An ACLU attorney [ACLU of Texas Central Texas Chapter President Debbie Russell] and immigration rights' advocate [Austin Immigrants' Rights Coalition member Caroline Keating-Guerra] sighed with some relief after the City of Austin Human Rights Commission passed seven recommendations Monday to city council regarding immigration control at Travis County Jail.Once in jail, they might be checked by Immigrations and Custom Enforcement to see if they were illegal aliens or otherwise deportable. Needless to say, the ACLU wants as little of that as possible:
...The commission recommended, rather than arresting persons involved in non-violent Class A or Class B misdemeanors and taking them to jail, the Austin Police Department and the Travis County Sheriff's Department should issue citations and court summons at their discretion, as indicated in Texas House Bill 2391.
"I think there's also a lot of assumptions from the County Sheriff's office that they have to give certain access, and I think they're assuming too much in favor of ICE having access," Russell said. "I think they could limit the hours that they are allowed to go into the jail, and if the sheriff sees it as his job to process individuals, if they're getting the way, he can limit their access, so we just need to get down in writing how much so."
As Felipe Calderon and other Mexican government officials have done recently, Foreign Minister Patricia Espinosa Cantellano spoke out today in defense of "migrants" (i.e., illegal aliens that Mexico has more or less sent us) and threatened to ramp up the pressure for an amnesty.
Bearing strongly in mind that she said this first in Spanish, and then it was filtered by the Washington Post and their reporter Manuel Roig-Franzia, this is still an interesting thing to read:
Mexican officials have said they are concerned that migrants are being treated unfairly in workplaces and, in some cases, being denied public services. The presidential campaign has frequently inflamed tensions on issues related to immigration.
It would be great to learn which public services they have in mind; while illegal aliens are eligible for various services, the fact that their government would highlight that helps show that our generous program of services factors into that government's calculations.
She also said:
"Being effective in the defense and support of the migrants implies treating them the same way whether they are in Mexico or outside of the country... Given the adverse climate that prevails for the Mexican community in the United States, aggravated by the electoral debate in that country, we also have to give particular attention to the problems confronted by our migrants..."
Related:
Mexico's PRD Party to establish "migrant houses" in the U.S.
Felipe Calderon explicitly wants Mexican consuls to meddle in U.S. immigration debate (non-profits)
Felipe Calderon's "League Against Discrimination of Mexicans in the United States"
The Dallas Morning News - in an essay written by Rod Dreher - has named "The Illegal Immigrant" as their Texan of the Year (link).
In response to what was likely a barrage of emails, their Keven Ann Willey says:
I fear that many of the people upset over our choice for Texan of the Year have read only the headline of the essay and not its content. The essay makes it clear that we're not glorifying the illegal immigrant
Thankfully, the commenters at the last link have spared me from taking the article apart, including comments like this:
Your last sentence, which puts your stamp of opinion on the issue, gives your game away: "How we deal with the stranger among us says not only who we Americans are today but determines who we will become tomorrow." This is standard issue "campassionate conservative" evangelical speak...
Some suggest boycotting the DMN and their affiliated TV stations. More comments on this here, here, and here.
Julia Preston of the New York Times has a brief round-up of the year's events in immigration called "Immigration Is Defying Easy Answers". After some expected NYT bias, she closes with:
The next president will still face the tricky task of negotiating not just the politics of the issue, but also some concrete realities. While border fences and immigration raids have discouraged some illegal immigrants from coming and encouraged some who are here to go home, millions of illegal workers have had families here and put down roots, and are not going to disappear.
This is somewhat of a big step for the NYT: admitting that attrition works without sneering. As for the last part of her statement, that's a very strong argument for doing even more: we can't allow people to simply move here and settle down at will, no matter what the NYT thinks.
According to a report in a Mexican newspaper, in 2008 Mexico's leftwing PRD Party will be establishing "migrant houses" inside the U.S. (translation here). They made the announcement in front of the U.S. Consulate in Mexico City, and the secretary general of that party (Carlos Reyes Gamiz) was accompanied by Elvira Arellano. As with Felipe Calderon, Gamiz said he was going to use U.S. non-profits to push their agenda inside the U.S.:
"The PRD has had a past presence in the U.S. territory, where a relationship has been maintained with agencies that defend human rights, and the goal is to share a work agenda, in this environment in which xenofobia and racism have a greater fervor in that country."
