens, we enable and in fact encourage incompetence in other governments, giving them the use of the US as a safety valve to compensate for their economic failures.

In light of limited resources and the above figures on population, how can anyone say it is mean spirited to limit immigration? How is it fair to our poor and young people? How is it responsible to encourage corrupt and incompetent governments to continue with business as usual when by their own failed policies only increase the misery of their own people?

Source



Texas Judge halts enforcement of rent regulations

"A federal judge on Monday halted enforcement of a voter-endorsed ordinance preventing apartment rentals to most illegal immigrants, a day before the ban was to take effect in this Dallas suburb [Farmers Branch, TX]. U.S. District Judge Sam A. Lindsay wrote in granting a temporary restraining order that only the federal government can determine whether a person is in the United States legally. ... Opponents of the ordinance filed three requests in federal court for an order to stop its enforcement. Two of those succeeded in getting the temporary restraining order on Monday. The ordinance requires managers to verify that renters are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants before leasing to them, with some exceptions. Violators face fines of up to $500, and each day would be considered a separate violation. Also Monday, a federal lawsuit and a state district court suit were filed in Dallas against Farmers Branch."

More here





23 May, 2007

Bill seems doomed

Fewer than 20 senators are publicly committed to supporting the immigration deal that hits the Senate floor today while nearly 40 are already opposed or have serious concerns, underscoring how difficult it will be for President Bush and his allies to craft a coalition that can pass the bill. A Washington Times survey of Senate offices and public comments after the deal was announced Thursday found an additional 32 senators who said they cannot even take a position yet -- a result of the fact that the deal was written in secret by a dozen senators and the Bush administration, wasn't even finalized until yesterday and still hasn't reached many Senate offices. "I did not agree to any immigration deal and was not part of the negotiations," said Sen. Jim Bunning, Kentucky Republican and a likely opponent. "From what I have heard about the bill, it gives amnesty to the estimated 12.5 million illegal immigrants in this country."

Senators will be asked to make their first vote on the measure today, on whether to begin debating the bill. It will require 60 votes to pass, and leaders of both parties are urging their members to vote for it, so the debate can at least begin.

Opposition comes from the left and the right -- and both sides are vowing to offer amendments to try to move the bill. What is not clear is whether the two sides will be willing to team up to scuttle the bill. The Times survey found 17 senators supporting the current bill and another two who lean toward supporting it; 17 who oppose it; 22 who have concerns; and 32 senators who are still reviewing it. Nine senators' positions couldn't be determined, and Sen. Tim Johnson, South Dakota Democrat, has been absent all year because of a medical situation.

Those involved in the negotiations are urging fellow senators to take a close look at the bill, arguing that it strikes the right balance between enforcement, realism and humanitarian concerns. They also said they think it will pass. Sen. Arlen Specter, one of the Republicans who helped craft the deal, said it's the best they could do. "It will treat the 12 million undocumented immigrants in a constructive way. It is not amnesty. They'll have to pay a fine. They'll have to earn their way to citizenship," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "It's better than what we have now."

Those on the left want to preserve current family immigration preferences and scale back the guest-worker program, which would allow 400,000 new temporary workers a year. Under the current bill, they could work for two years, then have to return home for a year, and could renew for three work periods. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid this weekend said he will insist that the bill's guest-worker provision be slashed from 400,000 per year down to 100,000 per year.

Source



Response to White House Myth/Fact on Immigration Bill

The White House released a "Myth/Fact" document about the immigration bill last week. But instead of setting the record straight, it perpetuated more myths. What follows are 10 myths the White House is telling us about the amnesty agreement.

1. MYTH: This is not amnesty.

FACT: This is amnesty. Title VI of this bill is amnesty, plain and simple. According to an op-ed by former Attorney General Ed Meese that appeared in the New York Times last year discussing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, "the difference is that President Reagan called this what it was: amnesty. Indeed, look up the term `amnesty' in Black's Law Dictionary, and you'll find it says, `the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for undocumented aliens already in the country.'" It was amnesty then, and it's amnesty now.

FACT: The proposal forces illegal aliens to acknowledge that they broke the law, pay a $1,000 fee, and undergo a criminal background check to obtain a Z visa granting temporary worker status. The acknowledgment, fee and background check does not mitigate the fact that this is forgiveness for illegal aliens breaking numerous immigration laws. The bill waives numerous provisions of current law that would require deportation. Read the other nine myths ...

2. MYTH: This proposal does not repeat the mistakes of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act.

FACT: This proposal is substantially similar to the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act and does repeat the mistakes of the 1986 law. The 1986 law failed, despite the fact that, according to Meese's op-ed, it provided amnesty for 3 million immigrants for the price of "border security and enforcement of immigration laws" being "greatly strengthened."

FACT: The 1986 law also allowed "most illegal immigrants who could establish that they had resided in America continuously for five years would be granted temporary resident status, which could be upgraded to permanent residency after 18 moths and, after another five years, to citizenship." The current compromise allows a Z-visa holder to adjust to Lawful Permanent Resident status after satisfying a points system, files the application for adjustment in the applicant's home country and pays a fee of $4,000. A Z-visa holder has the discretion to choose to stay indefinitely in the United States if the Z-visa holder chooses not pursue a "pathway to citizenship." Meese stated in his op-ed about the 1986 law that "this pathway to citizenship was not automatic. Indeed, the legislation stipulated several conditions: immigrants had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible. Sound familiar?" Yes, it does.

3. MYTH: The government will crack down on the hiring of illegal workers.

FACT: The government will not crack down on the hiring of illegal workers. The government will be granting amnesty to illegal workers under the new Z-visa category. Thus, it will have fewer illegal workers to punish. There will be a handful of illegal workers that will not qualify for the new program that allows amnesty for illegal aliens in the country by Jan. 1, 2007. Therefore, by granting amnesty, there will be no pool of illegal workers to punish and/or deport.

FACT: A Z-visa holder merely has to provide two documents to prove eligibility. First, "sworn affidavits from nonrelatives" that the illegal alien qualifies, plus one other non-secure document. (Source: page 271 of the draft bill.) This is a huge loophole in the verification provision of who is present in the country illegally after Jan. 1, 2007.

FACT: Another loophole contains a waiver for humanitarian reasons. The deportation requirements of current law can be waived for "humanitarian circumstances." (Source: page 1 of the draft bill.) This is yet another loophole that will prevent a crackdown on the hiring of illegal workers.

4. MYTH: This proposal would not cut in half the amount of fence built by the Secure Fence Act of 2006.

FACT: This proposal cuts in half the amount of fencing to be built as mandated by the Secure Fence Act of 2006. Only one half of the additional fencing authorize by the Secure Fence Act of 2006 must be built before the temporary worker program and Z visa could go into effect.

FACT: The Secure Fence Act authorized the building of 700 miles of new fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border. This bill provides that a trigger that the federal government has to have "installed at least 200 miles of vehicle barriers, 370 miles of fencing, and 70 ground-based radar and camera towers along the southern land border of the United States, and have deployed Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and supporting systems." (Source: page 1 of the draft bill.) This bill allows for less than half the amount of fencing mandated by the Secure Fence Act before the Z and Y visas are issued.

5. MYTH: The trigger period will not cause a rush to the border.

FACT: Although to be eligible for a Z visa illegal aliens must prove they were in the country prior to Jan. 1, 2007, it is expected that it will not be difficult to produce fraudulent documentation to prove illegal continuous presence in the United States and employment offers or employment. This legislation creates the perverse incentive for illegal aliens to prove that they were illegally present and working in the United States as of Jan. 1, 2007. As previously stated, a Z-visa holder merely has to provide two documents. First, "sworn affidavits from nonrelatives" that the illegal alien qualifies, plus one other non-secure document. (Source: page 271 of the draft bill.) This is a huge loophole in the verification provision of who is present in the country illegally after Jan. 1, 2007.

FACT: An exception of the "Grounds of Ineligibility" for Z-visa applicants states "nothing in this paragraph shall require the Secretary to commence removal proceedings against an alien." Therefore, even if a Z-visa holder is deemed ineligible for Z-visa status, nothing requires the federal government to deport the ineligible illegal alien. (Source: page 261 of the draft bill.) This is yet another loophole in the bill.

6. MYTH: By providing an opportunity for citizenship to illegal immigrants already here, the bill will not exponentially increase extended-family chain migration.

FACT: The bill will dramatically accelerate family chain migration. The bill will dramatically accelerate family chain migration over the next six years. After that time, family chain migration by low-skill immigrants will allegedly be replaced by skill-based immigration. The promised change to skill-based immigration in the distant future is unlikely to ever occur.

FACT: The bill contains a brand-new category of visas for family members. The bill contains a waiver for "family members in hardship cases." Although this category is capped at the number of 5,000 per year, this is an exception that will allow limited chain migration. (Source: page 251 of draft bill.)

FACT: Allows visitor visas for family members of the Y visa, temporary workers that would allow the spouses of Y-visa holders to come to the country and have children who will be U.S citizens entitled to welfare benefits, also known as "anchor babies." (Source: page 254 of draft bill.)

FACT: This bill does nothing to preclude illegal aliens coming across the border and having children that will be granted citizenship. The "anchor baby" problem is not addressed by this legislation. The Heritage Foundation has provided as study that asserts that a statutory change in law would be a constitutional means to disallow the common practice of automatically granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.

7. MYTH: The temporary worker program is good for American workers.

FACT: Under the guest-worker program, guest workers will be able to bring spouses and children into the United States. Children of guest workers will be entitled to free education in public schools, with an average cost of $9,600 per child imposed on U.S. taxpayers. If the spouse of a guest worker has a child in the U.S. that child will become a U.S. citizen with a guaranteed lifetime entitlement to more than 60 different federal welfare programs.

FACT: There will be two new programs for workers. The Z visa will be for illegal workers to adjust their status to legal workers and the Y visa for future temporary workers. A Y-visa program without the Z-visa program may help the U.S. economy, but taken together, the American worker may be harmed by a flood of new workers coming from illegal status and new future flow workers from foreign nations flooding the economy and depressing American wages.

8. MYTH: Illegal immigrants will not come onto the welfare rolls.

FACT: Illegal immigrants will come onto the welfare rolls. Amnesty will give illegal immigrants entitlement to welfare benefits for most of their lives. Illegal aliens will become Z-visa holders. While they are in Z-visa status, amnesty recipients will have access the free medical care under the Medicaid program, but would not be eligible for other welfare programs. After five years in Lawful Permanent Resident status, the amnesty recipients will be eligible for nearly all 60 federal welfare programs including food stamps, public housing, and Temporary Assistance to Needy families, and will remain eligible for the rest of their lives.

FACT: After a Z-visa holder completes the "pathway to citizenship" they will be availed of the same access to welfare benefits as all American citizens. Children born to Z-card holders will be immediately eligible for welfare. After a few years, Z-card holders will be given Lawful Permanent Resident status. Given that 50% to 60% of amnesty recipients will be high school dropouts, welfare use will be quite high; the average amnesty recipient will probably receive about $4,000 per year in welfare benefits every year for the rest of his life.

9. MYTH: Government agencies will be able to share information to pursue immigration violators.

FACT: This is both true and false. The government will have far fewer immigration violators, because the Z-visa grants amnesty to an estimated 12 million pool of illegal aliens who, a large percentage of which, are working in the United States. The government will not be allowed to pursue some visa holders, because once a Z applicant applies, there is a one-year time period that precludes deportation pursuant to the draft bill. The process starts when the Z-visa holder applies for a visa, then fills out paperwork. If a background check is not done by the end of the next day, the Z visa is automatically issued. Even if background check is not completed the applicant has a statutory right to get a Z visa.

FACT: This bill grants the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to issue a national ID card to citizens. This immigration bill states that the "Secretary in consultation with the Commissioner of Social Security may modify by Notice published in the Federal Register the documents that must be presented to the employer, the information that must be provided to EEVS (Employee Eligibility Verification System) by the employer, and the procedures that must be followed by employers with respect to any aspect of the EEVS if the Secretary in his discretion concludes that the modification is necessary to ensure that EEVS accurately and reliably determines the work authorization of employees while providing protection against fraud and identity theft." (Source: page 105 of draft bill.) This grants the authority to the federal government the authority to force national ID cards on all American citizens.

10. MYTH: Senators are asked to vote Monday on a lengthy bill that they will have time to read.

FACT: Senators will not have time to read and understand this bill before Monday's cloture vote. Working behind closed doors for months, a handful of Democrat and Republican staffers, along with a few senators and principals from the Administration, have been drafting a "comprehensive immigration reform package." Until Saturday morning, May 19, 2007, the legislation was unavailable to any other senators or staff, let alone the media, policy analysts, or the general public. This legislation would be the most significant reform of immigration policy in 40 years, affecting not only our national security and homeland defense but the fiscal, economic, and social future of the United States for several generations. A document marked "DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY," is being relied upon by senators and staff as the final language to be debated beginning on Monday, May 21, with the expectation of a vote on final passage -- without congressional hearings, committee mark-up, fiscal analysis, expert testimony, or public comment -- before the Memorial Day recess. This is not a good way to deliberate over such an important piece of legislation and tosses aside years of the U.S. Senate tradition as being the most deliberative body in the world.

Source



America is importing trouble

Since 2000, Barone tells us, New York City has seen "a domestic outflow of 8% and an immigrant inflow of 6%". Boston, LA, Washington, and San Diego show similar turnovers. The total outflow of native-born Americans from these cities amounts to 650,000 a year. At the same time, cities such as Orlando, Charlotte, Phoenix, and Tampa have had dramatic leaps in native-born population, in all cases exceeding 10%, and in that of Las Vegas approaching 20%. So while the coastal cities remain static in population numbers despite the turnover, interior cities are booming.

What does this mean for our political culture? Barone touches on the question, noting that "The economic divide in New York and Los Angeles is starting to look like the economic divide in Mexico City and Sao Paulo", but doesn't go much further. But if the process continues, the implications will be profound.

If Barone is correct - and there's no reason to believe he isn't - then we're headed for an even more serious social schism between the heartland and the coastal metropolises. The heartland (along with smaller cities and towns on the coasts) will be comprised of melting-pot Americans, the coastal cities a bewildering melange of immigrants from all points of the compass, topped with an exceedingly thin layer of ultra-wealthy natives.

Miami, as it has been for the past thirty years, can serve as an example, with these differences: the Cubans represented a single homogeneous group; they had very good reasons - hatred of Fidelista communism above all - to appreciate American society; and they already understood American culture. This will not necessarily be the case with the new arrivals. Above all, PC and multiculturalism have removed all reason for immigrants to adapt to their new country.

With no particular pressure to fit in, the new immigrants will cling to their traditions, worldviews, and customs, many conflicting with ours and with those of other immigrant groups. NYC's asinine decision to establish a madrassah in Brooklyn is only the opening wedge - now all hundred-odd ethnicities residing in New York will demand the same treatment, and they will get it. The result will be Babel.

So thank the Archangels you're not living in NYC. But there are implications that may affect us all. Many of these people will have emigrated from failed polities of one type or another. Too many of the countries of Africa and Asia and Latin America, are operating in something resembling free fall, to put it kindly. Government is whoever has the most guns; civil society goes its own way with little reference to governmental activity; whatever political entanglements that can't be avoided are dealt with in the most primitive manner conceivable, through processes characterized by kinship and tribal relations, bribery, and paternalism. It's those conditions many people were fleeing when they came to the United States.

But it's those same conditions that, even with the best will in the world, they are going to bring with them. People cannot shed elements of their culture the same way they may change the dishdash for slacks and shirt. They are going to look for the Big Man. They are going to wonder whom to bribe, and how much. They are going to gravitate toward whoever operates in the manner closest to their country, region, or tribe. They will, without the least intending to, recreate in the U.S. the same situation they were fleeing from back home. With the added complication that dozens of other ethnicities will also be trying to grab the political levers to ensure that things are done their way, all at once.

It's difficult to see how this is particularly congruent with American democracy as we understand it today. Nor that there is any way to make it compatible with any form of democratic practice. So something will have to give. And it seems likely that what will give will be the members of America's sole native criminal class, the politicians.

What politician could resist such an opportunity? Masses of helpless, ignorant, and needy people requiring guidance, requiring a protector, requiring a leader. We've seen this before. Consider how the black vote has been manipulated by Democratic politicians since the days of the New Deal. Multiply that by a few dozen ethnicities, and the magnitude of the problem becomes manifest. (What's that? New immigrants can't vote? Do you really think so?)

But let's not be unfair to Democrats. If you think the GOP would hesitate a minute to leap into the same role, your introduction to practical politics remains before you. All the same, the Democrats are the prime suspects here, seeing how they control the surviving political machines in cities up and down the Eastern seaboard. Many of these machines have been in operation since the last big immigration wave early in the 20th century. Adapting them to the new conditions will simply be a matter of integrating the new arrivals into the places once held by Italians and Irishmen.

But there's another factor at work as well - even as the pols are gathering in the new flock, the new flock will be exerting pressure on them to conform more to the style that they're used to. How are they going to resist becoming something along the lines of a tribal chieftain? Many of them think of themselves in similar terms in any case. And with that shift will come a level of corruption that will make New Jersey or Louisiana look like the Palace of the Just. If you think that New York resembles a third-world country now... you ain't seen nothing yet.

At the same time, we'll have a native-born American population that has reconnected with its roots, and very likely, after years of dealing with terrorism, undergone a resurgence of patriotism, much as Great Britain did in the course of the lengthy Napoleonic Wars. (And, as Barone points out, will have grown more Republican, too.) This will represent quite a contrast to the teeming multilingual coasts, and create inevitable and unavoidable grounds for conflict.

We can dismiss any thoughts of civil war. Conflicts in advanced societies aren't settled that way, and a situation in which isolated urban areas are opposed to the country at large doesn't lend itself to such an outcome. But there are plenty of other ugly possibilities. (And some benefits as well - the coastal cities, which wield far too much influence today, will find their sway over the rest of the country dwindling, no doubt a good thing.) Most of the downside factors will involve native politicians released from any responsibility to the population of the country as a whole, a nightmare in and of itself. Corruption will grow to proportions not easy to imagine today, particularly as it takes on an international dimension.

Mayors, representatives, possibly even governors and senators, will be running their own sub rosa foreign policies in order to fulfill the wishes of their foreign-born constituencies. Foreign groups and organizations of all types -- religious, political, social, and criminal -- having no current connection to American society will establish strong beachheads by manipulating and playing off native politicians. This will create new challenges for law enforcement, particularly as it shades into foreign intelligence. Questions of national security will begin to take in the policies of the administration the next town over.

Potential solutions are less than obvious. Education of new immigrants as to what the American system is and how it works would appear to be the key, but who would handle that? With the educational system as it exists, enraptured with the doctrines of multiculturalism, the cure would be worse than the disease.

It may in the end merely be a matter of muddling through, of using law enforcement and social pressure to hold the fort while the new immigrant masses ever so slowly adapt themselves to this country (or, rather, their children and grandchildren do). It doesn't seem like much, but it may be the best we can hope for. Of course, we could always return to a sane immigration policy. I have yet to hear what would be wrong with that.

Source



22 May, 2007

Even existing immigration policy makes the elite better off and the workers worse off

I am not sure that the facts bear out the assertions about the American working class in the excerpt below. Inequality has certainly increased in the USA in recent decades but that is surely what one would expect from inserting a large pool of unskilled people into the country

Whatever the economic effect of moderate amounts of skilled immigrant labor, almost certainly positive, the economic effect of large amounts of unskilled immigrant labor is very clear: it drives wage rates down to rock bottom levels, particularly in personal service sectors where training is minimal and employment informal. That’s why a haircut costs less in real terms now than it did 30 years ago, it’s why even modest middle class households now have a cleaner and a gardener, which they usually didn’t 30 years ago and it’s why enormous numbers of dubiously constructed houses appeared when finance became available in 2002-06.

For the elite, the eloi of the HG Wells future we appear to be entering, this is all very attractive. The servant problem, butt of jokes ever since equality began to increase after World War I, has suddenly gone away – the rich can and do have as many servants as they want, provided they speak Spanish. Chicken processors, construction firms, retailers, hotels and meat packers who employ low skill labor no longer need make any pretence of paying union wage rates; they can simply hire illegal immigrants to fill any gaps that may appear. Corporate profits are at record high levels and service sector inflation, a bane in the 1970s and 1980s, has more or less disappeared.

The claim by eloi pro-immigration forces that the US economy has a massive new “need” for unskilled labor is of course pure bunkum. If there are 12 million illegal immigrant workers in the economy, about 8% of the working population, then since we know the value of output, productivity is in reality about 8% lower than we thought it was. That means that productivity growth, far from accelerating in the mid 1990s as Wall Street fatuously claimed, in fact slowed, as more and more bodies were required to achieve the same output. GDP may have continued to increase, but GDP per capita is also 8% less than we thought, and hence has shown little growth. It is this that has caused the curious phenomenon of an apparent rapid increase in GDP that in practice makes nobody any better off.

However attractive illegal immigration is to the eloi, it is hell for the morlocks [workers]. Instead of the well paid factory jobs their fathers had, making physical products in which they could take pride, they are now reduced to competing with infinite numbers of illegal immigrants for personal service, retail and construction jobs that have not been mechanized or outsourced. Theoretically, they could get more education and turn themselves into brain surgeons or computer-aided designers; in practice, these possibilities merely make them mourn that they hadn’t paid more attention in math class. Thus the social gulf grows ever wider.

The inability of the morlock element to achieve the modest comfort of their fathers brings other social pathologies. Since the morlocks are unable to “settle down” to marital bliss and a decent standard of living, illegitimacy and crime increase – only partly from the immigrants, legal or illegal, but also from the impoverished population as a whole. Political activity no longer offers hope of assistance, so they cease to vote or participate in politics, either directly or indirectly through unions and fraternal organizations. There is little point in saving, so they run up gigantic credit card debts, choosing to gamble away any windfalls they may receive. The eloi in turn withdraw themselves to gated communities, and Wells’s dystopia grows ever closer.

The new immigration bill, with its ineffectual enforcement provisions and its enthusiastically inserted loopholes through which even more immigrants can arrive, is perhaps the most socially divisive policy since the taille of the French ancien regime, a tax that was exacted from the poor and the middle class but not from the nobility. It stems from the same cause as the taille, a desire by the political class and its financial backers to entrench their superiority over the common herd.

More here



Capitulation, from A------ to Z



By MARK STEYN

Are you a fine upstanding member of the Undocumented-American community? That's to say, are you (if you'll forgive the expression) an illegal immigrant? Great news! Being illegal is now perfectly legal! Just for being one of the circa 12 million people who shouldn't be here, you can now be here indefinitely! If you were living and working in America illegally before Jan. 1, 2007, you're now entitled to one of the new Z-1 "probationary" visas. And your parents and spouses are entitled to one of the new Z-2 visas, and your children to the new Z-3 visas.

Don't worry: It's not an "amnesty." Every politician in America is opposed to amnesty -- if not the concept, then at least the word. That's why the visa starts with the letter that's furthest away from the one "amnesty" begins with. "Z" stands for zellout . . . no, hang on, zurrender or Zapatista, or some other word way up the other end of the alphabet from "amnesty." But the point is, at a stroke there will be no more illegal immigrants. Because being illegal means you're now legal.