The PRD Party played a role in last year's illegal immigration marches in Chicago, due mainly to the efforts of one of their officials, Jorge Mujica.
...After Mike Huckabee was done gladhanding with Iowans at the overcrowded Pizza Ranch restaurant, journalists grilled Huckabee on a hard right turn he took from the subject of Benazir Bhutto's assassination to illegal immigration.Yes, Joy Lin, it's a "hard right turn" and "ethnic baiting" to be concerned about possible terrorist infiltration of the U.S. The fact that he was even asked that, and had to reply "no" is completely preventable: if people went to campaign events and asked real questions about this issue - either of the candidates or of the "reporters" themselves - no "reporter" would dare ask such an incredibly stupid and irresponsible question.
In his speech today, Huckabee said it should be of concern to Americans that 660 illegal Pakistanis crossed the American border last year.
One reporter asked if that was ethnic baiting?
"The fact is the immigration issue is not so much about people coming to pick lettuce or make beds. It's about people that can come with a shoulder fired missile and can do serious damage and harm to us, and that's what we need to be worried about. And the unsecure borders that we have pose a real national security threat."Huckabee said he'd been briefed on a study showing that the largest category of non-Latin Americans coming over the border are Pakistanis; Lin apparently asked for the study itself, and mentions that the campaign hasn't responded. While it's good that she wants the study, the inclusion of that point seems to be an attempt by her to imply that no such study exists.
Huckabee also seized on the Bhutto assassination to tighten up his hard-line anti-immigration stance. Yesterday, he said the U.S. should be on heightened alert from the threat posed by Pakistani immigrants.It would be extraordinarily easy for someone to discredit the Left/Dems/MSM on this issue, and only corruption prevents the GOP from doing it.
U.S. pro athletes as well as illegal immigrants are turning to drinks designed to rehydrate sick infants for a source of liquid nutrition...But, wait, it gets even better. The UPI article appears to be based on "Pro athletes, migrants turn to baby drinks/Solutions quench adult thirsts" from Chris Hawley of the Arizona Republic (link). They substituted the "quirks" treatment for some helpful tips and an attempt to portray border fences - not those like the Republic who support illegal immigration - as the culprits:
However, athletes aren't the only dehydrated people turning to the baby beverage for sustenance -- shopkeepers in Sonoran towns across the Mexican border say Pedialyte and its Mexican competitor, Electrolit, are flying off the shelves...
The rehydrating solutions help those seeking to cross the border on foot to stave off dehydration, the top cause of death in the desert.
"It is recommended that you carry oral solution with you," says a guide for migrants published by the government of Mexico's Yucatan state. "It is sold in pharmacies and contains salt."Abbott Laboratories (makers of Pedialyte) claim not to have known about these uses for their products, but their Mexican counterpart (Pisa Laboratories, makers of Electrolit) not only knows but, as might be suspected, promotes it:
Sales to migrants have increased in recent years as crackdowns and border walls in Texas and California have forced illegal border-crossers deeper into the Arizona desert, store managers said.
"The migrants are now using it instead of water," said Gabriela Flores, director of marketing for Electrolit. "The truth is, it does help them a lot."
Via this we learn that Venezuala's Citgo Petroleum has been/is running TV ads - apparently since last year - that encourage U.S. Latinos to buy their gasoline out of ethnic solidarity. An ad is here. It starts with someone playing "Take me out to the ballgame", when he receives hand signals from someone else and then launches into a salsa number. That bring the previously bored crowd - all of the same ethnicity - alive and they begin to dance as "Energia Latina" flashes on the scoreboard.
While marketing campaigns sometimes miss the mark or try to push the envelope rather than follow a trend, I'm going to guess that they know their market and know that many would heed the call. So, mark this down as yet another small illustration of the current assimilation problem.
Spencer Hsu of the Washington Post offers "Immigrant Crackdown Falls Short/Despite Tough Rhetoric, Few Employers of Illegal Workers Face Criminal Charges". While we should be thankful for that news, he also offers some pro-Democratic Party spin.