Unless, of course, you came to America after Jan. 1, 2007, and thus aren't covered by the zamnesty. But in that case why not apply for the Z-1 anyway? After all, you're here illegally so how would U.S. Immigration know when you arrived? Especially with 12-15-20 million urgent applications tossed in on top of what's already a multi-year backlog. They're not exactly going to be doing a lot of in-depth background checks, especially not for a visa category whose only entry requirement under U.S. law is that you've broken U.S. law when you entered.

By the way, when I said "came to America," if you're visiting Toronto for a weekend break from Yemen or Belarus, don't be deterred by the fact that Canada is not technically in America. Why not just head down to Buffalo and apply for the old Z-1, too? After all, it's not such a stretch to regard every single person on the planet as a Z-1-in-waiting. This being America, pretty soon -- a court decision here, a court decision there -- the presumption of every school district and hospital and welfare administrator will be that they're obliged to treat everyone who walks in through the door as if they were a Z-1. You zee one, you've zeen 'em all.

As for the notion that dumping a population the size of four mid-size European Union nations into the lap of America's arthritic "legal immigration" (please, no tittering; apparently, there is still such a thing) bureaucracy will lead to tougher enforcement and rigorous scrutiny and lots of other butch-sounding stuff, well, if that were the case, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. You can declare that "illegal" now mean "legal" very easily; to mandate that "incompetent" now means "competent" is a tougher proposition.

But, as John McCain declared, "This is what the legislative process is all about" -- and in the sense that it's a sloppily drafted bottomless pit of unintended consequences on a potentially cosmic scale whose sweeping "reforms" will inevitably require even more sweeping reforms of the reforms in a year or two's time, he's quite right. Also, as Senator McCain says, "This is what bipartisanship is all about."

I'm not a fan of "bipartisanship" for its own sake. This is a very divided political culture in which bipartisanship is all but nonexistent on everything else, starting with war and national security. So, when the political class is in lockstep bipartisan mode, that's sufficiently unusual all by itself. When it's in bipartisan mode on an issue on which the public is diametrically opposed, that looks less like bipartisanship and more like the lockstep myopia of an out-of-touch one-party state.

America is not Europe, which is being transformed by a fast-growing Muslim population profoundly alienated from the broader society. Nonetheless, fast-moving demographic shifts are always a huge challenge. Last year, National Review's John Derbyshire noted the enrollment statistics for his school district on suburban Long Island, 1,400 miles from the southern border:

High school: 17 percent Hispanic
Intermediate: 28 percent Hispanic
Elementary: 31 percent Hispanic

Those figures would have stunned any Long Island school superintendent of 40 years ago. Derbyshire's numbers suggest that at some point not far away, every school board in America will have to factor in bilingual education programs and ever swelling special ed budgets, making one of the highest cost-per-pupil/lowest scores-per-pupil education systems even more expensive and even less educational.

At some point, it's worth trying to climb over the rubble of the 2007 Z-1s and the 1986 amnesty and the 1965 immigration act, and going back to basics: What is immigration for? In the modern Western world, to question immigration in even the most cautious way is to risk being demonized as a racist. Most of us like to see ourselves as nice people, and so even to raise the subject of immigration -- even illegal immigration -- feels like an assault not on distant foreigners so much as on our self-image. Yet, whatever the virtuousness of immigration for the host society, a dependence on it is a sign of profound structural weakness, and, when all the self-congratulation about celebrating diversity has died down, that weakness ought to be understood as such. The unspoken premise behind this bill is that the socioeconomic order in America is now so dependent on the vast apparatus of a giant shadow state of illegal immigrants that it cannot be dismantled but only legitimized and thereby expanded. If that is true, that is a basic structural defect that should be addressed honestly.

Meanwhile, the reluctance of Washington to be seen to enforce its own borders is very perplexing. From the "Washington sniper" to 9/11, there has been for a generation a clear national-security component to the illegal immigration issue. To present it only as a matter of "the jobs Americans won't do" is lazily reductive. The economists may see the vast human tide as an army of much-needed hotel maids and farm workers and nurses and plumbers, but to assume that everyone on the planet sees themselves as primarily an economic entity is complacent and (post-Sept. 11) obtusely deluded. The political class' urge to capitulate on the integrity of the national border sends as important a message to the world about American will as their urge to capitulate on Iraq.

Source



The Immigration Amnesty for Terrorists Act

The title of this post is intentionally provocative for a reason. It is a "Cultural Cruise Missile" intended to fly below the radar screens of the media and political elite at the speed of the blogosphere to frame the debate on this bill.

The title is also an accurate description of the effect of the bill. The new so-called "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act" that is leaving the Senate is just a tarted up Immigration Amnesty bill. If the Bill's provisions, as currently written, were implemented, the three Duka brothers of the "Fort Dix Six" would have been granted immigration amnesty had they not been arrested for terrorism first.

Resorting to "Cultural Cruise Missile" tactics are necessary as the moneyed interests in Washington are now colluding to put one over on the American public for their narrow interest$ over the General welfare and Security of the American people in their homes and businesses. These developments are being covered by Michelle Malkin, Hugh Hewitt and Mickey Kaus. So I won't comment farther other than noting that,

1) There is no major political voting block in favor of Amnesty.

2) There is a huge one against it,

3) This voting block does not have money in party primaries while the public employee unions and the corporate open border caucus do. and

4) While this voting block may not be able to affect primary vote via well funded challengers. It will be there for the general election, and the most motivated portions of this block are Republicans wanting to punish "traitors"

A wipe out of sitting Republican senators may be in the offing in 2008.

If your average person or blogger wants to do something really effective about this bill, let's face facts. You only have the power to name this bill and define it to the American people. That takes a "Cultural Cruise Missile" slogan that can be repeated over and over again on the web and talk radio to destroy the credibility of those supporting the bill.

Here is another example of what bloggers can do with the "Cultural Cruise Missile" approach to the "Family unification" provisions of "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act." Lets suppose that the Ft. Dix plotters had delayed. With this bill enacted, the Duka brothers then brought in more like minded Islamist relatives into the nation to aide them.

This provision makes very real the possibility that we could have suicide vest bombers here in the USA.

Imagine a Palestinian style suicide bomber team set up in an Islamic country that has a forward element in the USA like the Duka brothers. Instead of getting guns and training, this element scouts targets and gathers field expedient explosives for a carefully prepared relative -- say a female relative whose "honor" has been stained and thus is in imminent danger of being murdered -- and fly's her to the USA for the attack. Thus the "Family Unification" provisions of for the" Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act" are now "The Suicide Bomber Importation Provision" of the act! I invite Winds of Change posters and other bloggers to submit their "Cultural Cruise Missile" slogan entries in the following categories:

1) Terrorism
2) Money versus the American people
3) National Party Politics -- Republican
4) National Party Politics -- Democrat.

Let's see just how creative you all are...and make sure you share the best entries with your friends!

Source



Immigration anger getting recognition in Britain

Established British families should be given social housing even if they need it less than new immigrants, a government minister said yesterday. Margaret Hodge said that indigenous families' "legitimate sense of entitlement" should be taken into account in deciding who was housed. Ms Hodge, an Industry Minister, has called before for the Government to do more to counter the resentments created by immigration.

Yesterday she suggested that national insurance contributions could be used as part of a points system of housing allocation. She said the Government currently "prioritised the needs of an individual migrant family over the entitlement that others feel they have to resources in the community". She added: "So a recently arrived family with four or five children living in a damp and overcrowded privately-rented flat with the children suffering from asthma will usually get priority over a family with less housing need who have lived in the area for three generations and are stuck at home with the grandparents."

Hazel Blears, Labour's chair-woman and a candidate for deputy leader, agreed that ministers had to do more to convince people that the system was equitable. "I think that people in this country have a real sense of fairness. They are prepared to do their bit but they want to know the system actually works for them. So I do think we need to tackle these tough issues."

However, Nancy Kelly, of the Refugee Council, a campaigning group, said that Ms Hodge was aping the BNP. "The way to counter some of the views that are put forward by the far-right parties is not by trying to follow their lead." Ms Kelly said that asylum-seekers were not entitled to council housing and arrivals from new EU states had restricted access to benefits. "People who are recognised as refugees are entitled to council housing but on exactly the same basis a UK national, on the basis of need," she said.

Ms Hodge, an immigrant herself - she was born in Egypt to Jewish refugee parents - said that she had seen many voters in her Barking constituency turn to the BNP because of concerns over housing allocations. She said a transparent points system, giving more weight to length of residence, citizenship and national insurance contributions, could be a better way of allocating housing.

Writing in The Observer, she said that there was widespread concern about the changing face of Britain, and people needed to be reassured. "We should look at policies where the legitimate sense of entitlement felt by the indigenous family overrides the legitimate need demonstrated by the new migrants. We must address these difficult questions."

Damian Green, the Conservative immigration spokesman, said that Ms Hodge's comments acknowledged the Government's "long-term failure" to control immigration. Andrew Stunell, the Liberal Democrat local government spokesman, said that the Government was continuing to sell council houses although there were 1« million families on the council housing waiting list.

Source



21 May, 2007

Motivations behind the current U.S. immigration bill

Post lifted from Hugh Hewitt. See the original for links



The image you see above is of the still-not-completely-written immigration bill that Senators Kennedy and McCain rushed out to embrace yesterday. Next to it is the Holy Bible. That should give you some idea of the bill's scope and whether or not our Senators have actually read it.

I was talking to my mother earlier today, and she admitted to being perplexed regarding this immigration imbroglio. She understood why the Republicans were folding like a cheap suit - that's just what they do, sort of the way barking ferociously at the pizza boy is just what my otherwise adorable Cairn terrier does. But what was driving the Democratic Party? I told her to follow the votes.

It's always the same with the 21st century Democratic Party. I really believe it's true when I write that Markos Moulitsas is the ideological standard-bearer for the modern Democrats. It's therefore no small irony that in his book, Markos (along with Jerome Armstrong) candidly admitted to having no defined political ideology. Indeed, a linchpin of their plan for future Democratic dominance was to form the Democratic equivalents of the Hoover Institute to tell the Democrats what to think.

In the absence of any present guiding ideology, Democrats have latched on to what Markos calls "winnerism." They play the game to win elections. And what's the game? Everything, including the most important things like Iraq and the war on terror.

So again, to understand what's happening here, follow the votes. There are 12 million illegal immigrants in this country. Most of them are poor, most of them are people of color. In other words, they are the kind of people who, demographically speaking, predominantly vote for Democrats.

Right now, of course, they don't vote at all. That's part of the problem with being an illegal immigrant. You can't do neat things like vote or demand things from the government. But, if by some miraculous stroke of legislative fiat, they were able to cast votes, the Democrats have every reason to believe that most of those votes would wind up in their column.

Are Democrats bothered by the "illegal" part of illegal immigrants? You'd have to say no. This is the third time around the block where Ted Kennedy is spearheading an amnesty to cure our immigration woes. Since no one has made a convincing case to me how 370 miles of border fence will staunch the future flow of illegals, Teddy may be able to go for four if his liver holds outs. (Allah, in probably the best blog post of the year, has much more on this topic. I borrowed the Teddy joke from him, improving it slightly.)

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE REPUBLICANS? What are they thinking? I've got to be honest with you - this is a tougher nut to crack. I know everyone views everything Hugh and I say about John McCain through the prism of presidential politics. But both of us, Hugh especially, were harsh McCain critics long before Mitt Romney was even a glimmer in Iowa's eye.

Thus, wary of the audience's jaundiced views, I will tread carefully in analyzing the Arizona maverick. In private communications the past couple of months, I've offered a unifying theory of all things McCain with a few correspondents. Now, I will spring it on the world. McCain responds to all issues viscerally rather than intellectually. For instance, McCain/Feingold was a viscerally satisfying effort to drive money out of politics.

But because McCain doesn't make any cerebral efforts to complement his visceral ones, most of his initiatives are misguided. To return to McCain/Feingold, if its authors had bothered to ponder the matter, they would have realized that money will inevitably find politics the way Ted Kennedy will inevitably find a bar. It's literally a force of nature that when something means so much to so many people as our politics do, the interested parties will find a way to express themselves.

I think McCain's reaction to the situation with the 12 million illegals in the country is from the same school of non-thought. Yes, it's unsatisfying to have so many people living lives in a state of endless limbo. And closure would be nice. But McCain's pursuit of closure seems to preclude any thoughtful look at the consequences beyond the warm feelings that will sweep over Congress on the day our Solons pass the measure that they haven't even read.

As for the rest of the Republicans, I'm at a loss. My only explanation is they thought the media's approbation would make up for whatever anger they caused within their base. Boy, did they blow that one. That's bubble thinking for you. It's entirely possible that the Republican Party doesn't know how serious its base is about Border Security. Speaking from personal experience, I didn't know how much this issue meant to so many people until I began writing for this blog and getting 300 emails a day from members of that base.

But here's the good news. Thanks to the internet-led hue and cry that's come forth, I agree with the guy from NZ Bear: This bill is going nowhere fast. Even the most hide-bound Democrat (Hint: rhymes with "Schmarry Schmeid") today realizes that immigration "reform" without real border security is a remarkably unpopular idea. And the Democrats' would-be Republican enablers understand that any Republican who affixes his name to this bill, even a guy like John Kyl who we all love, would forever tarnish his image by doing so. If you out there in Blogistan keep the pressure up, this bill will likely die the gruesome death that it so richly deserves. It's up to you.

Source



The "Highly Skilled" fraud

Summary

Technology sector employers, who represent the largest share of H-1B visa users, tell the public that the H-1B program is vital to their ability to find the highly skilled workers they need. Yet Department of Labor data tell a different story. Previous studies have found that the H-1B program is primarily used to import low-wage workers.1 This report examines the most recently available wage data on the H-1B program and finds that the trend of low prevailing wage claims and low wages continues. In addition, while industry spokesmen say these workers bring needed skills to our economy, on the H-1B Labor Condition Applications (LCAs) filed with the Department of Labor, employers classify most of their H-1B workers as being relatively low-skilled for the jobs they are filling. This report compares prevailing wage claims and wages employers reported for H-1B workers in computer programming occupations in FY 2005 to wages for U.S. workers in the same occupation. Although the H-1B program stipulates that employers must pay H-1B workers at least the prevailing wage for their occupation and location, the results of this report clearly demonstrate that the regulation does not produce that result. The findings in this report clearly demonstrate that the legal definition of the prevailing wage requirement does not ensure H-1B workers are paid the actual market prevailing wage. Employer prevailing wage claims and reported wages for H-1B workers are significantly less than those for U.S. workers in the same occupation and location. This suggests that, regardless of the program's original intent, the H-1B program now operates mainly to supply U.S. employers with cheap workers, rather than with essential skilled workers.

Key Findings

* Very few H-1B workers are "highly-skilled." Employers who used the Department of Labor's skill-based prevailing wage system classified most workers (56 percent) as being at the lowest skill level (Level I) as did most State Employment Security Agency (SESA) wage determinations (57 percent). This suggests that most H-1B computer workers are low-skilled workers who make no special contribution to the American economy, or that employers are deliberately understating workers' skills in order to justify paying them lower salaries.

* According to the applications filed in 2005, it appears that employers may be significantly understating what U.S. computer workers are earning in order to justify paying low wages to H-1B guestworkers in those occupations. In FY 2005, H-1B employer prevailing wage claims averaged $16,000 below the median wage for U.S. computer workers in the same location and occupation.

* 90 percent of H-1B employer prevailing wage claims for programming occupations were below the median U.S. wage for the same occupation and location, with 62 percent of the wage claims in the bottom 25th percentile of U.S. wages.

* While higher than the prevailing wage claims, the actual wages reported for H-1B workers were significantly less than those of their American counterparts. Wages for H-1B workers averaged $12,000 below the median wage for U.S. workers in the same occupation and location.

* The reported wages for 84 percent of H-1B workers were below the median U.S. wage; 51 percent were in the bottom 25th percentile of U.S. wages.

* Many employers make prevailing wage claims using wage sources that are not valid under the law. The Department of Labor routinely approves prevailing wage claims based on these invalid sources.

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to examine the effectiveness of the prevailing wage requirements in the H-1B program and to determine whether there is a difference between wages for H-1B workers in computer programming fields and wages for U.S. workers in the same fields. This report uses the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) as the measurement of U.S. wages and the H-1B Labor Condition Application disclosure data to measure H-1B wages.

This report updates a December 2005 Backgrounder, "The Bottom of the Pay Scale: Wages for H-1B Computer Programmers."2 The previous report examined Labor Condition Applications filed in FY 2004. The procedures used in this report are nearly identical to those used in its predecessor.

There were three reasons for producing a new report based on the same type of data. First, this new report confirms that the results from 2004 were not a fluke. Repeating the same measurement on the subsequent year's data produced nearly identical results. Another reason for a new report is that new data became available. Last year, for the first time, the Department of Labor made available the skill-based wage data. This makes it possible to examine how employers classify the skills of the H-1B workers they are seeking. Finally, a second look allowed investigation in more detail on exactly how employers produce the extremely low prevailing wage claims.

More here



The current British immigration scene

"The people here are wonderful," says Jenny Sturgeon, a white Englishwoman who has lived in Slough for 30 years. "And the ethnic mix is wonderful. It's how the country should be. But we get a huge number of people coming in from all ethnic groups. A shortage of money can lead to tensions. The government has a lot to answer for." The town of Slough, which lies outside the M25 near Heathrow, has the greatest ethnic mix in the UK outside London. By comparison, even Leicester and Coventry seem blandly uniform.

Take Malinka, a Polish deli near the library. The large majority of shoppers are Polish but nonPoles go there too. One who enters to buy sausages while I'm there is Stephen Cordeiro, a Portuguese-Asian who was born in Kenya. And I notice that in the deli's window, among the job ads in Polish for nannies, waiting staff and handymen, that there's a card written in English, offering the services of an "African hair stylist".

Surveys carried out by the council show that a quarter of the town's businesses with more than 10 employees use the new migrant workforce because - businesses reported - they brought higher productivity and a better work ethic than indigenous workers. But inevitably there are tensions. One Polish woman, Aneta Kania, says she had never seen such diversity till she came to Slough. "I was very shocked by the mix. At first I thought it was a bit scary." Another Polish woman, an economist by training, told me darkly that she had recently been working in retail "for an Indian" but had stopped doing so "because they don't respect you".

A Sikh with a strong Indian accent lent credence to what that Polish woman said when he told me "there are too many immigrants in Slough". Polish drivers with no car insurance jump red lights, he muttered. And last week he'd been bothered by Bulgarians ringing his doorbell to beg for money.

Ted Cantle, who conducted the official inquiry into the cause of riots in Bradford, Burnley and Oldham in 2001, believes that migration to the UK can bring real benefits. "But building cohesive communities to harness the benefits long term takes resources. "It is important that councils like Slough are funded correctly for their population size and complexity to make sure they continue community cohesion work," he says. "Com-munity tensions are sometimes caused by the perception of competition between groups over resources and councils have to be able to demonstrate this is not the case."

Perhaps with that in mind, Slough last week formally protested to the Treasury that it had been severely underfunded because government statistics underestimated the number of immigrants coming to the town. Richard Stokes, leader of the council, describes official statistics as "not fit for purpose". "Estimates have failed to keep pace with what is happening on the ground and public services are suffering as a consequence," he says. "The migrants that come to Slough are hard-working and bring great benefit to the local economy but the council remains severely underfunded because of these poor statistics."

Andrew Blake-Herbert, Slough's strategic director for finance and property, says the council faces a 15m pound shortfall. It has managed not to cut crucial services but cannot make necessary improvements in areas such as children's services and recycling.

According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), Slough experienced the ninth-fastest population increase of any local authority in the country between 1991 and 2001. But since then, the ONS contends, the town's population has declined by 3.3%, to a total of 117,600. Slough's own data suggests the total is nearer 130,000. To support that figure, the council puts forward an impressive array of evidence. It points to substantial increases in new housing, the rapid rise in house prices, the increasing numbers of households from which the council tax is collected, the high fertility rate among women in Slough (66 births per 1,000 women, compared with 54 in the country as a whole) and even a substantial increase in the amount of sewage flowing out of town.

Visiting Slough last week, I found plenty more evidence that the migrant population is getting bigger. I talked to officials, business figures, and residents from across the entire community - pale-skinned and dark, European, African and Asian. To start, I visited the busy road near Slough's massive trading estate - the largest in Europe - where coaches from Poland stop illegally to disgorge new arrivals. And I talked to a resident who watches that happen twice a day, sometimes more.

Tadeusz Chruscik is Polish but he's been living here since 1942, having served in the Polish Air Force. (Some 130,000 Poles settled in Britain during and after the war.) He says he's met some people who get off the coach without the slightest idea where to go, having got on after having too much to drink.

The sheer numbers arriving here simply can't be housed properly. The council is paid by central government to ensure that three-storey houses are not overcrowded but lacks the funds to check buildings with only two storeys. As a result, many migrants endure dangerously crowded conditions. Colin Rodgers, manager of the estate agency B Simmons & Son, says: "I've seen places where there are three beds in the lounge and three in the dining room. " I've also heard stories, from quite believable sources, about people using those beds in shifts."

Property, it hardly needs adding, has become unaffordable to many people. Baber Zafar is 21 and has lived in Slough all his life. In the town square, Zafar says immigrants have put so much pressure on house prices that he is moving to Spain. By a grim irony, the rising property market recently resulted in the closure of Slough's immigration counselling centre. It has now moved to Southall, west London, explains one of the counsellors, Qazi Anisud-din, because rising rents in Slough made the old premises unaffordable.

Of course, the borough council does what it can. In fact, it does more than most. In the past 18 months it has placed in schools some 900 children who arrived in Slough from overseas. In other towns, they might have had to wait weeks or months to be placed, but Slough established a special assessment centre to speed the process. But it's slow work: the centre can take only eight children a week. Last year two primary schools accepted 50 Polish children and 60 Somalis in just one term.

Not everyone welcomes the flood of pupils for whom spoken English is not easy. Aneta Kania sends her daughter to St Anthony's Roman Catholic school but says there are so many other Polish children there that seven-year-old Paulina is making slow progress in English. (Kania has poor English herself. Though trained as a nurse, she's obliged to work as a cleaner until her language skills improve. What with bringing up a child on her own, and her job, she finds it hard to fit in the lessons.) Another pioneering service set up by Slough council is devoted to dealing with Roma migrants who have been arriving by the hundreds since Romania joined the European Union in January.

Eighty-eight unaccompanied Roma children have asked for support from the town's children's services. Six have babies of their own, and seven are pregnant. To deal with these Roma children, Slough has set up a specialist team, at a cost of œ150,000 since January.

Fiona Mactaggart, Slough's MP and a former minister in the Home Office, says the flawed calculations "will not do". And the ONS itself recognises the shortcomings of its statistics. Karen Dunnell, the national statistician, wrote in May 2006: "There is now a broad recognition that available estimates of migrant numbers are inadequate for managing the economy, policies and services." Even the Poles don't relish the arrival of yet more Poles. Kania, the nurse who came to Slough just 18 months ago, says she dreads June, July and August because that's when Polish students come here for summer jobs. "There are too many people in Slough already," she says.

The legal tangle

Some days ago a newspaper published a photograph of 21 members of a Roma family. Apparently there are another 80, all relatives and all newly arrived since Romania joined the EU in January. A social worker in Slough explained she had nine teenage Roma girls, several of whom were pregnant, in her care. In theory, Romanians and Bulgarians are subject to a special regime for a transitional period of up to seven years. They can only come here to work legally if they are highly skilled, have been granted a work permit or come under a special quota for temporary agricultural workers. But there are no checks on the borders. They only have to show a valid ID card and walk in and they are entitled to stay as visitors for up to three months.

Back to our pregnant teenagers. Why can they not be sent home? The answer lies in a tangled web of legal obligations. Successive children acts have placed an obligation on local authorities to care for children in need. The Race Relations Act 1976 makes it unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of race or nationality; foreign children have to be treated as British. As for access to the NHS, pregnancy is regarded (rightly) as a medical emergency so treatment is automatic.

On top of that, the Free Movement Directive which came into force last year severely restricts the government's ability to expel EU nationals even if they have committed a crime. In expanding the EU to countries which are far poorer than our own, we have stumbled into a potential crisis. The free movement of labour has set in hand movements of workers to Britain on a greater scale than anticipated. At the same time "harmonisation" of social security has placed obligations on EU governments to provide benefits in the richer countries that greatly exceed wages in the poorer ones.

Source





20 May, 2007

US opens door to millions of Muslims

Post below from The American Thinker -- which see for links

The proposed immigration deal will throw open our doors to increased immigration from Muslim lands, not just Mexico. From the US State Department website:

"The fourth and most recent wave of Muslim immigration (into the US) has come after 1965, the year President Lyndon Johnson sponsored an immigration bill that repealed the longstanding system of quotas by national origin. Under the new system, preferences went to relatives of U.S. residents and those with special occupational skills needed in the United States. The new law was a signal act in American history, making it possible for the first time since the early part of the 20th century for someone to enter the country regardless of his or her national origin. After 1965, immigration from Western Europe began to decline significantly, with a corresponding growth in the numbers of persons arriving from the Middle East and Asia. In this era more than half of the immigrants to America from these regions have been Muslim."

Christopher Hitchens just wrote about Londonistan,

"Until he was jailed last year on charges of soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred, a man known to the police of several countries as Abu Hamza al-Masri was the imam of the Finsbury Park Mosque. He was a conspicuous figure because, having lost the use of an eye and both hands in an exchange of views in Afghanistan, he sported an opaque eye plus a hook to theatrical effect. Not as nice as he looked, Abu Hamza was nonetheless unfailingly generous with his hospitality. Overnight guests at his mosque's sleeping quarters have included Richard Reid, the man in whose honor we now all have to take off our shoes at the airport, and Zacarias Moussaoui, the missing team member of September 11, 2001. Other visitors included Ahmed Ressam, arrested for trying to blow up LAX for the millennium, and Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian who planned to don an explosive vest and penetrate the American Embassy in Paris. On July 7, 2005 ("7/7," as the British call it), a clutch of bombs exploded in London's transport system. It emerged that one of the suicide murderers had been influenced by the preachings of Abu Hamza, as had two of those attempting to replicate the mission two weeks later."

The new immigration bill will allow hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of Muslims to come into the United States over the next decade. Many of them have been indoctrinated all their lives to hate the United States, but that's not on the immigration qualifications. Nobody asks newcomers "have you been taught to hate the United States?" But that is exactly how France and Britain created their domestic terrorist threat: By importing hundreds of thousands of unassimilated people under the guise of multicultural love and peace. Almost all vote for the Left.

Socialists are the same all over. They don't believe in the nation-state, and sincerely try to bring about a more perfect world in which nations would not exist. They therefore knock holes in the bottom of our little lifeboat, in the belief that they're doing us all a big favor. They're nice saboteurs.

When the French Left imported millions of Muslims, with Gaullist help, they were trying to import Socialist voters who would then be rewarded with welfare benefits. Today we have nightly riots in the French burbs, with thousands of cars being torched by celebrating Muslim teenagers living on welfare. When the British Left decided to important two million Pakistanis straight from the badlands of Peshawar, they knew what they were doing. The cover story was "multiculturalism" but the reality was subversion. In their minds, the new European Union was going to be the model for an international order, just like the Soviet Union used to be. It's exactly the same mindset.

Whether the immigrants harbor a murderous mindset towards their host country doesn't matter at all to the Left. In fact, it makes the newcomers better revolutionary material. The first generation of Muslim immigrants to Britain felt much more favorably inclined toward their host country. Their children are being recruited by radical imams, and some of them suicide-bombed the London Underground two years ago.

Two million Pakistanis now live permanently in Britain. They vote Labour, and have a elected a floridly anti-Semitic Mayor of London. Hitchens writes:

"It's impossible to exaggerate how far and how fast this situation has deteriorated. ... I find myself haunted by a challenge that was offered on the BBC by a Muslim activist named Anjem Choudary: a man who has praised the 9/11 murders as "magnificent" and proclaimed that "Britain belongs to Allah." When asked if he might prefer to move to a country which practices Shari'a, he replied: "Who says you own Britain anyway?""

Will the United States follow the Brits to disaster?



Criminal problem ignored

It's old news that Presidente Vicente Fox exported Mexico's poorest citizens into the United States for a number of reasons: It relieved him of the responsibility of providing social and healthcare services for them; it provides his country's economy with an influx of US cash when these illegal workers send money they earn in the US back home; and it defuses problems with far-left groups who are usually successful in using the poor to advance their political agenda. So Presidente Fox gave his poor the "bum's rush" out of Mexico: "Here's your sombrero, here's a map, here's a bottle of water, now get out!"

But there is another benefit to the exportation of Mexicans into the US -- Mexico saves money on his criminal justice system by exporting his criminal population to the United States. Thus, Mexico's crime problem becomes our crime problem; his prison problem becomes our prison problem.

According to Lt. Steve Rogers, a decorated cop and award-winning writer, there are tens of thousands of murderers, rapists, child predators, robbers and drug dealers who are illegally in the United States. One study shows over 200,000 criminal aliens are preying on US citizens.

Border Patrol agents in the Tucson, AZ Sector have apprehended 27,834 illegal aliens with criminal records, 74 of which were for homicide. Last fiscal year, the Tucson Sector apprehended 14,506 illegal aliens with criminal records. These figures do not include the thousands of criminal aliens apprehended by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents or those in other Border Patrol sectors in other states. And it doesn't include the tens of thousands of criminal aliens who are able to escape detect at the border.

Meanwhile our political leaders are trying to scam Americans with phony reform legislation which will actually reward lawbreakers and increase the number of illegal who will flood our borders to partake of the giveaways. For instance, part of the Senate bill will allow illegals to pay instate (lower) college tuition, while citizens will have to pay higher tuition is they live out-of-state.

This scam goes beyond political parties -- Republicans and Democrats are both in on it.

Congressmen on both sides of the aisle repeatedly display how they can talk out of both sides of their mouths depending on whom they're addressing. For instance, recently in New York, Senator Hillary Clinton told a cheering crowd that the United States had to protect our borders and deal with illegal immigration. She acknowledged it was a key component of the US homeland security strategy -- to prevent terrorists and weapons, including nuclear weapons, from entering the US.

The former first lady blasted President Bush on border security in a statement posted to her official Senate Web site: "This administration has failed to provide the resources to protect our borders, or a better system to keep track of entrants to this country," she complained, adding, "I welcome the addition of more border security." In the past she has claimed to be "adamantly against illegal immigrants."

But, according to the Washington Times, Clinton and her fellow New York Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer turned thumbs down on two amendments to a Department of Homeland Security spending bill, which would have funded 2,000 new Border Patrol agents and more than 5,000 new detention beds to house illegal aliens.

"Our political leaders are talking one way, yet voting another way on the issues of border security and illegal immigration," warns Congressmen Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter. "These so-called leaders are playing politics with the most important issue of our time -- Homeland Security."

Clinton, like so many Democrats and Republicans, attempts to appear as if she's a national-security hawk. The reality is many are trying once again to pull the wool over Americans' eyes. They are willing to trade public safety for votes.

Source



McCain shows how conservative he is not

With the White House's blessing, the Senate has reached a deal on immigration. And Sen. John McCain has handed his opponents for the Republican nomination a mighty club to wield against him -- if they choose to use it.

As Rudy Giuliani's lead over the Arizona senator slipped into the single digits in many national polls, McCain assumed a lower profile on the immigration issue. Sen. Sam Brownback went even further, repudiating his support for last year's Senate bill containing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Now there is a new bill offering such a provision and McCain, like fellow Arizonan Jon Kyl, is on board.

However the rest of the field responds, this much is clear: When Ronald Reagan revived his flagging 1976 presidential campaign by railing against the Panama Canal Treaty, many observers were shocked by the issue's resonance. Today, no one can be surprised when conservatives speak out against anything that can be construed as amnesty for illegal immigrants.

The reaction to the immigration announcement was swift. Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker and perhaps future presidential candidate, denounced it on Sean Hannity's radio show as "a sellout of every conservative principle." The Heritage Foundation agreed. Congressman Mike Pence issued a statement calling the bill an amnesty.

While the deal was being picked apart by talk radio and the blogs, John McCain was appearing on television with Ted Kennedy to promote it. Arlen Specter's presence -- and insistence that the Senate isn't talking about amnesty -- doesn't give McCain much cover with conservatives. Neither does the news that the bill was drafted with the help of liberal groups like the National Council of La Raza.

Is it amnesty? Like past versions of McCain-Kennedy, the bill offers illegal aliens a path to citizenship and creates a new guest-worker program. Supporters argue that the measure only applies to illegals who have passed a background check while paying fines and back taxes. In a new twist, guest workers could only be admitted and unlawful immigrants legalized after certain enforcement provisions have taken effect. And in the long term, the legislation may shift the immigration system's focus away from family reunification and toward employment skills.

But there are already concerns that the "enforcement triggers" may prove more fungible than advertised. If the Democrats win in 2008, do conservatives trust Hillary's Department of Homeland Security to certify that the borders are secure? Worse, the bill creates probationary "Z visas" for illegal immigrants present and working in the United States since the beginning of this year as well as their parents, spouses, and children.

The probationary period begins before any of the enforcement triggers are pulled. The visa-holders are eligible to stay in the country indefinitely, possibly undermining the appeal of the path to citizenship. And all this assumes that the country's existing immigration bureaucracy, with a backlog of 4 million unresolved cases, can properly determine the status of at least 12 million people in a timely manner.

It may be 1986 all over again. After that year's Immigration Reform and Control Act became law, nearly twice as many people applied as officials expected and over 90 percent were accepted. Today the numbers are even greater. So is the potential for amnesty to occur without the promised enforcement ever materializing.

Mitt Romney was quick to pounce. "I strongly oppose today's bill going through the Senate," he said in a statement. "It's the wrong approach." All eyes are on Rudy -- and the rest of the GOP contenders, all the way down to the bottom tier. McCain has helped give his rivals an opportunity to appeal to disaffected conservatives on a populist issue.

"Life is unfair," John F. Kennedy observed. However mistaken this deal, McCain is as much a conviction politician on immigration as Tom Tancredo. Giuliani once sued to block welfare and immigration reform laws he believed were too strict with New York City's illegal aliens. Romney took a position similar in principle to this bill's language as recently as Tuesday's South Carolina debate.

But conservative voters will remember the immigration partnership between John McCain and Ted Kennedy. In a Republican primary, that is dangerous company to keep.

Source



America the great is finished

The USA is a rare product of a particular population -- a population originating predominantly from the generally prosperous, law-abiding, creative and principled people of the British Isles and Northwestern Europe. The USA is now however being flooded by very different people who in their own countries regularly give rise to corrupt, brutal and economically disastrous regimes. So, like ancient Rome, the USA will soon become completely multicultural, lose its distinctiveness and fade away. Cato the elder foresaw what would happen as Rome became less Roman and modern-day conservatives see the same future for America, but, like Cato, they are ignored in favour of what is convenient at the time. The decay in Rome was slow. The decay of the USA is just around the corner. Details in the post below from Riehl World -- which see for links

Even as the largest minority group in America at just over 44 million, Hispanics represent less than 15% of the total population. However, they accounted for 50% of US population growth from July 1, 2005, to July 1, 2006. In all but nine states, the population of whites under age 15 has declined, while nationally, our Hispanic school age population surged by 21%.

The headlines today point out that America's minority population has reached 100 milllion, a third of our population. But the real story of recent growth is beneath the headlines and left out of some stories altogether. Experts have already predicted that America's current minorities will be in the majority by 2050 and, given current trends, it's only a function of time before America becomes predominantly Hispanic.

The white population has shrunk in 16 states this decade, including California, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts.

The El Paso Times points to the differences current trends will bring about and suggests no change in immigration will reverse it, as so much of the increase is attributable to much higher birth rates among Hispanics as opposed to any other groups, particularly whites.

Out of the 300 million people in the United States, about one in three is now a member of some minority group -- a distinctive demographic change that experts say influences everything, including the food Americans eat, the clothes we wear and the music we listen to.

She added that increases in Hispanic population are likely to continue despite any changes to immigration policy, as Hispanics exponentially grow their numbers through a high rate of birth.

The Houston Chronicle on line is celebrating as Houston appears to represent the future face of America as a whole. There's no indication if article author Lori Rodriguez is related to the individual she quotes. I take it it's sort of a Smith, or Jones thing in Houston, now. ; )

With newcomers in tow, national immigration expert Nestor Rodriguez, of the University of Houston, has toured the city's most dazzlingly diverse pockets for the past decade. His message for visitors always is the same: "Look closely, because this is America's future."

But while one in every three Americans now is a minority, whites, with 66 percent of the population, accounted only for less than a fifth, or 18 percent, of the growth.

"The U.S. has the highest fertility rate of any developing country, with 2.1 children per women. That's because we do immigration right," said Texas A&M University sociology professor Dudley L. Poston Jr.

Whites are not in the majority in Hawaii, New Mexico, California and Texas and even in states where they remain a declining majority, demographics point to a surge in minority voters. Also, California and Texas together are home to 33% of the nation's entire minority population.

In Nevada, where the share of whites has declined to 59 percent from 66 percent since 2000, the voting-age population has soared 25 percent, with minorities accounting for 63 percent of that increase.

The Washington Post points out that DC may soon no longer be a majority-Black city. They cite whites and gentrification as the primary reason.

The 14 percent increase in non-Hispanic white District residents and 6 percent decrease in blacks from 2000 to 2006 are probably the result of the gentrification of once-affordable city neighborhoods, demographers said.

But that isn't what's talking place in state after state throughout the country. Minnesota, Indiana and North Carolina, as with most of the country, is changing due to Hispanic immigration and birth rates.

Hispanics are fanning out to more states across the nation, creating a sharp contrast between their predominantly young numbers and those of an aging white society, according to census population estimates out today.

Hispanics remain the largest minority group, at 44.3 million, and accounted for almost half the nation's growth of 2.9 million from July 1, 2005, to July 1, 2006. As Hispanics settle in areas where whites are aging and fewer are being born, they're transforming classrooms, workplaces and entire communities.

The non-Hispanic white school-age population grew 4 percent since 2000, while the number of Hispanic school-age kids surged 21 percent. The white under-15 population declined in all but nine states since 2000.

More from the New York Times:

As a result of immigration and higher birthrates among many newcomers, the number of Hispanics grew by 3.4 percent nationwide and Asians by 3.2 percent. Meanwhile, the black population rose by 1.3 percent, and that of non-Hispanic whites by 0.3 percent. (The number of American Indians and Alaska Natives increased by 1 percent, and Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders by 1.7 percent.)

19 May, 2007

From the grassroots

Below is an email just received from one of my correspondents:

Suffice to say, I've been enraged since hearing yesterday evening about the proposed immigration bill. I think the paragraph below, from National Review's strong editorial condemning it, says it all -- along with the fact, I might add, that Ted Kennedy and other socialist bloodsuckers and bottom-feeders can count on at least 400,000 new socialist/Democrat votes per every 1 million illegals to whom they grant citizenship; the remainder who vote conservative -- if they vote at all -- is negligible. This will bankrupt our country. And God knows what will happen to the status of people's accumulated savings/wealth and private property down the road -- not to mention how this will thus affect this country's republican theory of government:

"The enormous cost of granting legal status to millions of illegal aliens is being wholly ignored. Nearly two-thirds of illegal immigrants are low-skilled workers. Based on a detailed analysis of the net cost of low-skill households, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation estimates that the typical illegal-alien household receives $19,588 more in benefits than it pays in taxes each year. He explains that these costs would increase dramatically when an illegal alien reached retirement. Rector estimates that if all current illegal aliens were granted amnesty, the net retirement costs (benefits minus taxes) could be over $2.5 trillion."

This bill probably won't go through -- but it certainly doesn't augur well for whatever our spineless politicians come up with in replacement of it.

Either way, I think we lose. No politician wants to vote against immigrants, legal or illegal, because the Left, via our schools, has been SO successful over the past century in promulgating the belief that anti-immigrant = racism. No politician wants to be remembered as a bigot.

Thanks for ruining sealing the fate of our country, George W. Bush!! You idiotic, cowardly, loathsome son of a bitch.



No to Bush-Kennedy

"The fight over legalization, or `amnesty,' is all but over," exults the Manhattan Institute's Tamar Jacoby, and the "yahoos" who oppose it have been routed. She is right about who has won, at least as far as the Senate is concerned. The Bush-Kennedy immigration "reform," which is now expected to win broad bipartisan support in that chamber, provides legal status for an estimated 12 million illegal aliens. In exchange for the massive, unpopular amnesty, Senator Kennedy is willing to engage in a little "border dressing" that purports to beef up enforcement of current laws barring illegal entry and the employment of illegal workers. As in the past, supporters of border and workplace enforcement will get the rhetoric, illegal aliens the prize, and taxpayers the huge tab.

The 1986 immigration reform, with amnesty provisions that were implemented and enforcement provisions that weren't, is instructive. But there is no need to hark back 20 years to illustrate the bad faith of "comprehensive" immigration reformers. Before last year's elections, the Secure Fence Act, providing for the construction of a 700-mile fence at the southern border, handily passed Congress. In this week's Republican presidential debate, Rep. Duncan Hunter, the fence bill's House sponsor, angrily noted, "We have $1 billion cash on hand at the Department of Homeland Security right now for building the border fence. . . . They have done two miles. I think they want to drag their feet and hook this up with amnesty." They do and they now have.

The Bush administration's price for its modestly beefed-up border security and workplace enforcement is amnesty for millions and a temporary-worker program for a few hundred thousand more each year. And the proposal's conservative features vanish upon inspection.

Bush-Kennedy includes some enforcement "triggers" that increase resources at the border and establish an employment-verification program before amnesty or the new temporary-worker program can take effect. But there is no requirement that these measures be proved effective before the full implementation of Kennedy's wish list, and the reform does not include critical provisions to prevent identity theft and the use of fraudulent documents. Granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens without first securing the border and ensuring a reliable system of workplace enforcement invites millions of others to follow their example in the hope of being granted amnesty during the inevitable next round of immigration reform.

The proposal contemplates ending "chain migration" by extended family members in favor of a merit system based on needed skills - eventually. The current waiting lists for family members must first be eliminated, and immigration advocates can be expected to aggressively lobby for the status quo. Tamar Jacoby is already arguing against moving to merit. Not even yahoos will be fooled by the bill's empty promise.

Finally, the enormous cost of granting legal status to millions of illegal aliens is being wholly ignored. Nearly two-thirds of illegal immigrants are low-skilled workers. Based on a detailed analysis of the net cost of low-skill households, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation estimates that the typical illegal-alien household receives $19,588 more in benefits than it pays in taxes each year. He explains that these costs would increase dramatically when an illegal alien reached retirement. Rector estimates that if all current illegal aliens were granted amnesty, the net retirement costs (benefits minus taxes) could be over $2.5 trillion.

As bad as the status quo on immigration policy is, it is preferable to this bill. Recent improvements in border security have apparently reduced the number of illegal crossings, and well-publicized raids on workplaces can be expected to have a chilling effect on employers who are in violation of immigration laws. But we suspect that this increased enforcement was largely designed to win passage for amnesty and a guest-worker program, and will end once this goal is achieved. We urge senators to cast protest votes against this bill, and House members to do their best to defeat it.

Source



AMNESTY $$$$$

Tomorrow, The Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector will share the following analysis in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. Virtually no attention has been paid to the enormous costs involved in legalizing millions of low-skilled illegal aliens. One problem is that immigration reform is being negotiated by Judiciary Committee lawyers who typically have little experience in budgetary issues. Some Members who might be expected to blanch at a potential price tag of $2.5 trillion on their handiwork are kidding themselves by naively expecting that government benefits will be denied to the newly-legalized. Some know so little about tax burdens and benefit costs that they wrongly believe low-skilled workers are a net benefit to the social security system.

"Giving amnesty to illegal immigrants would increase the costs outlined in this testimony. Some 50 to 60 percent of illegal immigrants lack a high school degree. Granting amnesty or conditional amnesty to illegal immigrants would, overtime, increase their use of means-tested welfare, Social Security and Medicare. Fiscal costs would go up significantly in the short term but would go up dramatically after the amnesty recipient reached retirement. Based on my current research, I estimate that if all the current adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. were granted amnesty the net retirement costs to government (benefits minus taxes) could be over $2.5 trillion.

The calculation of this figure is as follows. In March 2006, there were 9.3 million adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. Most illegal immigrants are low-skill. On average, each elderly low-skill immigrant creates a net cost (benefits minus taxes) for the taxpayer of about $17,000 per year. (This includes federal state and local government costs.) If the government gave amnesty to 9.3 million illegal immigrants, most of them would eventually become eligible for Social Security and Medicare benefits or Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid benefits.

However, not all of the 9.3 million adults given amnesty would survive till age 67. Normal mortality rates would probably reduce the population by roughly 15 percent before age 67. That would mean 7.9 million individuals would reach 67 and enter retirement.

Of those reaching 67, the average life expectancy would be around 18 years. The net governmental cost (benefits minus taxes) of these elderly individuals would be around $17,000 per year. Over eighteen years of expected life, costs would equal $360,000 per elderly amnesty recipient. A cost of $306,000 per amnesty recipient times 7.9 million amnesty recipients would be $2.4 trillion. These costs would hit the U.S. taxpayer at exactly the point that the Social Security system is expected to go into crisis. This is a preliminary estimate based on my ongoing research. More research should be performed, but I believe policy makers should examine these potential costs carefully before rushing to grant amnesty, "Z visas" or "earned citizenship" to the current illegal immigrant population.

Amnesty proponents may argue that some of these individuals will go home without getting benefits, or before they reach retirement age. Though perhaps valid, that argument only emphasizes how expensive amnesty recipients would be; the longer they remain in the country the greater the cost to the taxpayer.

Little wonder that supporters of "comprehensive" immigration reform are racing against the clock. They best hurry up and pass this EXPENSIVE bill before taxpayers already opposed to amnesty realize what it's likely to cost them.

Source



Australia: Migrants' diseases not followed up

MIGRANTS with serious illnesses - including lepers and more than 100,000 people with tuberculosis - have been allowed into Australia despite authorities' inability to carry out proper medical supervision. An audit of the Immigration Department has found that it knowingly allows migrants to enter Australia with serious contagious diseases but frequently fails to check up on whether they have sought medical attention.