Despite Bush administration blather (Michael Chertoff: "The days of treating employers who violate these laws by giving them the equivalent of a corporate parking ticket -- those days are gone. It's now felonies, jail time, fines and forfeitures."):
Fewer than 100 owners, supervisors or hiring officials were arrested in fiscal 2007, compared with nearly 4,900 arrests that involved illegal workers, providers of fake documents and others, the figures show... Late in the Clinton administration and early in the current administration, the number of illegal immigrants arrested in work-site cases fell -- from 2,849 in 1999 to a low of 445 in 2003 -- although there has since been a rebound. The number of criminal cases brought against employers during that period fell from 182 to four... ICE reported that the 92 criminal arrests made in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 included 59 owners and 33 corporate officials, human resources workers, crew chiefs and others in the "supervisory chain."
Doris Meissner comes by to sideways promote "immigration reform" by refering to the "chronic failure of employer enforcement under current laws".
As for the spin, Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) is quoted throughout as a supporter of enforcement, which she might just be. However, Hsu fails to note that the Democratic Party takes various steps to block enforcement, as do groups to which they're linked:
The Bush administration has said it is trying to improve its Internet-based E-Verify program, through which less than 1 percent of U.S. employers now voluntarily check new hires' Social Security numbers. It is also fighting major business, farm and labor groups in federal court to use Social Security data generated when suspect numbers are submitted to the government as a sweeping nationwide enforcement tool.
What that fails to mention is that one of the lead parties to the suit is the ACLU, and many people might miss the "labor" part; another plaintiff is the AFL-CIO. Both have degrees of influence over the Democratic Party.
Romney faced a wide range of questions from the audiences in Coastal and Northern South Carolina today, from his stance on stem cells to the "consolidation of the North American union."The report contains nothing more about that, and just transcribes a few other comments. If Stuart had wanted to do real reporting he would have pressed Romney on the issue. So, why didn't he?
"Do you mean unifying our country with Canada and Mexico?" Romney said to the later, stating simply "No."
Ron Claiborne of ABC News offers "McCain Still Dogged by Immigration Issue" (link). He discusses how no matter where McCain goes he's asked questions about immigration matters; unfortunately, Claiborne didn't do his job (or at least the job I'd do) and the only questions he asked McCain about this allowed him to present his side of the matter.
And, Claiborne also allowed McCain to mislead:
He said he was often asked questions at his town hall meetings by citizens citing alarmist and usually fictitious anecdotes... Earlier that day, a woman said she had heard that some Mexican-American children in American schools were refusing to put their hands over their hearts during the Pledge of the Allegiance and other Mexican immigrants were flying the Mexican flag above the American flag somewhere... McCain wondered if these tales that people are citing are coming from talk radio where immigration is a burning issue.
I don't know about the first, but the second has happened at least twice and there have probably been more incidents. In 2006, students from another nearby school raised the Mexican flag over an upside down American flag at Montebello High School near Los Angeles. Earlier this year, a U.S. vet cut down a Mexican flag that was flying over the U.S. flag in Reno (youtube.com/watch?v=Px1PTsEdC1Y). While ABC News doesn't appear to have covered either incident, surely some editor there must have heard of those or at least should have done some research. In fact, a google search for mexican flag flying over american flag brings up several hits, including ones with that very title.
Are Claiborne and his editors incompetent, are they lazy, or were they simply trying to deceive?
Also, Peter Canellos of the Boston Globe offers "Fear of foreigners roils Iowa/Angry rural voters voicing far-fetched theories" (link) which has a very similar formulation involving those flags.
It was truly a trying year for America's tired, its poor, its huddled masses yearning to breathe free.If SouthCoastToday and the rest want to highlight their plight in their home countries, that might get a lot more support than their current tack of supporting massive illegal activity and what appears to have amounted to worker abuse.
Even as the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants were squarely in the crosshairs of law enforcement agencies and radio talk-show callers, lawmakers essentially turned their backs on their plight.
SouthCoast became the focal point of the immigrant debate — some would say debacle — after federal authorities raided a South End military contractor's factory, ripping 361 undocumented workers away from their sewing machines and from their families.