The Australian National Audit Office revealed yesterday that since 2000-01 more than 100,000 immigrants with tuberculosis had entered Australia on the condition that they submit to medical supervision. The damning report said that, despite imposing the conditions, the department was unable to follow up and check whether the medical advice had been sought. The report comes just a month after John Howard questioned whether migrants with HIV-AIDS should be allowed to come to Australia. It said the department admitted its errors and had agreed to overhaul its systems. The audit said the current health screening procedures had "limitations and gaps", which weakened the Department of Immigration and Citizenship's ability to protect Australians from public health threats. The system relied largely on the honesty of visa applicants to disclose whether or not they had a disease that could be a public health risk, the audit said.

Opposition immigration spokesman Tony Burke said he was shocked by the audit and urged the Government to implement the recommendations quickly. Australian Medical Association vice-president Choong-Siew Yong said it was "quite concerning" that visa-holders were not complying with their undertaking and urged the Government to do more to address the situation.

Under the Migration Act, visa applicants must meet health requirements that protect the community from public health risks and safeguard Australians' access to health services. Applicants for permanent visas undergo a medical examination, while short-stay visa applicants - including temporary skilled migrants and holidaymakers - answer a series of questions about their health history and status. "As a result, DIAC cannot be certain of detecting all people who pose health risks," the audit found.

It was also highly critical of the way the department administered and monitored exemptions from the health requirements which have allowed foreigners with diseases such as tuberculosis, hepatitis B and C and leprosy to enter Australia. Visa applicants who fail to meet the health requirements can secure an exemption if they sign a "health undertaking" to report to a designated health authority in the relevant state or territory for a follow-up health assessment. Up to 20,000 undertakings are issued each year - about 90 per cent for people with tuberculosis. The audit revealed that a quarter of the 5535 health undertakings issued in 2002-03 were non-compliant. There are no formal arrangements between DIAC and state and territory authorities to check whether people have honoured their commitment to undergo further health checks.

The audit also found that, even when visa-holders were caught breaching their health undertaking, they were still allowed to stay in the country. The audit was also critical of the federal health department for failing to provide DIAC with "timely advice" on potential health risks. DIAC figures contained in the audit show that since 2002-03 nine people with leprosy had signed health waivers and secured visas to Australia. Since 2000-01, 101,468 health undertakings had been given to people with tuberculosis.

The Government agreed to adopt all eight recommendations made by the ANAO including a memorandum of understanding between DIAC and the Health Department. A spokeswoman for Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews said the Government would also ensure that co-operation across government agencies improved.

Source





18 May, 2007

Immigration Bill: Good Principles, Questionable Enforcement

Below is a comment by one U.S. blogger about the long awaited great compromise bill on immigration. Most other comments from conservatives have been much more negative -- with particular dissatisfaction over the watering down of border fencing provisions

It took me an hour just to scan the text of the proposed Immigration Bill. Reading, studying, analyzing it all would take dedicated weeks at a minimum. There's the first problem with it: It's being rushed through Congress without due deliberation and understanding. For an issue that not only affects the 12 or so million illegals here but the other 300 million Americans, and the future economics and culture of the country, that's too hasty.

My first impression of the Immigration Bill is that it contains most of the principles, or parts thereof, that conservatives have sought: Qualifying for citizenship rather than automatic amnesty; Shifting priorities toward those with education and skills that can contribute most, rather than the uneducated and elderly who cost more than they contribute; Stricter enforcement of employer hiring; Increased border security. Notably missing is restriction of automatic citizenship to those born here, which is an enormous loophole for those seeking to stay along with their children. In the border states, many pregnant Mexicans purposely come across to give birth here.

I'm struck that most of these principles are dependent on future appropriations or mere administration certifications. There's little reason to have faith in these future requirements occurring with adequacy or stringency. Some portions may occur, but less than even the minimal included in the Bill. I could go along with the Bill if these requirements were sufficiently pre-funded in the Bill, with a 2/3rd's or so vote by Congress required to reduce the appropriations and, similarly, to find the certifications adequate. Short of that, I do have to fall in with skeptics who expect much less enforcement than promised.

As to the 12-million illegals here now, they're here and there's no prospect of expelling them. The uneducated have less prospect of meeting the new qualifications of obtaining regular qualifying employment, but there's little prospect of their leaving as long as there's a huge off-the-books economy for the unskilled, and as long as even that is better than where they come from. They will continue to arrive in droves.

The educated and skilled may have arrived illegally, but their normalization at least will contribute to our competitive economy.

This Bill, as it appears, seems to have its primary justification in fixing politics, for the varying benefit of Democrat and some Republican politicians (pandering to or insulating from Democrat-leaning pro-illegals lobbies, respectively), than in actually solving the problems of too many ill-suited uneducated immigrants whose impact on our economy is less desirable, and of their economic impact on citizens whose opportunities and wages are consequently depressed.

Will I go bonkers if the Bill passes as presently written? No. Even having the shift in principles is better than now. But, it doesn't seem by much, without included funding guarantees. And, Republican officeholders who hypocritically say otherwise are transparently denigrating themselves and further reducing the allegiance of those voters who esteem integrity.

Source



EU Targeting illegals!

Tougher than Texas?

European businesses caught employing illegal immigrants face jail sentences under new proposals from the European Commission to control immigration. Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini also wants a five-fold increase in the number of spot checks on companies. As much as 16% of Europe's business is done off the books, Mr Frattini says. It is estimated that there are 3-8m illegal immigrants in the EU, a figure increasing by up to 500,000 every year because of easy access to illegal work.

New penalties are also proposed for individuals who hire workers, such as cleaners. Employers would have to check that anyone they hired had a residence permit, and businesses would have to notify national authorities. Fines for offenders would include the cost of repatriating the worker, as well as payment of any unpaid tax or social security.

Criminal penalties would be imposed on employers who knowingly hired victims of trafficking, who were caught hiring several illegal immigrants, or who were "particularly exploitative". "The possibility of finding illegal work is the main driving force behind illegal immigration. The EU must act together," Mr Frattini said.

BBC Europe business correspondent Alex Ritson says there is little doubt why illegal workers are attractive for many companies - they earn a fraction of the regular wages and the penalties for companies caught breaking the rules are rarely severe. But the proposals may face resistance from some member states, he says, as traditionally the EU does not interfere with matters of criminal law.

Mr Frattini said that the risk of getting caught employing illegal immigrants in Europe was "practically non-existent", because only one in 50 businesses was checked each year. Under his proposal this would be increased to one in 10 per year. The Commission says illegal migrants are most likely to be employed in construction, agriculture, housework, cleaning, catering and other hospitality services. Officials say the sanctions are designed to hit employers who exploit people "for their own greed" - putting them to work unprotected with harmful pesticides, or on unsafe building sites, or forcing them to work more than 12 hours a day for negligible pay.

Three years ago, 21 Chinese immigrants lost their lives at Morecambe Bay in the north of England. They were gathering shellfish on the mudflats for an illegal gang master but the tide came in suddenly and they drowned.

The proposed measures add to the EU's growing list of policies in the field of immigration, which are designed to attract skilled workers and other legal immigrants, while discouraging illegal immigration. Another new proposal is to seek "partnerships" with third countries, providing their workers easier access to the EU job market in return for help to stem the flow of illegal immigrants. Mr Frattini also wants to encourage circular migration, where migrant workers return temporarily or permanently to their country of origin, taking their new skills with them.

Source



Voter Fraud in San Antonio, Texas

Hundreds of illegal immigrants have registered to vote in Bexar County in recent years and dozens of them have actually cast ballots, canceling out the votes of U.S. citizens, 1200 WOAI news will report Thursday morning.

Figures obtained by 1200 WOAI news shows 303 illegals successfully registered to vote, and at least 41 cast ballots in various elections.

Bexar County Elections Administrator Jackie Callanan confirmed the figures, but she says a new form of voter registration card, which requires people to swear they are citizens when they register, should help cut the problem, because people who vote illegally can be charged with perjury.

And the county has some sly ways to catch them. "Maybe they have received a jury summons, the jury wheel relies on registered voters. They send a statement to the jury room that says they are not U.S. citizens and then we get that report immediately," Callanan says.

It's a hot issue in the Texas Legislature, where republicans are pushing a bill that would require voters to show some form of identification before voting.

"Considering that a photo ID is required to buy Sudafed, I can't understand why anyone would argue that the same standard, if not a higher standard, should apply to voting," Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst said. "Why would any Texan oppose legislation that ensures only U.S. citizens vote in elections?"

...

Considering how many races have been decided by slim margins including the 2000 Presidential election in Florida it does not take many fraudulent votes to make a difference. That must be why Democrats oppose doing anything to stop it. The kerfuffle over the firing of the US Attorneys is largely driven by the Democrats desire to make it more difficult to prosecute voter fraud. Their opposition to voter ISD is to make voter fraud easier for their voters.

Source



17 May, 2007

Voters wrong -- says ACLU

Latino activists and civil liberties advocates asked a federal judge Tuesday to block a voter-approved ordinance that would prohibit landlords from renting apartments to most illegal immigrants in the Dallas suburb of Farmers Branch. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the American Civil Liberites Union, which have already sued the city over the regulation, asked for the temporary restraining order in U.S. District Court. A group of merchants also suing Farmers Branch in federal court filed a separate request Tuesday to stop the ordinance's enforcement, said activist Carlos Quintanilla. "It is unfortunate that the residents of Farmers Branch have chosen to implement a law which is not only bad policy, but is likely also unconstitutional," said Lisa Graybill, legal director for the ACLU of Texas. "Now the issue will have to be resolved in federal court."

The ACLU and MALDEF contend poor families could be thrown out of homes because of the ordinance. And, the groups say, families in which some people are undocumented and others are citizens or legal immigrants could be forced to either move or split up.

Matthew Boyle, an attorney representing Farmers Branch, said the request for the restraining order isn't surprising and that the city is preparing a response. "I think they're wasting their time. I think we have legal grounds ... moral grounds," councilman Ben Robinson said of the groups' request.

Farmers Branch voters became the first in the nation Saturday to prohibit landlords from renting apartments to most illegal immigrants. The ban was approved by a vote of 68 percent to 32 percent, according to unofficial results. The ordinance, scheduled to take effect May 22, requires apartment managers to verify that renters are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants before leasing to them, with some exceptions. Violators would face a misdemeanor charge punishable by a fine of up to $500. City council members first approved the ban in November without discussion, taking comment from the public only after their vote. The policy was revised in January to include the exemptions for minors, seniors and some mixed-status families.

Since 1970, Farmers Branch has changed from a small, predominantly white bedroom community with a declining population to a city of almost 28,000 people, about 37 percent of them Hispanic, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. It also is home to more than 80 corporate headquarters and more than 2,600 small and mid-size firms, many of them minority-owned.

Councilman Tim O'Hare, the ordinance's lead proponent, contends the city's economy and quality of life will improve if illegal immigrants are kept out. O'Hare declined to comment Tuesday.

Civil rights groups, residents, property owners and businesses filed four separate lawsuits, saying the ordinance puts landlords in the precarious position of acting as federal immigration officers and discriminates poor and Latino residents. Their attorneys also say the ordinance attempts to regulate immigration, a duty that is exclusively the federal government's. Three of the suits were consolidated in federal court. One lawsuit in state court alleges the council violated the state open meetings act when deciding on the ordinance.

Around the country, more than 90 local governments have proposed, passed or rejected laws prohibiting landlords from leasing to illegal immigrants, penalizing businesses that employ them or training police to enforce immigration laws.

Source



Latest from CIS

1. Mass Immigration vs. Black America

Statement of T. Willard Fair, President and CEO, Urban League of Greater Miami; Center for Immigration Studies Board Member Before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives May 9, 2007

EXCERPT: "Of course, none of that means that individual immigrants -- or particular immigrant groups -- can be blamed for the difficulties facing black men. Being pro-Me should never make me anti-You. Nor can we use immigration as a crutch, blaming it for all our problems. The reality is that less-educated black men in America today have a variety of problems -- high rates of crime and drug use, for example, and poor performance at work and school -- that are caused by factors unrelated to level of immigration.

"But if cutting immigration and enforcing the law wouldn't be a cure-all, it sure would make my job easier. Take employment -- immigration isn't the whole reason for the drop in employment of black men; it's not even half the reason. But it is the largest single reason, and it's something we can fix relatively easily."

********
********

2. Low Salaries for Low Skills: Wages and Skill Levels for H-1B Computer Workers, 2005 By John Miano Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, April 2007

EXCERPT: "Technology sector employers, who represent the largest share of H-1B visa users, tell the public that the H-1B program is vital to their ability to find the highly skilled workers they need. Yet Department of Labor data tell a different story. Previous studies have found that the H-1B program is primarily used to import low-wage workers. This report examines the most recently available wage data on the H-1B program and finds that the trend of low prevailing wage claims and low wages continues. In addition, while industry spokesmen say these workers bring needed skills to our economy, on the H-1B Labor Condition Applications (LCAs) filed with the Department of Labor, employers classify most of their H-1B workers as being relatively low-skilled for the jobs they are filling."

********
********

3. Illegitimate Nation: An Examination of Out-of-Wedlock Births Among Immigrants and Natives by Steven A. Camarota Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, May 2007

EXCERPT: "The argument is often made that immigrants have a stronger commitment to traditional family values than do native-born Americans. However, birth records show that about one-third of births to both groups are now to unmarried parents. Moreover, unmarried immigrants are significantly more likely than unmarried natives to give birth. Illegitimacy may be especially problematic for children of immigrants because they need strong families to adjust to life in America."

********
********

4. Illegitimacy and Immigration Panel discussion transcript, April 24, 2007

Speakers:

Mark Krikorian, Executive Director, Center for Immigration Studies

Steven A. Camarota, Director of Research, Center for Immigration Studies

Nicholas Eberstadt, American Enterprise Institute

Robert Rector, Heritage Foundation

********
********

5. Immigration's Impact On American Workers

Statement of Steven A. Camarota before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives May 9, 2007

EXCERPT: "As discussed above, the impact of immigration on the overall economy is almost certainly very small. Its short- and long-term impact demographically on the share of the population that is of working age is also very small. It probably makes more sense for policymakers to focus on the winners and losers from immigration. The big losers are natives working in low-skilled, low-wage jobs. Of course, technological change and increased trade also have reduced the labor market opportunities for low-wage workers in the Untied States. But immigration is different because it is a discretionary policy that can be altered. On the other hand, immigrants are the big winners, as are owners of capital and skilled workers, but their gains are tiny relative to their income.

"In the end, arguments for or against immigration are as much political and moral as they are economic. The latest research indicates that we can reduce immigration secure in the knowledge that it will not harm the economy. Doing so makes sense if we are very concerned about low-wage and less-skilled workers in the United States. On the other hand, if one places a high priority on helping unskilled workers in other countries, then allowing in a large number of such workers should continue. Of course, only an infinitesimal proportion of the world's poor could ever come to this country even under the most open immigration policy one might imagine. Those who support the current high level of unskilled legal and illegal immigration should at least do so with an understanding that those American workers harmed by the policies they favor are already the poorest and most vulnerable."

********
********

6. Real Immigration Reform: The Path to Credibility

Statement of Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., Cornell University; Center for Immigration Studies Board Member before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives May 3, 2007

EXCERPT: "In its final report to Congress in 1997, the Commission on Immigration Reform defined what `a simple yardstick' for `a credible immigration policy' is: `people who should get in do get in, people who should not get in are kept out; and people who are judged deportable are required to leave.'

"The standard cannot be clearer. Congress and the Administration at that time did not listen and, sure enough, things have gotten far worse.

"It time to put aside the selfish pleas of special interest groups and to enact real immigration reform.

"Although some of my recommendations address issues not mentioned by CIR, all are consistent with those about which it did speak. All are intended to assure that our immigration policies are fair but firm and that they are congruent with the welfare of the nation's most valuable resource: it labor force."

********
********

7. Proposals to Improve the Electronic Employment Verification and Worksite Enforcement System

Statement of Jessica M. Vaughan before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives April 26, 2007

EXCERPT: "If the program were to be made mandatory tomorrow, most businesses would be able to comply. Even most small businesses already use the Internet and can access the system. Companies who don't want to do it themselves can pay their own accountant or lawyer or hire one of the many private-sector 'designated agents' to verify their workers."

********
********

8. Shortfalls of the 1996 Immigration Reform Legislation

Statement of Mark Krikorian before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives April 20, 2007

EXCERPT: "But there was one very large mistake made by Congress in the 1996 law, and that was rejecting the late Barbara Jordan's recommendations to cut overall legal immigration. The U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, headed by Jordan during most of its existence, spent years examining all aspects of the immigration issue and delivered reports on illegal immigration, legal immigration, refugees, and Americanization policy. .

"With regard to legal immigration, the Jordan Commission recommended a reduction of about one-third in total immigration, in particular focusing the family portion of the immigration flow more tightly and eliminating categories outside the nuclear family of husband, wife, and young children. Jordan's recommendations would also have eliminated the small but unjustifiable unskilled worker category (the Commission noted that `Unless there is another compelling interest, such as in the entry of nuclear families and refugees, it is not in the national interest to admit unskilled workers') and the egregious visa lottery."

********
********

9. Cease Citing Bible to Defend Bush's Immigration Bill By Steven Steinlight Forward, April 29, 2007

EXCERPT: "Leviticus 19 commands us to love the stranger. Bush's cynical, reactionary bill, you can be certain, is not about love, and Leviticus 19 surely does not command us to exploit strangers as cheap labor or for political gain. Cherry-picking the Bible to support a shameful scheme to exploit poor immigrants at the expense of impoverished Americans to engorge the wealth of rich employers is a sacrilege. Why not just cite the Wall Street Journal?"

********
********

10. Speaking Out on Immigration By Steven Steinlight The Jewish Advocate, April 23, 2007

EXCERPT: "Only Muslims are more anti-Semitic than foreign-born Hispanics according to solid survey research. Latino anti-Semitism hovers in the upper 40th percentile. Latinos loathe us less, but they'll have infinitely more power. If the Bush bill passes, Hispanics will soon control the American political system. Better to be hated by 2-3 million Muslims than strongly disliked by 100 million Latinos, a third of the population, who will outnumber us 50-1."

********
********

11. Immigrants Are People, Too Moral decay doesn't stop at the Rio Grande. By Mark Krikorian National Review Online, May 2, 2007

EXCERPT: "The point is not that immigrants are worse than we are, any more than the open-borders crowd's claims that immigrants are better than we are. Instead, they're just like we are, subject to the same temptations of modernity, polluted by the same filth of popular culture, making the same bad choices with the freedom we can enjoy here.

"This may not be an argument for reducing immigration (there are plenty of those). But it certainly explodes any rational basis for arguing in favor of mass immigration based on a special immigrant commitment to traditional morality. There is no "family values gap," and the sooner policymakers understand that, the sooner we're likely to get an immigration policy consistent with our nation's interests rather than one marinated in myths and nostalgia."

********
********

12. Not a Dime's Worth of Difference: What kind of people does the White House think we are? By Mark Krikorian National Review Online, April 10, 2007

EXCERPT: "The administration's calculation that it can make amnesty and increased immigration palatable if only they are packaged with enough anti-immigrant measures is an insult to immigration hawks. Our response must be unequivocal: No Amnesty. No Guestworkers. Period."



16 May, 2007

Britain: True immigration levels could be twice as high

The only surprise about local council complaints that immigration figures are ''flawed'' is that anyone is surprised. Figures on this subject are the least trustworthy of all government statistics, and that is saying something. How do we tell the scale of immigration to the UK?

For years, the Office for National Statistics relied upon the International Passenger Survey (IPS) which, as its name suggests, is a survey not a number check. When immigration was at fairly low levels from the early 1970s to the mid-1990s, this somewhat hit-and-miss approach was adequate. For many years, it was almost in equilibrium - showing little net immigration into the UK. But since 1997, immigration has shot up. Even measured by the (IPS) the net figure - the difference between those arriving and leaving - has averaged 180,000 or more for five years.

These figure do not include asylum seekers who have been through all their legal procedures and have been turned down but have stayed on. There could be 400,000 of these. They do not include illegal immigrants, either clandestine entrants or people who have arrived on visas and have not gone home. It is simply unknown how many there are of these. It does not include the 600,000 who have arrived from eastern Europe since the exapansion of the EU and have registered to work. And this latter figure does not include those from eastern Europe who are not required to register, for example the self-employed, or those have chosen not to.

So, the true levels of immigration could easily be twice as high as the official IPS showed. Even if the figures for arrivals are accurate there is now way of knowing how many have left because embarkation controls at the border were scrapped in 1997. Anyone who lives in London or another major city can simply see with their own eyes how the number of overseas workers has grown in recent years. Yet, this was the very moment the ONS decided to replace one suspect set of statistics with another. Instead of the IPS, they are now relying on the Labour Force Survey. This covers just 0.2 per cent of the population and asks migrants where they are actually working.

These figures are then used to calculate the funds needed by local authorities to provide essential services. Coun Mark Loveday, cabinet member for Hammersmith and Fulham, said: "I didn't think it was possible, but this new method for counting migration is actually worse than the old one - which was also a disaster. "The Government's new figures suggest that we have fewer migrants than three years ago. "This methodology will still not account for those spending less than a year in the country. The Labour Force Survey will also not pick up those staying in hostels or living in houses of multiple occupancy."

Coun Merrick Cockell, leader of Kensington and Chelsea Council, said: "We don't find the Office of National Statistics' latest figures credible - 20,800 people cannot simply have vanished." Local authorities now say that they should collect the data and tell the Government how many immigrants they have. Whether that will make them more accurate is anyone's guess.

Source



Dallas suburb bans renting to illegals

Comment below

I wouldn't advise anyone's coming down too hard on the voters of Farmers Branch, Texas, who last weekend approved, two to one, a measure that bans the leasing of apartments to illegal immigrants. Which -- don't we all know it? -- sounds like a nativist slap at hardworking folks who just want to get on in the world. Yes, and who happen to be living in violation of the laws of the country in which they are trying to get on.

The new Farmers Branch ordinance, if legal challenges to it fail, seems less likely to send illegals scampering back across the border to Mexico than to some other Dallas suburb. And yet this whole business concentrates the mind wonderfully, forcing thought about the idiocy of present U.S. policy and the desirability of a more rational policy. One aligned more or less with present-day realities would be nice, one sensitive to the U.S. economy's voracious demand for labor, sensitive as well to the need for a meaningful distinction between the non-American and the American

I speak as one less in tune with America's large, let's-fence-off-the-border constituency than with those who see the need for regular replenishment of a labor force diminished by the effects of, among other things, abortion-on-demand; expected, moreover, by a neglectful Congress to produce more, always more, taxes for bailing out Social Security and Medicare.

I still propose not coming down unduly hard on the voters of Farmers Branch. I think one can see easily enough what they are getting at: They don't think it's a real nice idea to privilege outsiders over the native-born in terms of obligations to the majesty of the law. As the city's mayor pro tem told The Dallas Morning News, "[Voters] are fed up with the fact that illegal immigration is being overlooked in all parts of our life. We think it is within our rights to take action for our city."

It's "nativist" to expect general adherence to democratically enacted rules? I don't think so. What kind of rules, then? Maybe the one saying you don't get to come and live here absent some prior arrangement with the U.S. government. Saying you ask permission before barging in.

It goes a little further than that, actually. If you do come without permission, you anticipate consequences. The non-emergence of consequences for illegal immigration is a constant irritant for many. It offends the common sense of justice. That the U.S. government fails to enforce the rules and many Americans agitate against their application only make matters worse.

For instance, why the ad hoc spread of bilingualism: the appearance everywhere in Texas of Spanish as, seemingly, the logical complement to English? The Latin-derived language of Madrid, and even of Nuevo Laredo, is lovely enough, but it is not easy to forget that knowledge of English is a requirement of citizenship. For whom are those ubiquitous Spanish notices meant? Clearly, for the non-English speaking. Meaning non-citizens? Of course. But why?

Why, too, in Texas, free public schools for the children of illegal immigrants? Why in-state tuition rates at state colleges and universities for these same children's older siblings? These are claims by the illegally domiciled against their hosts, whose sense of justice is duly outraged, as in Farmers Branch. Thus people resolve on forms of action meant -- as in Farmers Branch -- to redress the oversights of Those In Charge. Those In Charge ought to listen better than they have been. They are losing -- as in Farmers Branch, as in the Congress of the United States -- the respect and acquiescence of those whose interests they supposedly advance.

It is one thing to accept, even welcome, the historic human phenomenon of immigration. It is another thing to see disrespect for law, for process, for rational modes of doing things, and not fear that a crisis of legitimacy is fast growing among us. Congress this year -- one reads -- may finally do something halfway sensible about illegal immigration. Congress -- one knows -- has a lot of making up to do for squandered time.

Source



15 May, 2007

The attraction of the status quo

After months of negotiations, Congress appears no closer to a consensus on an overhaul of immigration policy. But competing interests are starting to agree that leaving the dysfunctional system unchanged for now might not be the worst idea. For example, the proposals in the House and Senate are full of enforcement measures that Jessica Vaughan would love to see pass. She's with the Center for Immigration Studies, which wants to reduce immigration. But the congressional bills would also legalize millions of undocumented workers, something Vaughan opposes. So, if that's the option, she will be just as happy to stick with the status quo.

Vaughan says the current atmosphere has evolved dramatically in recent years, even without congressional action. She sees a policy she's long advocated playing out de-facto - it's called "attrition through enforcement." "If we can induce people to go home on their own because they can't get a job, or can't get a driver's license, or can't get a tax ID number, to get themselves a mortgage, that's what's gonna cause people to give up and go home on their own," Vaughan said.

It's virtually impossible to say how many immigrants are leaving on their own. But in recent years the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has exponentially increased workplace raids. Spurred by this, more businesses are scrambling to check employees' legal status. In the past two years, some 20,000 firms have signed onto an Internet program to scan their payroll for false Social Security numbers. At a recent Congressional hearing, Rep. Ken Calvert, a California Republican, said a record 16,000 companies now use another federal computer program, Basic Pilot. Calvert recently said that 50 employers a day are signing on to Basic Pilot and predicted use of the program will double in the next year. "We have several large employers, I mean by large, mega-employers, that are looking on putting this program on voluntarily," Calvert said.

This no doubt will mean more illegal workers weeded from payrolls. But in the absence of congressional legislation, it will also mean more mistakes. Critics say Basic Pilot has a worrisome error rate, something immigration bills try to address. The head of the House immigration subcommittee, Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, points out that Congress uses Basic Pilot. And the program wrongly disqualified her aide, a longtime U.S. citizen. "It took her seven days, three trips to the Social Security office, three trips to the House employment office, three trips to the Judiciary Committee," Lofgren said. "She was successful in getting this straightened out, but I am mindful that there are people who are not immigration lawyers, who might actually give up."

Immigrant advocates like Christina Lopez, of the Center for Community Change, have no doubt stiffer enforcement will continue. Lopez points out that many states and localities are also taking it upon themselves to crack down. She says if Congress does nothing, there will be a terrible human impact. "So we're going to see more families torn apart, more people dying at the border," she said. "It's going to be greater suffering, more hardship, on the millions who are already here."

And yet, Lopez says it's better to endure this a while longer, than to pass some of the harsher measures lawmakers are considering. For example, one proposal out of the White House would scale back the number of family members that could join immigrants here. It would also impose a $10,000 dollar fine for gaining legal status. In the meantime, Lopez dismisses the notion that illegal immigrants will stage a mass voluntary departure. "They have families, they have children, in many cases they have property," she said. "You know, they're just gonna look for another way to make it."

No one may like the current dysfunctional immigration system, but so far, there's only bickering over congressional efforts to change it.

Source



Michael Barone, The Immigrant Invasion, And Our Posterity

By Steve Sailer

Here at VDARE.com, we've had some fun over the years at the expense of both the Wall Street Journal editorial page and of Michael Barone. Still, Barone's May 8th Wall Street Journal Op Ed The Realignment of America: The native-born are leaving 'hip' cities for the heartland is worthy of congratulation.

From its tagline "Demographics Is Destiny" to its illuminating use of statistics to its frankness about the effects of immigration-"The economic divide in New York and Los Angeles is starting to look like the economic divide in Mexico City and Sao Paulo"-Barone's essay reads more like a VDARE.COM contribution than the disingenuous Open Borders cheerleading for which both the WSJ and Barone have been notorious. May this mark a turning point!

Our criticism over the years of Barone's immigration writings has been driven by the frustrating awareness that he could do far better. Whereas, say, Main Stream Media quotemonger Tamar Jacoby has never demonstrated much sign of being capable of grasping the immigration issue-and thus, annoying as she is, she may actually be sincere-Barone can't plead invincible ignorance.

Many columnists never displayed much expertise on anything. But Barone is the editor of the biennial Almanac of American Politics. He has visited every one of the 435 Congressional Districts. He has earned his pundit spurs through his prodigious knowledge of local demographic and voting patterns.

Barone's methodology in the WSJ essay is straightforward and insightful. He compares the top 50 metropolitan areas (home to 54 percent of America's population) in 2000 and 2006, and divides them into four categories based on the causes of their population changes.

* Six grim old Rustbelt Cities, such as Detroit and Pittsburgh, in which natives are moving out, immigrants aren't moving in, and nobody is having many children.

* Eighteen Static Cities in which not much is happening in terms of population changes. They include Philadelphia, Minneapolis, and Denver.

* Eight Coastal Megalopolises. As Barone puts it: "New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco [and San Jose], San Diego, Chicago (on the coast of Lake Michigan), Miami, Washington [which is only marginally coastal] and Boston. Here is a pattern you don't find in other big cities: Americans moving out and immigrants moving in, in very large numbers ." From 2000 to 2006, six percent of the American-born residents left and were replaced by an equal number of immigrants.

Barone continues:

"This is something few would have predicted 20 years ago. Americans are now moving out of, not into, coastal California and South Florida, and in very large numbers they're moving out of our largest metro areas. They're fleeing hip Boston and San Francisco, and after eight decades of moving to Washington they're moving out. The domestic outflow from these metro areas is 3.9 million people, 650,000 a year. High housing costs, high taxes, a distaste in some cases for the burgeoning immigrant populations-these are driving many Americans elsewhere."

(Few "would have predicted" it, eh? Well, Peter Brimelow actually reported this trend, based on census data, in his much-denounced book Alien Nation some twelve years ago. Barone seems to have missed this, apparently because he was so scandalized by its single sentence noting that Brimelow's son Alexander has blue eyes and blond hair, although it merely illustrated the way the interaction between immigration and affirmative action whipsaws Americans who don't belong to the "protected classes".)

John Kerry easily carried the Coastal Megalopolis vote, Barone notes:

"Both secular top earners and immigrant low earners vote heavily Democratic.Democratic politicians like to decry what they describe as a widening economic gap in the nation. But the part of the nation where it is widening most visibly is their home turf, the place where they win their biggest margins (these metro areas voted 61% for John Kerry) and where, in exquisitely decorated Park Avenue apartments and Beverly Hills mansions with immigrant servants passing the hors d'oeuvres, they raise most of their money."

* Sixteen Interior Boomtowns, such as Las Vegas and Orlando, where housing is cheaper, so Americans are pouring in and having children. These cities voted 56 percent for George W. Bush in 2004.

My 2005 VDARE.com article Affordable Family Formation-The Neglected Key To GOP's Future explained the logic underlying the political patterns Barone has now noticed. Coastal cities have, by definition, a smaller supply of dry land for suburban expansion, so housing prices are higher. This discourages people from getting married and from having children, which means the GOP's "family values" stances strike them as irrelevant or irritating. In contrast, in inland parts of the country where it is economical to buy a house with a yard in a neighborhood with a decent public school, you'll generally find more Republicans.

Barone begins his article with this horrifying reflection on a once-great American city

"In 1950, when I was in kindergarten in Detroit, the city had a population of (rounded off) 1,850,000. Today the latest census estimate for Detroit is 886,000, less than half as many."

Now, Detroit is actually being reclaimed by the forest-an amazing phenomenon lovingly chronicled by the fascinating Detroitblog, for example here and here.

Unfortunately, by the end of piece, Barone is back to his usual optimism about how this demographic turmoil is good for the GOP as voters abandon the old Democratic cities like Detroit and San Francisco for GOP-friendly new cities like Phoenix and Dallas etc. etc.

We've analyzed the voting arguments before here at VDARE.COM. Basically, they're nonsense. The GOP is committing suicide by immigration policy and by being too timid to appeal directly to its white base-an option we have dubbed the "Sailer Strategy".

So, for a change, let's look at the quality of life question. Are the Americans who are being driven from the Coastal Megalopolises to the Interior Boomtowns better off because their old cities are filling up with immigrants who outbid them in the housing market-typically, because the foreigners don't mind living with an entire extended family under one roof?

Many conservatives these days have tried to make a virtue out of economic necessity. They insist that, say, cheap Las Vegas with its endless expanses of new suburbs, is a better place to live than, oh, expensive Boston, with its complicated coastline, parks, campuses, and restrictions on development in the name of preserving its ancient small towns.

For some people, no doubt, Sin City is better. But when did it become a betrayal of conservative values to appreciate a city such as Boston, with its nearly four centuries of tradition? Which city would Edmund Burke have preferred?

It's a remarkable achievement of Americans that they are constantly building a civilization from the dirt up out on the exurban frontier as they flee the high cost, bad schools, congestion, and crime of their old homes.

Yet, by necessity, these are thin, poorly rooted civilizations, better endowed with power malls than symphony halls. Maybe you don't care about culture. But what about weather? Coastal Megalopolises generally have milder climates than Inland Boomtowns due to the moderating effect of water. Even in Chicago, the lakefront is notably warmer in winter and cooler in summer than the inland suburbs.

America is a huge country, but the fraction of it blessed with a Mediterranean climate is comparatively miniscule. The Mediterranean zone's advantages for human habitation are not just the famous sunshine in winter, but also the absence of humidity, mosquitoes, and excessive heat in summer. It's found only in Southern California (between the beach and the mountains) and in Northern California (in the first valley inland from the foggy coast).

So why has our government chosen to turn much of this thin strip over to foreigners?

Barone's article inspires the question: Where do you want your children and grandchildren to live when they grow up? My answer is: "I want them to be able to afford to live wherever they want."

Ideally, they'll make lots of money (they sure aren't going to inherit it). But, you know, that might not happen. So I'd appreciate it if our government would help out what the Preamble to the Constitution calls "our Posterity" by protecting affordability-which means passing good immigration laws and enforcing them. Is that so much to ask?

Source



14 May, 2007

Bush pushes bipartisan immigration talks

President Bush, promoting bipartisan immigration talks as they reach a critical stage, said Saturday that Republicans and Democrats are building consensus that could produce a bill this year. "I am optimistic we can pass a comprehensive immigration bill and get this problem solved for the American people this year," Bush said in his weekly radio address. Bush used the address to put pressure on senators as they prepare to hold a vote on the contentious issue next week. Signing an overhaul into law would be viewed as a marquee domestic achievement for the president.

He has dispatched two members of his Cabinet, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, to Capitol Hill for almost daily closed-door meetings with a handful of Republicans and Democrats to cut an immigration deal. The group is eyeing a Tuesday deadline for a compromise. "These meetings have been productive. We've been addressing our differences in good faith, and we're building consensus. Both Republicans and Democrats understand that successful immigration reform must be bipartisan," Bush said.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., thanked Bush for "addressing the nation on this critical issue and emphasizing the common goals that we share. "The American people will be watching and waiting to see if the Senate can come together on immigration reform and strike the right balance between strengthening our security and our economy and enacting laws that uphold the humanity and dignity of those who come here seeking a better life," Kennedy said.

Both sides have an interest in addressing the topic, which polls show is among Americans' top concerns. It's also a top issue for Hispanic voters, a fast-growing segment of the electorate that is being hotly contested by the two parties. "The politics are pointing to action. What's difficult is that squaring the circle on the policy differences between the two parties is hard," said Frank Sharry, the executive director of the National Immigration Forum. "Politically it makes sense for the key players to get it done this year, and before the next election season kicks in," Sharry said.

Still, the negotiations have proceeded in fits and starts, with key players agreeing on broad principles but not always specifics, and both parties' core constituencies becoming increasingly nervous that their leaders will compromise too much on an emotional and highly complicated issue. Talks were to continue throughout the weekend on a possible deal that would first secure the U.S.-Mexico border and implement an elaborate high-tech identification system for immigrant workers, and only then give an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S. a chance at legal status - after paying high fines, returning home and waiting as long as 13 more years.

The proposal would also create a guest worker program for new arrivals, but it would prevent many of them from staying in the U.S. The ability of immigrants to bring their families into the country would be limited.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has set a vote for next week to bring up an alternative plan that passed the Senate last year with wide support from his party but substantial GOP opposition. Republicans have said they would block the move, arguing that the bipartisan talks should be given time to bear fruit. Without a deal by Tuesday, the stage would be set for a partisan clash over immigration when the vote occurs, expected on Wednesday.

Bush has long called for an immigration overhaul that would create a guest-worker program and allow illegal immigrants a chance at citizenship, as well as bolstering border security. He supported the 2006 measure, which died in the House amid opposition from his own party's conservatives. The potential compromise being discussed now is an effort to meld key elements of that plan, including allowing illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S. legally, with tougher provisions that could draw GOP support.

Source



America Should Exchange its "Progressives" for Mexican Immigrants

Rather tongue in cheek below but he has a point

My argument is that America should exchange "progressives" or "liberals" for Mexicans. This would resolve the immigration debate plus make America a more successful country.

I have previously blogged that "liberals" or "progressives" are disloyal to the United States and that their heated opposition to the War in Iraq coupled with their confused arguments are evidence. The reason is that in order to take a position opposed to the war, the left needs to show that an alternative strategy (no response to terrorism; an alternative kind of military response to terrorism) would be more effective in furthering the security and progress of the United States. Such an argument is conceivable but the left has not articulated one.

At the same time that "liberals" hate the United States, some Mexicans have been eager to come. Many conservatives have argued for limitations on immigration. But I think that even the most anti-immigration conservative would agree that if we could exchange Mexicans for "liberals" the nation would be better off. Therefore, I propose an exchange program.

Universities should be asked to move to Mexico. This could be done by making continued tax exemption contingent on relocation to Mexico. In addition, educators, trial attorneys, newspapers and television stations should be encouraged to move to Mexico, again, using tax incentives. In addition, New York City, Los Angeles and San Francisco could be asked to secede and to merge with Mexico City. Much as Alaska is separated from mainland America, so can New York, LA and San Francisco be separated from a nation in which their "progressive" residents can believe. This would also have the side benefit of sending Nancy Pelosi and Charles Rangel to the Mexican Congress.

In exchange for Mexican citizenship, the people of New York City, etc., and the relocated university professors, television personalities and Hollywood producers, could be replaced by equal numbers of Mexicans. In addition, all other "progressives" should be given the chance for a tax exemption if they choose to relocate to Mexico. That way, even more Mexicans can replace them. If done properly, perhaps millions of "progressives" can be relocated to Mexico, and millions of eager Mexicans can be relocated here. The George Washington Bridge would become a border crossing. Border guards on the outbound side would be careful not to allow "illegals" out of New York City.

American "progressive" traitors would be replaced by Mexican immigrants. The immigrants would be required to go to American schools, which, since the "progressive" educators will have emigrated, would teach principles on which America is based. These include freedom, tolerance, and respect for those with whom we disagree. The schools would encourage loyalty. Most importantly schools would teach reading, writing and arithmetic properly for the first time in a century. Once the "progressives" go, our math and reading scores will shoot up because incompetent education will go with them.

The result would be a large number of Americans of Mexican extraction who have replaced traitorous "liberals". Freed of "progressives", the American economy would explode. We would become fabulously wealthy. It would be like the late 19th century. New ideas would transform the world.

At the same time, with even more left wing kooks than it has now, Mexico would deteriorate rapidly. In a few generations the descendents of the new Mexican "progressives" would begin to try to return here. But the future Americans, including those descended from Mexican immigrants, would not let them. They are not fools. The "progressives" would be required to remain in Mexico. Their descendents would have the chance to eat what their "progressive" ancestors served.

Source



13 May, 2007

Bush Sets Criteria For Immigration Reform

President George Bush set five criteria he says must be met for comprehensive U.S. immigration reform to become a reality. In remarks prepared for his weekly national radio address, the Republican president said the United States must: keep trying to improve border security; hold employers accountable for the workers they hire; create a temporary worker program; resolve the status of millions of illegal immigrants already hear "without amnesty and without animosity;" and "finally, we must honor the great American tradition of the melting pot."

Bush said talks with leaders from both parties in recent weeks have been productive. "We've been addressing our differences in good faith, and we're building consensus," Bush said.

The president said the nation needs a system that "meets the legitimate needs of workers and employers" and one that "treats people with dignity and helps newcomers assimilate into our society." Bush said all of the elements must be addressed "or none of them will be solved at all."

Concerning the American "melting pot," Bush cited the need for Americans to share ideals, appreciate the country's history, "and an ability to speak and write the English language."

Source



More on immigration and Fort Dix

Post lifted from The Corner. See the original for links

It's too early to say for certain, but the Fort Dix plot begins to look as though it could have significant implications for immigration policy. VDH has commented on the link to illegal immigration, yet that's only part of the story. Although we don't yet have enough information, today's NYT story makes it seem pretty likely that the Duka family at the heart of the plot (and what the Times calls the entire "extended Duka dynasty") arrived though a process of chain migration based on the principle of "family unification." Most new legal permanent residents in the United States now enter via family unification.

Chain migration through extended family unification is a potentially huge barrier to assimilation. My recent two-part study of cousin marriage and failed Muslim assimilation in Britain is essentially the story of how the loophole of family reunification was turned by in-marrying extended Muslim clans into an immigration disaster. (See "Assimilation Studies," and "Assimilation Studies, Part II."

Today's NYT story seems to tell an at least somewhat similar story. The same pattern of immigration based on extended clan ties, and the maintenance of links with clan-dominated villages in the originating country, seems to apply. This pattern is a recipe for failed assimilation.

It's far from clear that the Duka family consolidated it's kinship and immigration links via cousin marriage. The Macedonian village of Debar, where the Duka's come from, sits by the border with Albania. My best understanding is that this is the region where Muslim cousin marriage begins to peter out. Certain Muslim enclaves in Albania practice it, while others do not. Nor do I have detailed knowledge of kinship structure in and around Debar. But it sounds like we're probably dealing with an extended clan with perhaps some consolidation through intermarriage, whether or not that includes first cousin marriage. (Alternatively, we may be looking at the practice of village endogamy.) One of the non-Duka plotters is related by marriage, and it's common for clans to extend fictive ties (a kind of honorary membership) to such alliances, and to seek to tighten the links with further intermarriage.

I am not saying that anyone in the Duka family, outside the plotters themselves, was involved here. The point is, when you bring over a vast extended clan through chain migration, and when that extended family group maintains constant ties with an originating village, it becomes vastly more difficult to assimilate. For one thing, chain migration means a constant supply of new family members who don't know English and are unfamiliar with Western ways. For another thing, you are least likely to give up traditional practices, notions of honor, etc., when you are surrounded by people who know you from your home village. In England, it's gotten to the point where marriage-based chain migration has resulted in entire Pakistani villages almost literally being picked up and transferred whole to Britain. Today's Times article paints an all to similar picture, whether cousin marriage per se was involved or not.

The problem here is not that extended-family-based immigrants entirely fail to assimilate. It's more complicated than that. These young Muslim men may at first discard or downplay Islam and seem to fit into American culture. Yet the tension between their larger and relatively unassimilated extended family, on the one hand, and American society, on the other, eventually radicalizes a small group of them.

We need much more information to draw clear conclusions from this particular case. But in principle, "family unification" is liable to be transformed by extended kinship systems into an engine of failed assimilation. Regardless of what we eventually find out about the Duka family and Debar, it would be a very good idea to drastically limit our current family unification provisions and move toward a policy of legal immigration based on individual skills and national needs.

Yuval Levin has a very smart and important article on immigration policy in the May issue of Commentary (not currently available online). Not everyone will agree with Yuval's precise immigration solution, but his discussion of the deeper problems with our legal immigration policy (like family unification) is very helpful indeed.

Based on the European case, I am even more concerned about family unification immigration than Yuval. The problem might (or might not) be less pronounced with Hispanics, but now we may have our first important indication that the European pattern of extended family chain migration among Muslims is beginning to cause serious problems in America. To me, that means we've got to cut back as far as we reasonably can on family unification-based immigration. It's also critical that we begin to gain awareness of the problem. There's a lot more at stake here than illegal immigration. Our legal immigration rules are also flawed and dangerous. Check out my Assimilation Studies series, along with Levin's piece, if you want to learn more.



12 May, 2007

Border bill on Senate's to-do list

Tighter rules for immigrants, patrol expected to pass quickly

Lawmakers, who return to work today, will tighten immigration and border patrol rules that allowed terrorists responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks to enter the country and live here virtually undetected. The Senate is expected to vote next week on a sweeping border security and immigration reform bill that passed the House in December. The measure may be among the first to pass the Senate this year, as the parties are expected to continue bickering over how best to stimulate the economy.

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said Tuesday that he hopes to bring up an economic stimulus plan today that includes unemployment benefits, rebates for low-income workers, fiscal relief for states and modest business tax breaks. But the measure may go nowhere because Republicans charge that broader corporate tax breaks are needed to have a stimulative effect. The border security bill, on the other hand, has bipartisan support and is expected to pass quickly. It would require foreigners visiting the United States to carry identification documents that contain biometric data, such as fingerprints and retina scans, by October 2003. State Department background checks on those coming from countries that sponsor terrorism would be required. And all foreign students would be tracked once they're in the country. At least one of the Sept. 11 terrorists came to the country on a student visa but never showed for classes.

The bill also would authorize collection of fees and new federal funding to hire additional immigration officers, and pay for training and salary increases for border patrol agents and Immigration and Naturalization Service inspectors. Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy said the measure would "strengthen immigration laws and increase border protections without obstructing the entry of the more than 31 million foreign nationals who legally enter the U.S. each year."

After the attacks -- in which terrorists hijacked and crashed commercial aircraft into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon -- lawmakers from both parties put aside partisan budget disagreements to draft several major anti-terrorism bills. And even though partisan bickering over the deteriorating budget situation is expected to prevent agreement on major policy changes, lawmakers expect to complete needed anti-terrorism legislation drafted last year.