"Every time you listen to WBSM, the vitriolic statements you hear there, there is no distinction between them and what was being said in Germany during the 1930s."I'm not familiar with that radio station, but I tend to think there's a significant distinction. Their was a relationship between the newspaper and the station, but the paper broke it off in August after they got tired of being slammed on the air (link). In March the editor of the paper, Bob Unger, defended them against charges that (as with the current piece) they were pulling at people's heartstrings in order to support illegal immigration, refering to "WBSM's on-air jihad against illegal immigrants since the raid" (link). One of the "jihadis", host Ken Pittman, organized an "America First" rally in May (link), and he certainly doesn't sound like a "jihadi" to me (link):
I have been calling for people to help feed these people while we figure out how to reunite the families but I am calling for deportation of ALL who have broken our laws. The local newspaper, The New Bedford Standard Times has decided to overwhelmingly favor the catch and release policy and let all " deserving," aliens continue to take from the taxpayer resources with equal access to Americans.He may have subsequently appeared on O'Reilly's show, but the post doesn't describe what happened. He also alludes to possible funny business involved in granting the federal contract to Michael Bianco Inc.; perhaps SouthCoastToday should concentrate on that instead.
The O'Reilly Factor of Fox News contacted me and asked me to look into the now infamous op/ed of the NY Times newspaper suggesting that the ICE raid was responsible for babies of illegal aliens being sent to area hospitals as a result of the incarcerations of their mothers (here against the law). I was able to determine from a Hospital spokeswoman and from the very woman who carried one of the two babies in question, that these poor babes were indeed dehydrated..as a result of pneumonia, something the New York Times mentioned nothing of. It didn’t end there. I was also able to learn that one of the mothers of these two actually lied about having children when the federal officials interviewed her. This kept the two separated much longer than was necessary...
Police in suburban Scottsdale have begun routinely asking for proof of citizenship from every suspect they arrest and turning those who are in this country illegally over to federal immigration officials.Today comes this AP correction, which in full states:
In a Dec. 23 story about a Scottsdale Police Department immigration policy, The Associated Press reported erroneously that officers have begun to ask for proof of citizenship from every suspect they arrest.The AP would issue similar corrections for all the errors in their previous coverage, but no computer could hold that much data.
Sgt. Mark Clark, a Scottsdale police spokesman, said officers are asking people who are arrested if they are in the country illegally, but police aren't requiring that criminal suspects prove their lawful presence in the country.
The Washington Post doesn't appear to be sore losers about the failure of immigration "reform". They recently published a vile column from Harold Meyerson and a similar editorial. Now comes Dana Milbank with "Hasta La Vista" (link) about Rep. Tom Tancredo dropping his presidential bid. The problems start with the title, a childish attempt at irony. The running theme throughout is that Tancredo is angry; in fact he uses that word four times. Why is he an "angry man"?
We know this because he has proposed dropping bombs on Mecca. We know this because he sang "Dixie" at a South Carolina gathering full of Confederate flags and white supremacists. And we know this because he wants to expel 12 million people now living in the United States.
The first sentence was only the ultimate response to nukes having gone off in several U.S. cities. The second is discussed here and here. The third might imply that he supports mass deportations, when in fact he doesn't. Milbank then goes on to mock the fact that there were only 18 supporters when he made his announcement. Then:
In response to questions, he admitted he was pulling out to help defeat somebody he dislikes more than an undocumented Mexican in the desert: former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, the new Republican front-runner here with what Tancredo called an "abysmal" record of "inviting" illegal immigrants.
I don't think Tancredo would actually "dislike" someone who's trying to cross the desert into the U.S., he just doesn't want them to do it. On the other hand, the Washington Post's support for illegal immigration plays a part in encouraging people to try to cross the desert, despite the fact that thousands have died while trying. And, of course, Huck has promoted and enabled illegal immigration such as by helping Mexico to build a consulate in his state. Then, it's on to a lie:
Never mind that Huckabee was tough enough on immigration to win the support of the border-vigilante Minuteman Project.
The support only came from Jim Gilchrist himself, not any groups using that name. After discussing an admittedly stupid video that Tancredo released (youtube.com/watch?v=n5GUCQAdlxg), it's Milbank's turn to admit why he's the one who's angry:
"It's beyond anybody's wildest expectations that we have been able to, with the help of America, really, get our national leaders to pay attention to the issue," declared Candidate Two Percent... He boasted, with some validity, that his candidacy helped lead "nearly every Republican presidential candidate to commit themselves to an immigration plan that calls for securing our borders." It's true: As his rivals coopted his nativist positions -- even if just rhetorically -- Tancredo became a victim of his own success.