The Enforced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act was drafted in late November by Kennedy, a Massachusetts liberal, and Republican Sen. Sam Brownback, a Kansas conservative. It is backed by the Bush administration and has 39 Senate co-sponsors, including Texas Republicans Phil Gramm and Kay Bailey Hutchison. The Senate was unable to finish the bill before adjourning at the end of last year because Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., put a hold on it. Democratic aides say the powerful chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee continues to block quick passage of the bill because he is angry with President Bush for killing $20 billion in homeland security money Democrats pushed late last year. Part of that money would have gone toward implementing Kennedy's bill.

Daschle has committed to bringing up the border security bill as soon as possible, his spokeswoman said Tuesday. And Kennedy's spokeswoman said he had hoped for Thursday, but doesn't expect it to come up until next week. Congressional sources said the measure should pass overwhelmingly and, if no changes are made, it could be sent directly to the president for his signature.

The package does not include an extension of the so-called 245(i) provision, which allows some undocumented foreigners to seek legal status while remaining in the country. The Senate passed an extension on Sept. 6 as a goodwill gesture to Mexican President Vicente Fox, who was visiting the United States at the time. The House was scheduled to take up the measure Sept. 11, but legislative business was suspended because of the terrorist attacks. Supporters of the measure tried to attach a 245(i) extension to the House version of the border security bill, which was sponsored by Reps. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., and John Conyers, D-Mich. But several Republicans objected, including the head of an anti-immigration task force, Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado. They threatened to prevent quick passage of the bill if the 245(i) provision was included. On Dec. 19, the House unanimously approved the border security measure, without the extension provision.

Source



The Fort Dix plot and illegal immigrants

So three of the men arrested for plotting to massacre American soldiers in New Jersey were here illegally. Here's a dumb question: Why are there any people here in this country illegally? It's possible to argue back and forth about the economic and social impact of illegal immigration into the United States. But surely there can be no argument about the undesirability of terrorism. And, since we have just been reminded yet again that illegal aliens can be terrorists, we should ask a further question: Do we really have to wait for an A-bomb to go off in a U.S. city before we get curious as to who is in our midst?

Now, of course, some might say we should target only certain groups, such as Arabs and Muslims - the Fort Dix Six are all Muslim - for special surveillance. But that would be profiling, and we can't have that! Moreover, as CBS News reported Tuesday, four of the six accused terrorists are from the former Yugoslavia, a European country. So here's a better idea: Let's simply recognize that the most dangerous elements in our society, by definition, are those who are illegal and unknown. Those unknown illegal immigrants might be honest and hard-working busboys. But they also could be mass murderers: The point is we don't know.

Coincidentally, on Tuesday night's broadcast, CBS went from news about catching terrorists before they strike to news about tracking floods before they rise. According to correspondent Nancy Cordes, the National Weather Service, reacting to the big floods of 1993 that killed dozens, has established a high-tech early-warning system. And it seems to be working: Federal meteorologist Dennis Feltgen displayed computer projections, illustrated by color-coded maps, identifying floods along the banks of the Missouri River. In other words, Uncle Sam seems to be doing pretty well at monitoring water levels - better than he is at monitoring possible terrorist cells.

Note to presidential candidates in both parties: There are votes, lots of them, to be gained by the candidate who presents himself or herself as being tough on homeland security. From securing our borders to ascertaining the legal status of everyone who abides within our borders, the American voters will reward the White House hopeful who offers them what they want - safety. (And if the next president were actually to deliver on that promise, that would be a great argument for re-election.)

But, in the meantime, we might pause to consider further the ethno-religious origins of these six accused terrorists. As noted, four of them are Albanian Muslims, from the former Yugoslavia. That country has now been broken into seven countries, plus the semi-country of Kosovo. Americans will remember Kosovo as the place we tried to help; back in 1999, President Bill Clinton used military force to stop the Serbs from slaughtering and oppressing the locals, who were mostly Albanian Muslims. Americans were told, at the time, that our actions were earning us gratitude from Muslims around the world. Well, maybe yes, maybe no. But we sure don't seem to have earned much gratitude from the Albanians and Muslims who allegedly plotted to kill Americans at Fort Dix.

Now the question of still more Muslims coming to America from radicalizing war zones is coming up again as Iraq continues to boil. The United States has officially admitted 68 Iraqis for resettlement in the last seven months, but thousands more are in the legal pipeline. And what about the illegal pipeline? Tragically, millions of Iraqis have been displaced from their homeland. Where do many of them wish to end up - legally or illegally? Will some come here, wanting to carry on jihad of some kind? Might some be agents of, say, Iran? The point is, if we don't know who's here - and what ideas and equipment they might have brought with them - we can't begin to defend ourselves.

Source



11 May, 2007

Bill would let homosexual partners be sponsored for immigration

A measure introduced in the House and Senate would allow citizens and legal residents to sponsor their same-sex partners for immigration to the United States, as married couples can now do. Presently, same-sex couples cannot do this. "The current law works gratuitous cruelty by keeping lovers apart," said the bill's House sponsor, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat.

The Uniting American Families Act, introduced May 8, would add "permanent partner" to the list of relations eligible for sponsorship in the current law. The companion measure was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat. Leahy chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will likely hear the bill there. The immigration subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee will also take it up.

The measure defines "permanent partner" as a person age 18 or older, who can prove a domestic partner relationship and is unable to marry their partner because they are the same sex. The bill will also make same-sex couples eligible for the same waiver that married couples get if the immigrating partner is HIV-positive. HIV-positive people are now prohibited from obtaining permanent residency status.

Nadler had a similar bill in the House last session, which did not move under Republican control of Congress. He said that having the Democrats in charge means that the bill will get hearings and a vote. He is not certain, however, that the measure would pass.

The White House did not respond to queries about President Bush's intention should the legislation get to him. "We assume he will veto it," Nadler said. "Just having the hearing means there will be greater dialogue on the issue," he added. "Every year the sentiment gets better" for LGBT equality, Nadler said. "Obviously, there will be rhetoric against it," he noted. "They will say it is a back door for gay marriage." "This is about ending discrimination, not marriage," Nadler said, acknowledging that some in the religious right will never accept that, regardless of what the facts are.

According to Nineteen other countries, including Israel, Canada, South Africa and Germany already have laws like this, said Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese. "The fundamental principle of immigration is the family unit," Solmonese said, "but the U.S. discriminates even if the couples are married or in civil unions in other countries." Present federal law does not recognize same-sex couples as families.

According to Immigration Equality, which lobbies for for LGBT people and people with HIV, there are approximately 40,000 same-sex couples threatened by the inability to sponsor partners for immigration, according to the latest Census figures. Of those, 45 percent are raising children, and a significant number are caring for elderly parents. The average age of the partners is 38.

Source



Churches begin providing sanctuary to illegal immigrants

LOS ANGELES -- Churches gave sanctuary Wednesday to two men from Mexico and Guatemala to protect them from deportation and launch a nationwide effort to pressure lawmakers to create a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. More than 30 priests, pastors, imams and rabbis blessed the men during a raucous ceremony attended by 300 people at Our Lady Queen of Angels Catholic Church in downtown Los Angeles. "We are here to raise our voices for those who can't raise their own," said Pastor Cesar Arroyo of San Pablo's Lutheran Church in North Hollywood, which will house the man from Guatemala.

Each of the immigrants had two children in tow as they sat in front of the altar. The Guatemalan, a gardener who only gave his first name as Juan, said he worried about what might happen to his young daughters if he was deported. Both girls are U.S. citizens because they were born in this country. "I want to ask the politicians to see the suffering of the immigrant families," he said.

The 44-year-old Mexican, who only gave his first name as Jose, will live at the downtown church. He sat next to his two teenage sons who dressed in the latest American fashion and spoke more English than Spanish. They are also U.S. citizens. Jose said he had been in the country 17 years, working as a cook at Los Angeles International Airport until he was injured and his immigration status was revealed. After the ceremony, he went to his room in the church, which has a single bed, sink and toaster oven. "I'm going to stay here until this is resolved," he said, referring to his deportation order.

Organizers don't believe immigration agents will make arrests inside the churches. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has not tried to arrest Elvira Arellano, an illegal immigrant who has taken shelter at a Methodist church in Chicago since August. ICE spokeswoman Virginia Kice declined to say if agents would attempt to arrest others who take sanctuary in churches, but said agents have "the authority to arrest those who are in violation of our immigration laws anywhere in the United States."

Participating faith groups in San Diego, Seattle, Chicago and New York won't initially house illegal immigrants. Instead, leaders will provide legal council, accompany people to court hearings and prepare plans to house them in churches if authorities try to deport them. Organizers said churches in more than 50 cities nationwide were planning to join the sanctuary effort.

Anti-illegal immigration groups called it misguided. The faith groups "don't seem to realize that they are being charitable with someone else's resources, and that's not charity," said Ira Mehlman of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors limits on immigration. "We are talking about illegal immigrants taking someone else's job, filling up the classroom of someone else's child," he said.

In New York, religious leaders gathered at the Roman Catholic Church of St. Paul the Apostle and said their promise of sanctuary included financial assistance, legal help and physical protection, if necessary. "For us, sanctuary is an act of radical hospitality, the welcoming of the stranger who is like ourselves, the stranger in our midst, our neighbors, our friends," said Rabbi Michael Feinberg of the Greater New York Labor-Religion Coalition.

Two families facing deportation stood with the religious leaders. Jani, a U.S. citizen who did not give her last name, said her Haitian-born husband Jean is facing deportation because of a 1989 drug conviction in the U.S. that put him in prison for 11 years. She said the family would take refuge in a church, if necessary, rather than be separated.

The "New Sanctuary Movement" is loosely based on the sanctuary movement in the 1980s, when churches harbored Central American refugees fleeing wars in their home countries. Several activists in a handful of states were arrested, often while transporting illegal immigrants from one place to another.

The plans come as immigration reform legislation has been stalled since last summer, and tens of thousands of an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants have been detained and deported in stepped up raids in recent months.

The churches sought immigrants who wanted to take part and were screened to make sure they paid taxes and didn't have criminal backgrounds, said Rev. Alexia Salvatierra, executive director of Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice, an interfaith association spearheading the national plans. They chose the Haitian man because "his crime was 20 years ago and since then he has totally reformed his life," she said.

Source



10 May, 2007

Agitators get what they aimed for

In a deliberately provoked riot situation, police cannot be expected to behave as judiciously as if they were in a court of law. So Leftists use that in an attempt to get the police to go easy on future street takeovers by thugs



A senior policeman in Los Angeles has been demoted and his deputy and about 60 other officers have been reassigned after an inquiry into May Day clashes. Last week protesters and journalists were injured when police fired some 140 rubber bullets to break up the crowd. The rally had been peaceful until the clashes, which the police department said were prompted by agitators throwing rocks and bottles at officers. But TV footage showed a police officer pushing people who were walking away.

Widespread outrage over the pictures of the incident prompted the city's mayor to cut short an overseas visit and return to the city. News footage showed a police officer pushing a TV camerawoman to the ground and shoving people who were walking away from the officers. Officials have denied the police deliberately targeted immigrants or civil rights activists.

But police chief William Bratton has acknowledged that an order for protesters to disperse may not have been understood because it was issued in English when most of those attending the rally spoke only Spanish.

Nonetheless, the highest-ranking officer at the scene of the rally has been demoted and placed on house leave pending the outcome of an internal inquiry. His second-in-charge, a veteran of almost 40 years on the force, has been demoted and about 60 highly-trained riot control officers who were involved in the clashes have been reassigned.

Source



Secret Deals And Trial Balloons

Post lifted from Blue Crab -- which see for links

Selective leaks about details of a secret agreement being hammered out between Republicans and Democrats of Capitol Hill are being floated as trial balloons. The first headline about the secret negotiations appear to be heading in a direction I predicted last year: first secure the border, then a lot of other things become possible. But hardliners - from the left - appear to be getting help from Harry Reid to derail any potential deal.

"WASHINGTON - The Bush administration and key senators are struggling to agree on draft legislation to secure the U.S.-Mexico border before putting millions of illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship that could take 13 years. Even then, immigrants would have to leave the country and pay large fines before gaining legal status.

Officials familiar with the discussions say that despite concessions by both Republicans and Democrats, a final agreement may not come before the Senate opens debate on the issue next week - if at all.

Still, the outlines of a possible deal have taken shape in almost daily secret talks attended by two members of President Bush's Cabinet. As contemplated, the proposal would bar undocumented immigrants from gaining legal status until the administration beefs up border security and implements a high-tech identification system for temporary workers. The same trigger would apply to new immigrants seeking temporary visas as guest workers. Such measures are expected to take up to two years.

Even after that, officials said it could take more than a decade before the 12 million men, women and children estimated to be in the U.S. illegally could get permanent legal status, or green cards. First the government would clear an existing legal immigration backlog, a task estimated to take eight years. Then the government would begin processing green cards for the 12 million here illegally, expected to take another five years.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, has been leading negotiations with Republican senators and White House officials in hopes of cutting a bipartisan deal on the issue before the Senate wades into an explosive immigration debate. But some Democrats are hesitant to embrace conditions they successfully opposed when the Senate debated the issue last year.

To jump-start debate, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he will move Wednesday to bring up a measure from 2006 - either a Senate-passed bill or one approved by the Judiciary Committee. Both are regarded as much more liberal than the one being forged in the current round of bipartisan talks.

Open border activist elements of the left stand a fair chance of completely scuttling any chance for an agreement by getting Reid to force the issue before a draft can be hammered out. And so the citizens of this country will have to put up with more illegal immigrants with potentially lethal intentions getting past a wide-open border. Reid's tenure in the leadership of the Senate will not be remembered fondly by the Democrats in the very near future. The vast majority of voters in this country want the borders secured before anything else is even discussed. Even the NPR poll released today states quite clearly where the voter's sentiment's are. By pandering even further to the far left, Reid is running the Democrats up onto the rocks.

But immigration is also a difficult issue for the Democratic leadership in Congress. Like the president, the business community and their Hispanic constituents, Democrats favor an earned path to legalization.

But that's not where most voters stand. When given a choice, 57 percent of poll respondents favored requiring illegal immigrants to re-enter the country legally; only 39 percent favored a path to citizenship. Those numbers included a majority of both Democrats and independents.

Reid's continued push to the left will bite the Democrats in 2008. By all means, carry on.



9 May, 2007

U.S. immigration charges against anti-Castro militant dropped

A U.S. judge threw out all charges against anti-Castro Cuban militant Luis Posada Carriles on Tuesday, less than a week before he was supposed to go to trial. Department of Justice spokesman Dean Boyd said U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone in El Paso, Texas, dismissed the seven-count indictment accusing Posada Carriles, 79, of immigration fraud. Boyd said he did not know yet whether federal prosecutors would appeal the ruling. "We're reviewing the decision," he said.

Cardone allowed Posada Carriles to leave jail last month on bail totaling $350,000. He has been in Miami, living with his wife and awaiting trial. Defense attorney Felipe Millan said Cardone ruled that statements by Posada Carriles that were to be used against him in the trial starting on Monday had been obtained unconstitutionally. His lawyers had sought last week to have the statements excluded from the trial on grounds that U.S. officials had entrapped him by not telling him that what he thought was an immigration interview was actually a criminal interrogation. "They tricked him," Millan said.

Posada Carriles, a former CIA operative, has a long history of violent opposition to Cuban leader Fidel Castro. He is considered a terrorist in Cuba and Venezuela, where he is accused of masterminding the 1976 bombing of a Cuban airliner. He lived in Venezuela at the time of the bombing, which killed 73 people, and is a naturalized citizen there.

Cuba and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez have criticized Washington for having a double standard in its war on terror, saying Posada Carriles was being treated with kid gloves because of his CIA past. They say he should be charged with terrorism and murder, not immigration crimes. "Trying him for minor immigration infractions was a travesty of justice and was designed to fool people into believing the government was serious about prosecuting this man," said Jose Pertierra, a Washington-based lawyer representing the Venezuelan government, which has requested Posada Carriles' extradition. "I think the correct way to go here is to prosecute him for murder and terrorism. Whether the government will actually do it, you'll have to ask them," Pertierra said.

Posada Carriles had been in U.S. custody since May 2005 after he entered the country illegally and sought asylum. In January, he was indicted on seven immigration fraud charges accusing of lying to immigration authorities and faced up to 40 years in prison if convicted.

Millan said Posada Carriles left the courthouse a free man on Tuesday and was headed back to Miami. "He is elated," said another of his attorneys, Arturo Hernandez, in Miami. "He is very gratified that the system has worked." Posada Carriles was jailed in Panama for plotting to kill Castro during an Ibero-American summit in 2000, but was pardoned by outgoing President Mireya Moscoso in 2004. Cuba also accuses him of masterminding bomb blasts in Havana hotels in 1997 that killed an Italian tourist.

Source



Internal migration within the USA

The native-born are leaving "hip" (immigrant-filled) cities for the heartland



In 1950, when I was in kindergarten in Detroit, the city had a population of (rounded off) 1,850,000. Today the latest census estimate for Detroit is 886,000, less than half as many. In 1950, the population of the U.S. was 150 million. Today the latest census estimate for the nation is 301 million, more than twice as many. People in America move around. But not just randomly.

It has become a commonplace to say that population has been flowing from the Snow Belt to the Sun Belt, from an industrially ailing East and Midwest to an economically vibrant West and South. But the actual picture of recent growth, as measured by the 2000 Census and the census estimates for 2006, is more complicated. Recently I looked at the census estimates for 50 metropolitan areas with more than one million people in 2006, where 54% of Americans live. (I cheated a bit on definitions, adding Durham to Raleigh and combining San Francisco and San Jose.) What I found is that you can separate them into four different categories, with different degrees and different sources of population growth or decline. And I found some interesting surprises.

Start with the Coastal Megalopolises: New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Chicago (on the coast of Lake Michigan), Miami, Washington and Boston. Here is a pattern you don't find in other big cities: Americans moving out and immigrants moving in, in very large numbers, with low overall population growth. Los Angeles, defined by the Census Bureau as Los Angeles and Orange Counties, had a domestic outflow of 6% of 2000 population in six years--balanced by an immigrant inflow of 6%. The numbers are the same for these eight metro areas as a whole.

There are some variations. New York had a domestic outflow of 8% and an immigrant inflow of 6%; San Francisco a whopping domestic outflow of 10% (the bursting of the tech bubble hurt) and an immigrant inflow of 7%. Miami and Washington had domestic outflows of only 2%, overshadowed by immigrant inflows of 8% and 5%, respectively.

This is something few would have predicted 20 years ago. Americans are now moving out of, not into, coastal California and South Florida, and in very large numbers they're moving out of our largest metro areas. They're fleeing hip Boston and San Francisco, and after eight decades of moving to Washington they're moving out. The domestic outflow from these metro areas is 3.9 million people, 650,000 a year. High housing costs, high taxes, a distaste in some cases for the burgeoning immigrant populations--these are driving many Americans elsewhere.

The result is that these Coastal Megalopolises are increasingly a two-tiered society, with large affluent populations happily contemplating (at least until recently) their rapidly rising housing values, and a large, mostly immigrant working class working at low wages and struggling to move up the economic ladder. The economic divide in New York and Los Angeles is starting to look like the economic divide in Mexico City and Sao Paulo.

Democratic politicians like to decry what they describe as a widening economic gap in the nation. But the part of the nation where it is widening most visibly is their home turf, the place where they win their biggest margins (these metro areas voted 61% for John Kerry) and where, in exquisitely decorated Park Avenue apartments and Beverly Hills mansions with immigrant servants passing the hors d'oeuvres, they raise most of their money.

The bad news for them is that the Coastal Megalopolises grew only 4% in 2000-06, while the nation grew 6%. Coastal Megalopolitan states--New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois--are projected to lose five House seats in the 2010 Census, while California, which has gained seats in every census since it was admitted to the Union in 1850, is projected to pick up none.

You see an entirely different picture in the 16 metro areas I call the Interior Boomtowns (none touches the Atlantic or Pacific coasts). Their population has grown 18% in six years. They've had considerable immigrant inflow, 4%, but with the exceptions of Dallas and Houston, this immigrant inflow has been dwarfed by a much larger domestic inflow--three million to 1.5 million overall.

Domestic inflow has been a whopping 19% in Las Vegas, 15% in the Inland Empire (California's Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, where much of the outflow from Los Angeles has gone), 13% in Orlando and Charlotte, 12% in Phoenix, 10% in Tampa, 9% in Jacksonville. Domestic inflow was over 200,000 in the Inland Empire, Phoenix, Atlanta, Las Vegas and Orlando. These are economic dynamos that are driving much of America's growth. There's much less economic polarization here than in the Coastal Megalopolises, and a higher percentage of traditional families: Natural increase (the excess of births over deaths) in the Interior Boomtowns is 6%, well above the 4% in the Coastal Megalopolises.

The nation's center of gravity is shifting: Dallas is now larger than San Francisco, Houston is now larger than Detroit, Atlanta is now larger than Boston, Charlotte is now larger than Milwaukee. State capitals that were just medium-sized cities dominated by government employees in the 1950s--Sacramento, Austin, Raleigh, Nashville, Richmond--are now booming centers of high-tech and other growing private-sector businesses. San Antonio has more domestic than immigrant inflow even though the border is only three hours' drive away. The Interior Boomtowns generated 38% of the nation's population growth in 2000-06.

This is another political world from the Coastal Megalopolises: the Interior Boomtowns voted 56% for George W. Bush in 2004. Texas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia and Nevada--states dominated by Interior Boomtowns--are projected to pick up 10 House seats in the 2010 Census.

What about the old Rust Belt, which suffered so in the 1980s? The six metro areas here--Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Buffalo, Rochester--have lost population since 2000. Their domestic outflow of 4% has been only partially offset by an immigrant inflow of 1%. If the outflow seems smaller than in the 1980s, it's because so many young people have already left. Natural increase is only 2%, lower than in Orlando or Jacksonville in supposedly elderly Florida. Their economies are ailing, more of a drag on, than an engine for, the nation. They're not the source of dynamism they were 80 or 100 years ago. They continue to vote Democratic, but their 54% for John Kerry was much lower than the Coastal Megalopolis's 61%. Their states are projected to lose six House seats in the 2010 Census.

The fourth category is what I call the Static Cities. These are 18 metropolitan areas with immigrant inflow between zero and 4%, with domestic inflow up to 3% and domestic outflow no higher than 1%. They seem to be holding their own economically, but are not surging ahead and some are in danger of falling back. Philadelphia makes the list, and so do Baltimore, Hartford and Providence in the East.

Surprisingly, some Western cities that boomed in the 1990s are in this category too: Seattle (the tech bust again), Denver, Portland. In the Midwest, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Columbus and Indianapolis are doing better than their Rust Belt neighbors and make the list. In the South, Norfolk, Memphis, Louisville, Oklahoma City and Birmingham are lagging enough behind the Interior Boomtowns to do so. Overall the Static Cities had a domestic inflow of just 18,000 people (.048%) and an immigrant inflow of 2%. Politically, they're a mixed bag, a bit more Democratic than the nation as a whole: 52% for Kerry, 47% for Bush.

I have left two atypical metro areas out, because they stand alone. One is New Orleans, with a 25% domestic outflow; it was already losing population and attracting almost no immigrants before Katrina. The other is Salt Lake City, which demographically looks a lot like the America of the 1950s. In 2000-2006 its population grew a robust 10%. But it had a domestic outflow of 4% (young Mormons going off on their missions?), balanced by an immigrant inflow of 4%. The chief driver of population growth there is kids: Salt Lake City's natural increase was 9%, the largest of any of our metro areas, hugely greater than San Francisco's 3% or Pittsburgh's minus 1%. Politically, New Orleans was split down the middle in 2004, with Bush leading 50% to 49%, while Salt Lake City, the least Republican part of Utah, was still 60% for Bush.

What of the rest of the nation? You can find a few smaller metro areas that look like the Coastal Megalopolises (Santa Barbara, university towns like Iowa City), many that resemble the Interior Boomtowns (Fort Myers, Tucson) and the Rust Belt (Canton, Muncie). You can find rural counties that are losing population (as are most counties in North Dakota) and, even amid them, towns that have solid growth (Fargo, Bismarck).

But overall the nation beyond these 49 metro areas looks like the Static Cities: 1% domestic inflow, 1% immigrant inflow, 4% population growth. But politically it is more Republican, taking in as it does large swathes of the South, Great Plains and Rocky Mountains, and in line with the historical record of non-metropolitan areas being less Democratic than metro areas: 56% for Bush, 42% for Kerry.

Twenty years ago political analysts grasped the implications of the vast movement from Rust Belt to Sun Belt, a tilting of the table on balance toward Republicans; but with California leaning heavily to Democrats, that paradigm seems obsolete. What's now in store is a shifting of political weight from a small Rust Belt which leans Democratic and from the much larger Coastal Megalopolises, where both secular top earners and immigrant low earners vote heavily Democratic, toward the Interior Megalopolises, where most voters are private-sector religious Republicans but where significant immigrant populations lean to the Democrats. House seats and electoral votes will shift from New York, New Jersey and Illinois to Texas, Florida, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada; within California, House seats will shift from the Democratic coast to the Republican Inland Empire and Central Valley.

Demography is destiny. When I was in kindergarten in 1950, Detroit was the nation's fifth largest metro area, with 3,170,000 people. Now it ranks 11th and is soon to be overtaken by Phoenix, which had 331,000 people in 1950. In the close 1960 election, in which electoral votes were based on the 1950 Census, Michigan cast 20 votes for John Kennedy and Arizona cast four votes for Richard Nixon; New York cast 45 votes for Kennedy and Florida cast 10 votes for Nixon. In 2012, Michigan will likely have 16 electoral votes and Arizona 12; New York will have 29 votes and Florida 29. That's the kind of political change demographics makes over the years.

Source



8 May, 2007

Arrogant demands damage immigration marchers' cause

By Ruben Navarette

LAST week's immigration marches in several of the country's largest cities were actually helpful. They showed that - despite the nativist sound bites on the far right - the answer to our immigration woes is no more likely to come from the radical left.....

Trouble is, the marchers seem no more willing to accept their share of responsibility either. Most of the comments I heard and read last week from the participants were arrogant, outrageous, presumptuous and reflected badly on the entire legalization movement. And I say that as someone who has come around to the view that immigration reform must include a path to legal status for illegal immigrants. For many of the marchers, that path should be a carefree stroll in the park. If I had my way, it would be more like boot camp.

Look, these people made a choice. They broke the rules and came to the United States illegally. Now they have to pay for it by making restitution and making an effort to become part of the American fabric. That's why I like the outline of the immigration reform plan being pounded out by the White House and GOP senators, as well as the immigration bill proposed by Reps. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill. And it's why I've been a fan of the Hutchison-Pence plan, which was proposed last year by Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas. All of these proposals include a path of legalization, but with lots of conditions. Illegal immigrants have to pay fines, or learn English, or even return home for a short time. The message is clear: "You want the right to live in the United States legally? Fine. Earn it. Nothing valuable comes easy, and the right to live legally in the greatest country on Earth is of tremendous value."

No dice, said some of the marchers. One man in Los Angeles told television reporters that he demanded a "general amnesty without conditions just like in 1986." And forget that business about requiring people to leave the country and reapply to enter legally. No way was he going to do that, he said. What a jerk. Here he is getting a gift and he wants it wrapped with a bow. Heaven forbid, he'd have to lift a finger.

Another man, also in Los Angeles, acknowledged that he was here illegally and explained his demands this way: "We want legal status so we can have the same rights as other people do." There is his mistake. It's likely that the "other people" he is talking about are either permanent residents or U.S. citizens. If he wants the rights they have, let him go through the steps on his own to obtain either status. Then he can have rights galore, but with responsibilities the way "other people do."

Then there is the old standby, those signs with the slogan: "No human being is illegal." OK. But human beings do, on occasion, commit acts that are illegal, and, when they do, they have to pay for those mistakes. And step one is admitting they made them. Many of the more vocal illegal immigrants don't even want to do that much. Maybe they're embarrassed for having broken the law, and so they prefer to think about everything they've done right since they got here - raising good kids, starting businesses, paying taxes.

Aside from the nativists and the media charlatans, a lot of Americans accept that illegal immigrants have made a contribution. Why else would more than three-fourths of respondents to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll say that illegal immigrants ought to have a path to legal status? This is close to being a done deal. But to seal it, illegal immigrants and those who presume to speak for them are going to have to get real and express a willingness to get right with the law. They need to accommodate America instead of demanding that America accommodate them.

Source



President Bush Celebrates Cinco de Mayo, Discusses Immigration



Transcript below of President Bush's speech (from the White House site). Speech given in the White House rose garden. Cinco de Mayo is a minor Mexican holiday that has assumed special significance for Mexicans in the USA. It translates as "Fifth of May". Cuatro de Mayo means "Fourth of May"

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Please be seated. Sientese. Bienvenidos. Thank you for coming. Welcome to El Jardin de las Rosas. It's a great place to celebrate Cinco de Mayo. As a matter of fact, I've been looking forward to celebrating this so much that we decided to have our own Cuatro de Mayo. (Laughter.)

Thanks for coming. Welcome. I'm honored to celebrate this important holiday with you all. On Cinco de Mayo, we remember our close friendship with Mexico, and we honor and remember the many contributions Mexican Americans have made to our nation.

I'm sorry Laura couldn't be here. She's coming back from having camped out in a national park with high school classmates. I'm honored to be here with the Attorney General of the United States, mi amigo, Alberto Gonzales. (Applause.) Y tambien, the Secretary of Commerce, Carlos Gutierrez. (Applause.) Y su esposa, Edi. (Applause.) I'm glad to be here with Dr. Emilio Gonzalez, Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and Gloria. (Applause.) I appreciate my friend Emilio Estefan for arranging this entertainment here in the Rose Garden. I welcome the Ambassador to Mexico, Arturo. Bienvenidos. I'm glad you're here. Thanks for coming. (Applause.)

As you can see, I'm standing up here with a mariachi band, initially from Monterrey, Mexico -- Los Hermanos Mora Arriaga. Welcome. (Applause.) Brothers and sisters -- I think you told me you had 13 brothers and -- 15 brothers and sisters. (Laughter.) We believe in family values. (Laughter.)

I want to thank those who wear the uniform of the United States. Thank you for serving. (Applause.)

Cinco de Mayo celebrates a great Mexican victory at the battle of Puebla. On May 5, 1862, an outnumbered band of Mexican soldiers held their ground against a professional European army. They triumphed against overwhelming odds. The victory inspired Mexican patriots in their heroic fight for liberty, and for democracy. Cinco de Mayo is a joyful day in Mexican history, and it's an important milestone in the history of freedom.

The people of the United States are proud to celebrate Cinco de Mayo with our Mexican neighbors. Our two countries continue to stand for the principles that the Mexico army defended at Puebla. We believe that democracy represents the true will of people. We believe that freedom is God's gift to every man, woman and child on the face of this Earth. (Applause.)

We believe that both our nations have a responsibility to share the blessings of liberty. The United States and Mexico are bound by strong family ties. Mexican Americans have enriched our culture by sharing their musical and artistic talents. They've strengthened our economy by opening new businesses and expanding trade. And they have made our nation more hopeful by leading lives of faith and family.

Mexican Americans have also defended the United States by wearing our nation's uniform. Today, Mexican Americans in uniform answered the call to advance the cause of liberty, and this nation is really grateful for your service and your sacrifice. (Applause.)

The patriotism of Mexican Americans reminds us that one of our greatest strengths is the character and diversity of our nation's immigrants. Immigration has made our land a great melting pot of talent and ideas. It has made America a beacon of hope for people in search of a better life.

In Washington, we're now in the midst of an important discussion about immigration. Our current immigration system is in need of reform. It is not working. We need a system where our laws are respected. We need a system that meets the needs of our economy. And we need a system that treats people with dignity and helps newcomers assimilate into our society. (Applause.)

We must address all elements of this problem together, or none of them will be solved at all. We must do it in a way that learns from the mistakes that caused previous reforms to fail. I support comprehensive immigration reform that will allow us to secure our borders and enforce our laws, to keep us competitive in the global economy, and to resolve the status of those already here, without amnesty and without animosity.

Comprehensive immigration reform is a vital goal for our nation, and it is a matter of deep conviction for me. I will continue to work closely with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to build a consensus for reform, so Congress can pass, and I can sign, a comprehensive immigration bill into law este a o. (Applause.)

The United States and Mexico share a great border, and we share a hopeful future. Tomorrow, people on both sides of that border will celebrate freedom and the courage of all who defend it. I wish you a happy Cinco de Mayo. Que Dios los bendiga a las Estados Unidos y tambien Mexico. (Applause.)

And now, Los Hermanos Mora Arriaga. (Applause.)

Source



7 May, 2007

Small city threatened with legal costs

ACLU attacks proposed immigrant controls

Hours before the Green Bay's Advisory Committee's meeting Thursday on an immigration initiative, opponents - notably the American Civil Liberties Union and Green Bay Catholic Diocesan Bishop David Zubik - released public statements condemning the plan. The committee Thursday night discussed City Council President Chad Fradette's proposal to tie city licensing to enforcing federal immigration law. Fradette wants to require all licensees to swear they are legal residents of the U.S. and that they won't hire anyone who isn't a legal resident. The committee made no decision on the plan, which relates to about 30 different kinds of licenses, ranging from bartender to brush-cutter licenses, issued by city employees or council committees. The committee will take up the issue at its next meeting in a couple of weeks.

Christopher Ahmuty, executive director of the state ACLU, sent a letter to Mayor Jim Schmitt, city attorney Jerry Hanson and members of the City Council, opposing the proposal and hinting at the likelihood of lawsuits.

In his letter, Ahmuty indicates that communities that have tried similar initiatives have faced lawsuits by the ACLU and other organizations. One community, Escondido, Calif., had to pay $90,000 in court costs and attorneys fees to the ACLU in a case that settled within weeks after being filed, Ahmuty said.

He also said such an initiative would create liabilities for Green Bay employers and lead to discrimination against Green Bay workers based on whether they looked or sounded "foreign." Employers trying to comply with the requirement could be sued or subjected to fines and other penalties under the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act, Ahmuty said.

Similar arguments were raised by Ricardo Meza, Midwest regional counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, which also contacted Green Bay leaders to protest the plan.

Zubik, meanwhile, urged political leaders to vote against any such initiative.

"I believe that we need to open our community to those persons seeking an improved economic status for themselves and their families," he wrote. "We need to do so with compassion and understanding."

Although the Catholic Church does not oppose immigration restrictions for purposes of national security or preservation of needed resources, "the vast majority of immigrants are not a threat to our security," Zubik wrote.

"Rather, they are good people, sensitive people who are trying to make a better life for themselves and for their families. It's the same thing that you want for your own families."

Immigrants need work as a way to get out of poverty and as a path to citizenship, Zubik said.

"While it is paramount that we respect the laws of the land, it is equally imperative that we make laws that reflect compassion for the most vulnerable among us," he wrote. "As we assess whether our local ordinances should punish those who hire undocumented immigrants, we should ask: Do the conditions in Northeastern Wisconsin truly require us to take on what is currently a federal responsibility?"

Source



Anti-Chinese law

An interesting parallel with Australia. Under labor union influence, Australia enacted the "White Australia policy" in 1901 with the main aim of keeping the Chinese out -- and repealed the policy in 1966 under a conservative administration

Chinese-Americans in San Francisco are remembering a law signed 125 years ago today that affected generations of Chinese immigrants. The Chinese Exclusion Act barred the Chinese from entering the United States or becoming citizens if they were here already. Some immigrants managed to settle in the United States through a few of the act's loopholes. But their descendants say it forced many Chinese-Americans to perpetuate secrets and lies well into the 20th century. Congress repealed the act in 1943, but Chinese immigration wasn't allowed again until 1965. San Francisco's Chinese Historical Society of America is hosting events throughout the month to remember the act and its profound effects.

Source



6 May, 2007

Democratic divisions on immigration reform.

Let's imagine that over the coming weeks Republicans defy gravity and get behind comprehensive immigration reform. Let's assume it then falls to the new Democratic majority to close a deal. And let's consider the fortunes of Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez. Mr. Gutierrez is the eight-term Democrat who has evolved from bomb-thrower to statesman on the immigration front. Somewhere amid all the shouting over amnesty and fences, the liberal Mr. Gutierrez realized that most of his Latino and immigrant constituents just wanted results. In March he teamed up with his ideological opposite, Arizona Republican Jeff Flake, to introduce a comprehensive reform that provides both border security and a citizenship path for 11 million undocumented immigrants.

This was brave, and Mr. Gutierrez quickly discovered what happens to brave politicians. "We expected much better from Congressman Luis Gutierrez," spat Nativo Lopez, president of the Mexican American Political Association, and the Al Sharpton of California. Mr. Lopez detailed his "repulsion" to the legislation and declared it a "major sell-out . . . of our community." He's been joined by other radical Latino groups--as well as social-justice and union outfits--in voicing opposition to pretty much anything less than full and immediate amnesty for all current, and future, immigrants.

It's accepted wisdom that the fate of immigration overhaul hangs on the Republican Party. Given how many years the GOP ruled, how little it accomplished on immigration, and how openly it aired its disputes over the issue, that's understandable. It's also true that if Senate Republicans, led by Arizona's Jon Kyl, fail in coming weeks to move toward the center on issues of legalization and a guest worker program, the immigration debate will be dead in the agua.

Yet this GOP-focus has tidily masked thorny Democratic divisions on immigration. Left-wing minority groups and blue-collar unions are already working to peel away Democratic votes for any "bipartisan" immigration reform. The new majority wants to keep the focus on Republicans, but the reality is that any final deal could come down to whether Democrats are able to keep their own party on board with reform.

Chipping away from one side are extreme Latino and social-justice groups--of the type currently targeting Mr. Gutierrez--who want an immigration free-for-all. Folks like Mr. Lopez (nicknamed "Negativo Lopez" by detractors), remain opposed to a legalization process that would require immigrants to "touchback" in their country, to go to the end of the waiting line, or to pay penalties. This crowd argues that a guest-worker program is little more than indentured servitude, and want even less border enforcement.

Call these folks the loony left, divorced from political reality, but don't think for a moment they are lacking an audience in today's Democratic Party. They are also organized. In March dozens of these groups--the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, to name a few--released the "Unity Blueprint for Immigration Reform," outlining their demands. Expect them to target far-left congressional liberals, arguing that a vote for any of today's bipartisan reform proposals is a license to allow corporate America to "abuse" and "degrade" immigrants. And expect them to make some headway.

Chipping away from the other side are anti-immigrant unions. Not that all unions are anti-immigrant, mind you. Some, such as Andy Stern's Service Employees International Union and UNITE-HERE have in fact been valiantly working to get a bipartisan immigration compromise done. This is part leadership, part pragmatism. Mr. Stern in 2005 led a high-profile breakaway of seven unions from the AFL-CIO, with a promise to focus more on recruitment. Many of those breakaways represent growing industries and already boast significant immigrant memberships. Their bosses rightly see any immigrant path to permanent citizenship as the potential for many more dues-paying members.

But they face blowback from the AFL-CIO, rooted in old-line manufacturing, and representing a largely native-born population that feels threatened by job-seeking immigrants. Chief John Sweeney is too politically astute to take a blatant anti-immigrant line, so his clever strategy has instead been to make common cause with the aforementioned liberal groups and demand sweeping new immigration rights. Mr. Sweeney, an old Washington hand, knows this is a political nonstarter. But it gives him cover to shoot down any workable immigration compromise, which has been his goal all along. Behind the scenes, the AFL-CIO is likely to be more honest about its fears; it will target manufacturing-state members and those in the Congressional Black Caucus, arguing that more immigrants will displace blue-collar and black workers.

Finally, no one should forget that many moderate Democrats are facing the same sort of anti-immigrant sentiment in their conservative districts as fellow Republicans. Democratic freshmen such as Iowa's Bruce Braley, Indiana's Joe Donnelly and Brad Ellsworth, and Texas's Nick Lampson, all felt the need to take potshots at "illegal immigrants" and "amnesty" in their tight congressional races last year. Some, such as Pennsylvania's Patrick Murphy, praised a border fence and complained about illegals taking "American jobs." This might not equal Tom-Tancredo-talk, but it does mean that some moderate Democrats will be under pressure to vote against any bill based around giving immigrants citizenship.

Last year's Senate vote for the McCain-Kennedy compromise shows this pressure from unions, left-wing rabble-rousers, and pro-fence constituents can take its toll. The bill got 62 votes, barely enough to survive a filibuster, and this was in part because Democrats lost four of their own: Byron Dorgan and Debbie Stabenow worried about displaced American workers; Ben Nelson and Robert Byrd complained about "amnesty." And the latest crop of Senate Democratic freshmen--Ohio's Sherrod Brown, Missouri's Claire McCaskill, Montana's Jon Tester--would seem even more vulnerable to some of those arguments.

So keep your eyes on Republicans, and see if they have the political smarts and guts to seize this reform opportunity. But if they do, it's the Democrats who'll have to buck some powerful friends to see this through.

Source



Immigration rule revisions could admit terrorists to U.S.?

Today's foreign terrorists could become tomorrow's U.S. refugees if the Bush administration gets its way. The intent is to grant refugee status to rebels who have fought repressive governments or advanced U.S. foreign policy objectives, particularly in Southeast Asia, Africa and Latin America. But proposed changes to immigration rules also could cover U.S. enemies such as al-Qaida members and fighters for Hamas and Hezbollah. To some lawmakers, the revisions under consideration by the administration are too broad and potentially dangerous. Officials say the changes are meant to reverse the unintended consequences of post-Sept. 11 restrictions that have kept thousands of otherwise eligible people from a haven in the U.S. The administration wants the authority to waive those restrictions so it has as much flexibility as possible in deciding who can and cannot enter the country.

Under current law, virtually all armed nongovernmental groups are classified as terrorist organizations and the U.S. is prohibited from accepting their members and combatants as refugees. There is limited ability to grant waivers to supporters of those groups who can prove they were forced to provide assistance. But more than 10,000 people have been barred. That includes many from Burma, Laos and Vietnam, including some who fought alongside U.S. forces in Vietnam. Last year, the government planned to accept 56,000 refugees; the actual number was 12,000 less, primarily due to the restrictions. In addition, about 5,000 people already in the United States as refugees have been blocked from seeking U.S. citizenship because of the rules. Some 600 people asking for political asylum have had their cases put on hold. "This has had a devastating impact on the admission of refugees and asylum seekers," said Jennifer Daskal, U.S. advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, which supports the proposed changes.

Amendments to the Immigration and Naturalization Act would permit the government to waive the rules for active members and fighters of terrorist groups on a case-by-case basis. They would cover any foreigner who has engaged in terrorist activity, said Gonzalo Gallegos, a State Department spokesman. "This amendment thus provides the executive branch with the authority to admit aliens who have engaged in armed action against oppressive regimes or in furtherance of U.S. foreign policy or both," he said.

Lawmakers, however, are skeptical of the need for such expansive changes. "The provision in this bill would extend the waiver authority in current law to groups that are definitely not friends of the United States," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., who is leading an effort to revise the amendment. "I do not think that there is a single member of this body who believes that any member of al-Qaida, Hamas or Hezbollah should ever be considered for admission to this country," he said.

Acting on behalf of a bipartisan group, Kyl in late March blocked the amendment from appearing in the Iraq war spending bill that President Bush vetoed on Tuesday. Kyl's office is working on wording that would cut out what he called the bill's "excesses." A new version, giving the executive more limited waiver authority, could be ready as early as this week, according to aides.

The State Department and advocacy groups see no reason for concern, saying that members of al-Qaida, Hamas or Hezbollah never would benefit. "It is hard to envision what would be the compelling reason to even consider exercising this authority on behalf of a member of one of those terrorist organizations," Gallegos said. Daskal agreed. "The fear of this opening the floodgates to al-Qaida and Taliban members is completely ridiculous," she said. The real problem, she said, is the scope of the post-Sept. 11 rules that have kept out legitimate refugees whom the U.S. normally would have accepted.

Among those whom the changes are intended to help are members of Burmese rebel groups such as the Karen National Union and Chin National Front; hill tribes in Vietnam and Laos; the now-defunct, anti-Castro Cuban Alzado insurgency; Ethiopia's Oromo Liberation Front; and southern Sudan's ex-rebel Sudan People's Liberation Movement. Without the broad language covering all terrorist groups, supporters of the changes fear that former child soldiers, who may have been forced to fight, never would become eligible for admission to the U.S. Nor would medics or nurses who treated terrorists. Some believe that members of terrorist groups, including al-Qaida, who were coerced into violence should not automatically be denied entry. "We feel strongly that some of these people take these actions under duress," said Dawn Calabia of Refugees International. "It is a legitimate concern that you don't want to aid and abet terrorists, but on the other hand, some of these people being barred are not terrorists," she said.

Source



5 May, 2007

Placing the blame

By Congressman Brian Bilbray (R-Carlsbad), Chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus and representing the 50th District of California

Two days ago, hundreds of thousands of immigrant-rights supporters marched the streets of major cities throughout the country demanding rights such as citizenship for the more than 12 million illegal immigrants who are currently in our country. The illegal immigration issue has always elicited strong emotions from many people but there is something fundamentally wrong with the idea of rewarding those who have broken our laws with something as precious as citizenship.

The outrage and indignation displayed by yesterday's marchers would be justified if it were directed at the right government. The United States is not responsible for the conditions millions of would-be immigrants are fleeing from -- yet many activist groups expect us to be held accountable for a third-world environment overrun with corruption and poverty we did not create. We could grant a mass amnesty right now and it still would not change any of the social, political and economic conditions that are driving people away from their home countries.

When examining illegal immigration reform in America, I have said numerous times that the key to addressing illegal immigration is removing the economic incentive that attracts so many people to our country. Fundamentally, the reason why the United States is such an attractive destination for immigrants is because of the jobs that we have to offer. Combine that with an illegal immigration enforcement policy that has never been truly enforced and it is easy to see why we have more than 12 million illegal immigrants currently living in our country hoping to fill the jobs that supposedly Americans won't do. Or, is it that they won't do these jobs for what employers are willing to pay illegal immigrants?