UPDATE: The technicalities of the Gilchrist endorsement are described here:
it is important to note that the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (MCDC), the nation's largest Minuteman organization, is a 501(C)4 non-profit organization and cannot and does not endorse any candidate for public office. MCDC is not associated with Mr. Jim Gilchrist, who today endorsed Mike Huckabee for president. Jim Gilchrist's erstwhile Minuteman Project is itself an organization which by its own representations as a non-profit civic group cannot legally endorse candidates. It does not have any volunteers who observe illegal border activity. It has no border fence building projects. Jim Gilchrist here speaks only for Jim Gilchrist, he does not speak for the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, nor is he nationally representative of most patriots in the "Minuteman movement" – who under no circumstances could ignore the failed record nor endorse the duplicitous "plan" recently rolled out by candidate Mike Huckabee. The national media needs to recognize that Jim Gilchrist's endorsement is his own personal statement, nothing more.
A new group of businesses has been formed to oppose anti-illegal immigration laws in their state, called "Virginia Employers for Sensible Immigration Policy". One of the organizers is Julia Ciarlo Hammond, state director of the National Federation of Independent Business. They'll supposedly only focus on measures affecting employers, and they state that they want to follow the law, they just don't want undue burdens. But, don't they all.
The coalition includes some of the most influential industries in the state, including many that rely heavily on low-cost and migrant labor. The group includes home builders, contractors, hog and poultry growers, retailers, truckers, the hospitality industry and the state Chamber of Commerce.
A purported list of their members is here: raisingkaine.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=11853
Note that they point out that the majority of campaign contributions from the various groups are to Republicans, as the same time that many at that site play their own very small role in enabling illegal immigration through various statements such as calling those who oppose illegal activity names.
National names on the list are Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, Smithfield Foods, and Tyson Foods.
The chairman of a federal civil rights panel clashed yesterday with Prince William Board of County Supervisors Chairman Corey A. Stewart over the recent crackdown on illegal immigrants approved by the board.As Stewart points out, Chavez is a known apologist for illegal immigration, so - surprise! - whoever nominated her to the committee knew what she was going to say.
Linda Chavez, a conservative commentator who heads a U.S. Commission on Civil Rights panel examining whether the crackdown violates federal antidiscrimination laws, said she believed the supervisors based their action largely on anecdotal evidence of problems caused by illegal immigrants...
...By basics [U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo] means forcing all illegal immigrants to go home and reapply to enter the country legally if they want to return, making English the national language and denying municipal services for illegal aliens such as driver's licenses, Social Security benefits and state-subsidized education. Huckabee has come under particular fire for backing college-level grants for the children of illegal immigrants in Arkansas. "We are a better country than to punish children for what their parents did," said Huckabee, defending his stance, in a Florida debate last month...1. "forcing" would seem to imply some form of mass deportations; Tancredo actually supports attrition which might be better described as "encouraging".
Tancredo has announced he is also not running for reelection for his Congressional seat. His immediate plans, he said, are to hang out with his grandkids, stump for Romney and finish his last year in office. After that, who knows? Romney may one day need to appoint a head of Immigration and Naturalization Services.
A private citizen in Arkansas (Jim Parsons) is suing the former governor of that state, Mike Huckabee, over his role in helping the Mexican government establish their latest consulate there (link). The main claim is that Huckabee used public funds to offer discounted office space to the consulate, and that per AR's laws he was forbidden from doing so. The suit also contains a state Freedom of Information Act request, and raises the issue of hard drives that Huckabee apparently had destroyed on his way out the door at the end of 2006. The suit wants a refund for the cost of destroying them.
The Huckster is being sued as a private citizen; others named in the suit include current governor Mike Beebe (only in his official role), and the Mexican consulate.
Related:
More on Mike Huckabee's questionable Mexican consulate deal
Mike Huckabee defends Mexico consulate deal (businesses agreed to pay Mexico's bills; law violated?)