Candidly, the 12 million illegal immigrants and the millions more looking to come to America are not at fault for the issues we face with illegal immigration. For far too long businesses in this country have been willing participants in an effort to import cheap labor to fill low-skill jobs. The result has been a depressed market for American low-skill workers and a significant financial burden being placed on the backs of middle-class Americans who must now pay for the health care, education and social costs of this new class of illegal workers.

The Federal Government can no longer be a willing accomplice to the circumvention of our federal immigration laws. Ultimately, it is our responsibility to enforce the law and the only way we can address illegal immigration in America is to hold employers and big business accountable as well. This requires the implementation of a employer verification program so we can distinguish between employers who hire illegal immigrants because they don't know the difference and those who hire illegal immigrants because they want cheap labor. Once an employer verification system is in place, we can crackdown on the employers who are knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.

Solving illegal immigration begins with giving employers the tools they need to verify employment eligibility. This has become increasingly difficult for employers as document fraud has become a widespread problem as employers are ill-equipped to detect and authenticate workers' identification documents. A universal, non-discriminatory and tamper-resistant Social Security card would be a practical solution to this growing problem. Currently, there are more than 30 types of identification employers can use to verify employment eligibility. By limiting the burden of documentation to just one, uniform card, employers will finally have the tools they need to comply with the law. We need to separate those who are egregiously violating the law and those who do not have the means to enforce and comply with the law.

Once the employment incentive is eliminated, immigrants worldwide will have to look elsewhere for job opportunities and the flood of illegal immigrants coming into our country will subside. Now there is chorus of people in Washington D.C. who do not believe enforcement first will work, but considering that the federal government has never enforced our laws, it is impossible to know what effect real enforcement will have on stemming the illegal immigration tide.

The only thing Congress could do to make the problem worse is offer another incentive for people to leave their home countries and come to the United States. Call it a comprehensive plan, call it a temporary worker program or a pathway to citizenship, call it amnesty -- the results will still be the same. You cannot address our failures in illegal immigration policy by repeating the failed policies of the past. Amnesty hasn't worked. Neither has ignoring the problem. Why not try the one thing we haven't done yet? By enforcing our laws, securing our borders and holding employers accountable, we can avoid repeating our mistakes and live up to our country's promise of being a nation governed by the rule of law.

Source



CNN appears to support illegal immigration

Following a protest, CNN has removed a link from its Web site to an organization that is raising money to fight illegal immigration.

The link to smalltowndefenders.com was included on Lou Dobbs' home page. Dobbs has used his early evening show as a platform to protest illegal immigration, and he's being profiled Sunday on "60 Minutes" about this fight.

An advocacy group, the National Institute for Latino Policy, protested that Dobbs' on-air advocacy was expanding to include an endorsement of raising money for an organization.

After getting a letter from the group, CNN chief executive Jim Walton agreed to remove the link, CNN spokeswoman Christa Robinson said Friday.

Source



4 May, 2007

Immigration talks bog down over treatment of migrants' families

Who should get a preference when it comes to immigrants? For decades, relatives of those already in the United States have moved to the front of the line. The White House and senior Republican lawmakers now want to strictly limit the influx of family members and give preference to skilled workers sought by employers. Democrats say that is inhumane and impractical.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., says the issue has become ``one of the most contentious'' in pulling together a broad immigration bill upon which Republicans and Democrats can agree. The idea is to give many of the nation's 12 million illegal immigrants a chance at citizenship and create a guest-worker program for new arrivals. ``It would be a huge mistake to expand employment-based immigration at the expense of our historic tradition of family-based immigration,'' Kennedy, one of the key negotiators, said in a speech this week.

Nearly two-thirds of legal permanent residents admitted last year were family-sponsored immigrants, while less than 12.6 percent came in based on employment preferences, according to the Homeland Security Department. Roughly one-fourth fell into other categories, such as refugees and aslyum seekers.

Reshaping immigration laws is a priority for President Bush, who wants it as part of his domestic legacy. It also would be a popular achievement for Democrats to take to voters in the next election. Senate Democratic leaders have promised to bring up a measure, with or without GOP agreement, within two weeks.

Bush put in a plug Wednesday for a swift compromise. ``I will work with both Republicans and Democrats to get a bill to my desk before the summer is out, hopefully,'' he told a contractors' trade group in Washington.

Curbing the flow of immigrants' family members into the U.S. - sometimes referred to as ``chain migration'' - has become a cause celebre for Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., a prominent conservative trying to broker the deal. The White House, working to win GOP support for an immigration overhaul, included Kyl's hard-line stance on family members in an early discussion draft and has sought to preserve at least some limits as part of any compromise.

Source



Temporary immigration extended for 300,000 Central Americans in U.S.

The federal government will allow more than 300,000 Central Americans with temporary immigration status to remain in the United States, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security said Wednesday. The announcement allows Hondurans, Nicaraguans and Salvadorans -- many of them in South Florida -- to renew their temporary protected status for 18 months, but does not make them permanent residents. Instead, recipients can work legally and renew driver licenses while being shielded from deportation.

Immigration officials first granted the status to undocumented Nicaraguans and Hondurans after Hurricane Mitch in 1998. Salvadorans living in the United States received the protection in 2001, after two deadly earthquakes hit their country. The status typically lasts for 12 to 18 months, but has been renewed many times for the three groups. Some beneficiaries say they would prefer to have their immigration status resolved once and for all, perhaps under proposed immigration changes being considered by Congress. Many men and women holding the temporary status were among the crowds that marched for a legalization plan in Miami and Belle Glade this week.

"It's very frustrating. Every year it's the same thing," said Juan Vasquez, vice president of the Nicaraguan Organization of Palm Beach County, of the renewal process. Hondurans, for example, have already renewed their status seven times. "Those who have temporary protected status feel established [in the United States]. They feel some how they will receive residency. This is the hope."

Jose Cerrato, president of the Honduran Organization of Palm Beach County, said Central American immigrant groups from across the United States had been talking with officials in their home countries to pressure the White House for the extension. "We feel a lot of compassion for other nationalities that don't have this status, but this makes us very happy," he said.

The government can award temporary protected status to immigrants from countries struggling with civil strife or the aftermath of natural disasters. Haitian-American leaders have long insisted their communities also qualify for the relief, but to no avail. Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, plagued by gang violence, kidnappings and deforestation. "Although Honduras, Nicaragua, and El Salvador have made significant progress in their recovery and rebuilding efforts, each country continues to face social and economic challenges in their efforts to restore their nations to normalcy," said U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services director Emilio Gonzalez. The agency said it would announce later when the re-registration period begins.

Source



3 May, 2007

L.A. immigration rally ends with clash between marchers, police

A day of mostly calm immigration rallies ended with a clash between police and demonstrators, and Police Chief William Bratton promised a department review to "determine if the use of force was appropriate." Several people, including about a dozen officers, were hurt during skirmishes at MacArthur Park near downtown Los Angeles late Tuesday. About 10 people were taken to hospitals for treatment of injuries including cuts, authorities said. None of the injuries were believed to be serious. At least one person was arrested, said Officer Mike Lopez.

May Day marches in Los Angeles brought out about 25,000 people, only a fraction of the roughly 650,000 who rallied last year. Turnout nationwide was also light compared to a year ago. Organizers said fear about raids and frustration that the marches haven't pushed Congress to pass reform kept many people at home. They said those who did march felt a sense of urgency to keep immigration reform from getting pushed to the back burner by the 2008 presidential elections.

The clash at MacArthur Park started after 6 p.m. when police tried to disperse demonstrators who had moved off the sidewalk onto the street. Authorities said several people of the few thousand still at the rally threw rocks and bottles at officers, who fired rubber bullets and used batons to push the crowd back onto the sidewalk. "(Police) started moving in and forcing them out of the park, people with children, strollers," said Angela Sambrano, one of the rally's lead organizers. The police action cut short several speeches, said Hamid Khan, who works at the SouthAsia Network. He said officers "overreacted."

Bratton said "certain elements of the crowd" started the disturbance, but the "vast, vast majority of the people who were here were behaving appropriately." He promised an investigation to determine what happened and whether police used excessive force. "If officers behaved inappropriately, we will deal with that," he said at a late news conference.

A staff member from Spanish-language TV station Telemundo confirmed to the Los Angeles Times late Tuesday that one reporter and three camera operators from the station had been injured and taken to the hospital by police. Fox 11 showed video on its 10 p.m. newscast of a station camerawoman apparently being struck by a baton-wielding police officer in riot gear.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who was traveling in El Salvador at the start of a nine-day trade mission, said the incident was "a most unfortunate end to a peaceful day." Villaraigosa said he asked Bratton, who was scheduled to join the mayor in El Salvador and Mexico, to remain in Los Angeles to oversee a review of the incident.

Maria Elena Durazo, the executive secretary-treasurer at the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, said the incident marred an otherwise peaceful protest, and urged changes to police practices. She said the group was "outraged and saddened" by reports of excessive force by law enforcement. "While we understand that a group of anarchists, not associated with the rally, instigated an altercation with police, we are disappointed that authorities would respond to their actions by herding them into a peaceful crowd and by shooting rubber bullets with little warning," Durazo said in a statement.

Source



Immigrant rights

Post lifted from Flopping Aces -- which see for links



"Immigrant rights". I am sick and exhausted of those who seek to undermine United States sovereignty. And I'm someone who has not taken a hardline on this debate. I believe in seeking practical, compassionate solutions, and not the emotional angry-as-hell-conservative non-solution that rants how we should round-up and kick out 12 million illegals to the proverbial curb. That is not a solution. It is a pipe-dream.

LA is bracing itself for a boycott of schools, work, and consumer activities tomorrow, even though the numbers are predicted to be less than that of last year (of course, last year, they did not anticipate the demonstrations to draw as many marchers as it did). 650,000 are said to have participated in LA marches last year, with about 72,000 of them being students.

One of the things that pisses me off, is the fact that many of these students are legal, natural born citizens of illegal immigrants. Anchor babies. They do irreparable harm to our country, with their divided loyalties between parents and ethnic heritage and recognition to the fact that their parents should never have been here.

I have compassion for many illegal aliens, who want nothing more than to make an honest living in a country such as we live in. But they need to recognize that we are a nation of laws; and what they do, undermines our country. America needs control of her borders; we cannot take in, all at once, an endless stream of foreigners who wish to become American citizens, simply because they demand it. Those who wish to legally immigrate here should adopt American culture and customs and identity. They should be willing to assimilate. To not do so undermines America. So many people confuse America's idea of a "melting pot" and "a nation of immigrants" with the harmful notions of "diversity" and "multiculturalism", which disregards "e pluribus unum": "out of many, one". Instead of one people and one nation, what we end up with is a series of mini nations within a nation. It creates problems for the U.S., and it creates problems for illegals, by the very nature of the fact that they are here, illegally. So when they complain about such things as the heartstring tugs in this LA Times piece:

Andrea Perez, a 48-year-old housekeeper from Mexico, said many workers today are paid less than minimum wage and routinely abused. One friend, she said, had coffee thrown in her face by an employer who disliked the way it was made.

I hear violins playing in the background when I read this kind of nonsense, and think, "HELLO?! They would not have created the problems they face if they weren't here illegally to begin with."

"I just want people to recognize immigrants as humans," Perez said.

And I just want the LA Times to recognize the difference between legal and illegal immigrants! I'm for sensible immigration reform; but I am opposed to illegal immigrants swarming into MY country, and dictating what my country should and should not do, on their behalf. As non-citizens, they should not have political influence; they should not be allowed to vote, influencing policies that benefit them, and that dissolves our national identity.

The path to American citizenship should begin with respecting our borders and our established laws. It should end with desire to be a part of America; not apart from it. This means learn the language and the traditional, established culture and customs of the United States; think of yourself as American first, and whatever your ethnic/national heritage last.

I love the beauty of most cultures; but not all cultures are created equal- by that, I mean, multi-cultures should not replace American culture, whose traditions and system of values has created the very means for which all other cultures and customs are accepted into the fold. We need to preserve the essence of who we are as one people; the bond of language, borders, and culture; and from that, we can then freely add on the adornments of our respective, varied ethnic heritages.



2 May, 2007

Pro-Immigration rallies run out of steam

Immigration rallies held across the country Tuesday produced only a fraction of the million-plus protesters who turned out last year, as fear about raids and frustration that the marches haven't pushed Congress to pass reform kept many at home. In Los Angeles, where several hundred thousand turned out last year, about 25,000 attended the first of two scheduled rallies, said police Capt. Andrew Smith, an incident commander. In Chicago, where more than 400,000 swarmed the streets a year earlier, police officials put initial estimates at about 150,000. Organizers said those who did march felt a sense of urgency to keep immigration reform from getting pushed to the back burner by the 2008 presidential elections. "There's no reason a pro-immigration bill can't be passed. That's one of the messages being sent today," said Chicago protester Shaun Harkin, 34, of Northern Ireland, who has lived in the United States as a legal resident for 15 years.

Melissa Woo, a 22-year-old American citizen who immigrated from South Korea, carried a Korean flag over her shoulder as she criticized politicians for "buckling at the knees." "Us immigrants aren't pieces of trash, we're human beings," she said. "To be treated as less than human is a travesty."

Organizers had long predicted lower turnouts for this year's marches, saying an increase in immigration raids in recent months have left many immigrants afraid to speak out in public. That's a change since rallies in 2006, when some illegal immigrants wore T-shirts saying "I'm illegal. So what?" Others believe that the marches have not pushed Congress to pass immigration legislation, and many groups are now focusing on citizenship and voter registration drives instead of street demonstrations.

But smaller crowds does not mean the movement to win a path to citizenship for 12 million illegal immigrants has lost momentum, organizers said. "People are saying we need to get together to demonstrate unity," said Joshua Hoyt, executive director of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights. "But with so much happening, and so many concrete victories, you couldn't say the movement is weakening."

In Los Angeles, home to the largest concentration of illegal immigrants at about 1 million, public school teacher David Cid said he came to support his students, many of whom are suffering because of recent raids that have impacted their families. "They feel terrorized," he said.

No rallies were planned in Atlanta, where 50,000 marched last year, because many immigrants were afraid of the raids and of a new state law set to take effect in July. The law requires verification that adults seeking non-emergency state-administered benefits are in the country legally, sanctions employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants, and requires police to check the immigration status of people they arrest. "There's a lot of anxiety and fear in the immigrant community," said Jerry Gonzalez of the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials.

Source



Oklahoma gets tough

Legislation described as the nation's most sweeping attempt to deny jobs and public benefits to illegal immigrants was sent to Gov. Brad Henry's desk Tuesday. "The people of Oklahoma are very strongly for this bill," said House Speaker Lance Cargill, R-Harrah.

Immigrant groups said the bill is a wrong-headed approach to stop illegal immigration and urged Henry to veto it. "It's not going to control immigration. It's going to create a long-term sour view in the Latino community," said Ed Romo, vice president of the League of United Latin American Citizens. "It's targeting the Latinos, the Hispanics, and nobody else," said Ed Madrid, state director of LULAC.

Pat Fennell, executive director of the Latino Community Development Agency in Oklahoma City, said the state does not have the authority to supersede federal immigration law. "It opens the door for all kinds of litigation," Fennell said. "We're going to be paying the consequences of this silly bill."

Henry, who has previously said he believes illegal immigration is a federal issue, has not decided whether he will sign or veto the measure, a spokesman said. "Gov. Henry supports responsible and effective immigration reform, but he will withhold judgment on this particular bill until he has had an opportunity to review the final version," said his communications director, Paul Sund.

The measure contains the toughest state guidelines on dealing with illegal immigration in the nation, said Mike Hethmon, general counsel of the Immigration Reform Law Institute in Washington. Lawmakers in Oklahoma and other states have proposed immigration bills because of the federal government's failure to control the flow of undocumented immigrants, now estimated at 12 million nationwide, Hethmon said. The Oklahoma bill builds on measures passed by other states but has a stronger focus on deterring unauthorized employment, he said. "It lays the foundations for state and local action in a very broad scope of public activities," Hethmon said.

The legislation addresses the root cause of illegal immigration -- exploitation of illegal immigrant labor, he said. Among other things, the bill contains employment, labor law and civil rights provisions to protect citizens and legal immigrants who lose their jobs at companies that employ illegal immigrants to perform the same or similar work. "Stealing American jobs is now a civil rights violation in Oklahoma," Hethmon said.

The measure targets employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens in order to gain a competitive advantage. Key elements of the bill focus on determining worker eligibility, including technology called the Basic Pilot program, which screens Social Security numbers to make sure they are real and that they match up with the person's name.

Created by the federal government to verify the eligibility of government employees, use of the program is mandated in Georgia, said the author of the Oklahoma legislation, Rep. Randy Terrill, R-Moore. It is free to employers who voluntarily sign up, he said. Public agencies will be required to use the program beginning Nov. 1 and private companies by July 1, 2008.

Mike Seney, senior vice president of operations for The State Chamber, a business and industry group in Oklahoma City, said the group initially opposed the bill but took a neutral position after changes were approved in the Senate. The changes widened so-called "safe harbor" provisions that allow employers to avoid sanctions for hiring undocumented immigrants if they use the Basic Pilot program and other methods to verify worker eligibility, Seney said. "All of that goes out the window if you are participating in one of these safe harbor areas," he said.

Terrill said the measure would limit state driver's licenses and identity cards to citizens and legal immigrants and would require state and local agencies to verify the citizenship and immigration status of applicants for state or local benefits. "The land of opportunity is becoming the land of entitlement," Rep. Rex Duncan, R-Sand Springs, said while debating for the bill. The measure would not affect emergency medical and humanitarian services, such as visits to hospital emergency rooms and enrollment in public schools, that are required by federal law. It also retains an in-state tuition program for children of illegal immigrants attending state colleges and universities that the House had voted to repeal. The measure now allows students to continue paying in-state tuition but new applicants must apply for citizenship within one year.

Terrill said the Federation of American Immigration Reform estimates that illegal immigrants costs state taxpayers up to $200 million a year in public benefits and other resources. "We have several thousand illegal aliens coming across our border every day," Terrill said. "It is a situation that is not sustainable or desirable."

Source



1 May, 2007

Bipartisan group of senators to push new immigration plan

Lawmakers who back immigration reform, recognizing that their chances are dwindling rapidly, are girding for a last-ditch attempt to pass a sweeping bill before their efforts are swallowed up by an early campaign season and an acrimonious political mood. An unusual bipartisan group of senators hopes to present this week the outlines of an immigration plan designed to win crucial support from conservatives. If they succeed, President Bush is expected to throw his support behind the plan, which could mark his final chance for a major domestic accomplishment in his second term.

This effort comes against the backdrop of expected mass marches and demonstrations supporting immigration rights on Tuesday in major cities. A large rally is expected in Washington.

The group of senators discussing the reform plan includes everyone from conservative Southwesterners such as Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., to liberal New Englanders like Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. The group includes presidential candidate John McCain, R-Ariz., who wrote an immigration bill last year with Kennedy. "We've made tremendous progress, and there's a real hope to get to a bill of significance," said Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., a participants in the talks....

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., reluctant to have Democrats alone face the wrath of voters opposed to a sweeping bill, has told the White House she would not bring an immigration measure to the House floor unless Bush can convince at least 70 Republicans to vote for it. Bush, leading Democrats and moderate Republicans favor some way for the estimated more than 12 million illegal immigrants in the country to eventually become citizens after paying a fine, learning U.S. civics and working legally in the country. Those taking a harder line, in contrast, support stronger border enforcement and strong penalties for those who entered the country illegally.

The Senate group is discussing what it hopes is a middle way: a plan that includes the "path to citizenship" and guest worker program favored by the reform camp, but subject to a "trigger" so they would kick in only once real progress was made toward tougher enforcement. The hope is that this trigger mechanism would attract enough conservatives so the bill could squeak through the House.

It's a long shot. And no one has more riding on it politically than Bush, who has just a few months left until his presidency is all but eclipsed by the run-up to the 2008 elections, and is also experiencing difficult relations with the new Democratic Congress. Bush has seized upon immigration reform as the chief domestic issue around which to build consensus and cement his legacy.

Bush, who developed a strong relationship with the Hispanic community as Texas governor, also has a longtime goal of bringing more Latinos into the Republican Party. A well-received immigration bill could help achieve that, while failure risks having the Republicans being seen among Hispanics as anti-immigrant. "In many ways, the Republican Party is hanging itself on the immigration issue," said Norman Ornstein, a scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. "To keep the number up is not going to work if the Republicans become identified as virulently anti-immigrant." ....

Senators expect that it will take about 18 months from the time a bill is passed before the trigger's benchmarks — which may include an increase in Border Patrol agents, adoption of biometrical ID cards for visa recipients and allocation of resources for walls, barriers, and 24-hour visual security in specific border locations — are certified by the Department of Homeland Security and visas begin to be processed.

The proposal is expected to include a "Z" visa program enabling undocumented workers already in the U.S. to work toward getting a green card, as well as various guest worker visa categories that could be obtained and renewed every three years for a fee. The administration recently suggested instituting a 13-year work requirement for guest laborers hoping to apply for green cards, as well as a special category of documentation to allow well-to-do immigrants — those with incomes at 150 percent of the poverty line and health insurance — to apply for special permission to bring their families into the country.....

It is not only Republicans who oppose comprehensive reform. House Democrats include several conservative voices on immigration, particularly among freshman representatives from rural and working-class districts. Rep. Nancy Boyda, D-Kan., is one of them. "People do not trust, and they don't believe that the enforcement and the border protection is going to be there," Boyda said. "We need a system that's workable, that employers can use to see who's here legally. But no effort has really been made to implement that."....

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has promised a Senate debate on immigration in the last two weeks of May. But if no agreement is reached soon, Reid may "Rule 14" the immigration legislation — bypassing the traditional Judiciary Committee approval process and bringing the matter straight to the floor — if it appears there is enough accord on the bill to do so.

Source



Irish PM says immigration needs to slow in Ireland

Migration to Ireland cannot continue at its current rate if the country is to integrate successfully the thousands of newcomers eager for a slice of its growing wealth, Prime Minister Bertie Ahern said on Monday. Ireland, once one of Europe's poorest countries and for decades a major exporter of labour, has enjoyed more than ten years of stellar growth, fuelled by unprecedented immigration. Immigrants have gone from making up about one percent of the population ten years ago to around 10 percent at present. "Could it continue to develop from 10 to 20 percent? No it can't," Ahern told a Reuters Newsmaker event in which he laid out his party's main economic objectives for the next five years.

Ahern and his Fianna Fail party are seeking a third consecutive term in office in a general election on May 24. "In one way or other as the economy moderates so immigration has to moderate so we can get integration right," Ahern said. He did not say what level of immigration would be right for Ireland, whose economy is predicted to grow by around 5.3 percent this year -- about double that of the euro zone. However, growth is expected to slow to 4 percent next year, a Reuters poll of economists showed on Sunday.

Ireland was one of the few EU countries that opened its borders in 2004 to workers from new members such as Poland -- many of whom came to work in the country's construction sector, but it has now imposed limits for the latest EU newcomers. The EU expanded to 27 nations at the start of this year with the addition of Bulgaria and Romania. Ireland introduced a permit scheme for workers from those countries, arguing it was time for other European countries to do their bit.

The influx of a large number of immigrants, including many from central and eastern Europe, has not become a major political issue. However, there has been some debate about how Ireland would cope when the economy eventually slows.

Source