Thanks, Huckabee: Arkansas Mexican consul opposing immigration laws
A question you can ask Huck
Mexican consul from Little Rock encourages advocacy for illegal immigration
But it's on their policies concerning immigrants where Republicans -- candidates and voters alike -- really run afoul of biblical writ. Not on immigration as such but on the treatment of immigrants who are already here. [Biblical "stranger" references; those are answered here and here]Very few people want to actually punish illegal aliens. And, in fact, some such as Ruy Giuliani or Mike Huckabee are supporters of amnesty. The most that others support is attrition, which is designed not to punish illegal aliens but to reduce the jobs and benefits magnet so that many will go home and many fewer will try to come here.
Yet the distinctive cry coming from the Republican base this year isn't simply to control the flow of immigrants across our borders but to punish the undocumented immigrants already here, children and parents alike.
[The House] last night passed a giant new spending bill that undermines current plans for a U.S.-Mexico border fence, allowing the Homeland Security Department to build a single-tier barrier rather than the two-tier version that has worked in California.Reps. Peter King (R-NY) and Duncan Hunter (R-CA) both oppose the move. The first says it "guts the Secure Fence Act almost entirely", the second says it would be a "significant step backwards". Apparently the changes are in line with what the DHS wants.
The spending bill, written by Democrats and passed 253-154 with mostly their votes...
...The 2006 Secure Fence Act specifically called for "two layers of reinforced fencing" and listed five specific sections of border where it should be installed. The new spending bill removes the two-tier requirement and the list of locations.
House Democrats said they were just adopting the Senate version, which was backed by a bipartisan group of border-state senators and passed the Senate several times this year.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, the Texas Republican who has led the charge to change the 2006 law, said she wants to give Homeland Security more flexibility and wants local officials and landowners to be consulted...
Minuteman Project founder Jim Gilchrist says he will have to reconsider his endorsement of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee after learning the Republican presidential candidate favors allowing illegal aliens to wait only days to receive documents allowing re-entry into the U.S...He says it will be a few days before he'll have an answer from the Huckabee campaign about his concerns.
"I'm going to have to follow up on this," Gilchrist said. "I had not seen before anything in Governor Huckabee's plan where repatriation and touch-back could involve only days, not years...
Jorge Bustamante, the United Nations' Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants and a sociology professor at the University of Notre Dame, this week called Republican Party policies on immigration "immoral." Writing in the Mexico City daily Reforma, Bustamante said the Republican candidates share a in immigration stance that "lacks even the most minimum recognition of the demand for the Mexican migrant labor."He didn't suggest any specific companies, only suggesting an internet search. The second link describes how he met with Peter Schey of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, the National Immigration Law Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the California Rural Legal Assistance program in May.
He called on Mexicans to harness "the real power we have as consumers" to boycott big companies that do business in Mexico and fund Republican candidacies...
I'm proposing to introduce an initiative that will facilitate permanent Mexican residents in the United States to become citizens of that country, so their increasing number will translate in a real possibility of more votes against Wilson in the next elections... ...This way if a Mexican by birth acquires U.S. citizenship, that fact would allow him to vote in the United States, without loosing his Mexican nationality... ...anyone who wants to defend the interests of Mexico in whichever country they reside, augment their political power in order to make it within that country's rules...
* We have reason to be concerned that citizen taxpayer dollars committed to subsidize [Salvador Reza]'s various operations and activities may have been used to fund his protest activities outside Pruitt's...That's certainly odd: Lawrence Downes' report only mentioned "hate speech" originating from one side, and didn't follow the money trail to see whether Reza is publicly funded and whether he's used part of that to sponsor the protests. In fact, Downes' report completely took his side of the matter. How odd.
* Reza and his affiliated "community activists" must immediately cease the smear campaign of false, misleading and reckless language against Pruitt's Furniture and the Sensing Family. Hate speech and incitement are unacceptable.
* ...your policies, decisions and actions have established a de facto day labor center in the area of [the corner with the furniture store]
The students had a role-play project: assume a Latino identity, build an imaginary life in your home country and develop a workable plan to immigrate to the United States.Related:
Try it legally, Erica Vieyra told her 40 senior Spanish students at Olentangy Liberty High School. Fill out the correct documents, follow the proper steps. And then, after they spent days completing the actual paperwork from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, she took out her red ink pad and stamped a big, fat DENIED across every request.
Now, she told the students, come illegally. Forge your documents, find a way across the border. Then, research real ads and find a place to live in Columbus. Figure out what it would cost, how to get food. Plan how to survive.
...Vieyra promised them that the process -- even in make-believe -- would frustrate them. But they would gain, she hoped, an understanding of what is one of the most important political and humanitarian issues facing the U.S. government today...
...But [Vieyra] cautions that the point isn't to sway the students, only to teach them a little empathy.
"When you're elected president, what if like the illegal immigrants start to take action and start bombing and stuff?"Obama should have differentiated between economic-based illegal aliens, those who are coming here to commit crimes, and those who are coming here for reasons related to terrorism. He did not, and Sunlen Miller of ABC News plays along with his misleading statements:
Obama proceded to give Bowman a social sciences lesson, explaining "Immigrants are coming into the country and not blowing things up. They are usually working in meat packing plants, or working in restaurants or working in agriculture, picking vegetables..."He didn't give him a lesson, he misled the kid. He also demagogued a non sequitur about Romney and gave an advertisement for illegal activity. And, not just the audience but ABC News ate it up.
Someone in the crowd yelled "Mitt Romney," and Obama had his straight line.
"Yeah, they are mowing Mitt Romney's yard. I forgot about ol' Mitt, who's got the gall to running all these ads about illegal immigrants."
The crowd roared in laughter but Obama stopped himself there and went on. "We've got a problem with terrorists who are trying to kill us... That's a separate problem from immigrants," Obama assured Bowman.
Bush hack turned Washington Post hack Michael Gerson - at that link trying to push for Bush's immigration "reform" by calling the GOP base names - offers "Homespun Meets Hard-Line". Like yesterday's WaPo editorial he turns on Mike Huckabee because of the latter's new (supposed) tough stance on illegal immigration. A full discussion of everything wrong with the column isn't worth the time, however I will note this:
Contrast [a Jim Gilchrist statement] with Huckabee speaking in Little Rock at a meeting of Hispanic civil rights leaders two years ago: "I would hope that no matter who we are, or where we are from, that America should always be a place that opens its spirit to people who come because they want the best for their families." And Huckabee has accompanied his choice of new friends with an immigration plan that would require 12 million illegal immigrants to return home before applying for permanent status -- a completely unrealistic approach borrowed from anti-immigration activists.
I believe the "meeting of Hispanic civil rights leaders" Gerson is refering to is the one that featured not only the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) but Tyson Foods as well. LULAC is a once-mainstream, now-radicalized racial power group. They were at the National Latino Congreso, the spoke out in favor of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, and their national treasurer even parroted the "the border crossed us" line (basically denying the U.S.'s territorial claims). They might also end up being involved in a class action against Tyson Chicken; the attorney in that case says Gerson's "civil rights" group might have conspired with Tyson Chicken to help them hire illegal aliens.
As for Huck's plan, the 120 days is unworkable, but since releasing the plan he's stated that those who left could come back within "days, maybe weeks".
After closely examining the immunization records and marriage and birth certificates of the eighth-grade "immigrant" with a magnifying glass, Brent Lueck asked him the important question.While the Irish and other groups certainly faced a great deal of prejudice, that doesn't mean that worries about what impact importing millions of Catholics into what was then an almost competely Protestant country would have was itself prejudice. This apparently far-left event was the culmination of a three-week class and I don't know what was in the class. However, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it engaged in the logical fallacy of implying that today's immigration is the same as yesterday's, despite the conditions changing.
"You're from Ireland," he said. "Are you a Catholic?"
Lueck said he was worried that the "immigrant" might try to subvert America in the name of the pope. "I've got some issues with you, some loyalty issues."
It was just one example of the mock prejudice faced by about 120 eighth-grade students Friday at Cary Junior High [Illinois] taking part in a simulation of immigrant arrivals and experiences at Ellis Island...
Students also learned how the lives of present-day immigrants mirror the struggles of new Americans from 100 years ago...
The Washington Post offers a vile, spittle-flecked editorial called "The Immigration Swamp/As the presidential campaign intensifies, so does the nativist ferocity." They turn on Mike Huckabee for changing from a strong supporter of illegal immigration into someone who (supposedly) wants illegal aliens to return home within 120 days:
The idea that 12 million illegal residents of the United States can be induced to quit the country en masse within four months is absurd on its face -- a non-starter in logistical, humanitarian, political, diplomatic, commercial and economic terms that would leave an indelible stain on this country for years. Yet that is the wrathful centerpiece of Mike Huckabee's "Secure America Plan," which the Republican presidential candidate issued the other day in the course of his party's escalating enthusiasm for nastier-than-thou prescriptions to deal with illegal immigrants.
Then, they refer to the Minuteman Project as "a group of xenophobes who spend their time videotaping and harassing day laborers wherever they find them" and a group that engages in "vigilantism". They refer to Huck's (supposed) turn to the right side of things as a "cruel campaign of immigrant-bashing".
Then, it's off to selective reading land as they quote the Pew Hispanic Center study in which people claimed to have suffered discrimination. Then:
According to the latest FBI statistics, from 2006, hate crimes against Hispanics had increased by more than a third since 2003.
Unfortunately, the FBI doesn't seem to break out the race of the offender vs. the race of the victims, but they say there were a total of 853 "anti-Hispanic" crimes in 2006 (fbi.gov/ucr/hc2006/table7.html). Not only that, but when counting the offender's race they lump Hispanics as white; of known offenders, 3710 were white and 1026 were black (fbi.gov/ucr/hc2006/table3.html). But, some of those listed as white might in fact be Hispanic. And, from Earl Ofari Hutchison (link):
In fact, even though hate-crime laws were originally created to combat crimes by whites against minority groups, the majority of L.A. County's hate crimes against blacks in 2006 were suspected to have been committed by Latinos, and vice versa, according to the county Commission on Human Relations.
So, the WaPo appears to be stretching to smear. And, they make clear that their real reason for doing this is economic:
[Promotes "comprehensive immigration reform"; Huckabee's plan] suggests no realistic plan to address the economy's appetite for immigrant workers in the future, let alone those here now.
Someone should really follow the money on the WaPo; what do they or those to whom they're linked have to gain from the importation of cheap labor?
The editorial ends in as vile a manner as it began:
America has had its paroxysms of anti-immigrant fervor in the past, also accompanied by spasms of violence and persecution. Today, as in the past, the national atmosphere is subverting the discussion, drowning out reason. Look at the uproar that overwhelmed New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's sensible, safety-minded proposal to make illegal immigrants eligible for driver's licenses, and you will see logic defeated by posturing, political cowardice and the poisonous diatribes of talk radio. Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who championed comprehensive reform, is now chastened by the ferocity of the demagogues who mischaracterized it as an "amnesty"; he says he "got the message" and will now speak only of enforcement in the near term. In such an ugly environment, the best one can hope for is candidates who can appeal to the nation's self-interest as well as its better instincts; who can explain that resolving the immigration mess through a comprehensive approach is not only an economic imperative but also the only realistic way out of a political swamp.
AOL (America Online) has created a new immigration section for their AOL Latino channel. It features a blog with a La Opinion-style slant, such as refering to the Minuteman Project as "caza-inmigrantes" (migrant hunters) [1] That post also uses phrases like "indocumentados" and "antiinmigrantes" (refering to the rhetoric of Romney and Giuliani).
They're doing this in collaboration with the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), a far-left group. Documents from that group are available, such as "The Truth About the DREAM Act" [2], which contains such very doubtful claims as the assertion that the DREAM Act wouldn't increase illegal immigration. They also provide helpful links to "GobiernoUSA.gov".
Oddly enough, AOL doesn't seem to have made room for those who oppose illegal immigration. Finding nuggets at the site is left as an exercise, but unless we're willing to start a boycott of AOL there's probably not much that could be done.
[1] aollatinoblog.com/2007/12/13/los-minutemen-ya-tienen-candidato-y-no-es-tancredo/
[2] aollatinoblog.com/2007/11/13/the-truth-about-the-dream-act/
North Carolina governor Mike Easley wants illegal aliens to be able to attend community colleges in his state as out-of-state students. The previous policy of their CC system was to allow individual colleges to decide; now they must allow illegal aliens in. While this isn't as objectionable as those who would allow them to attend at the in-state rate or obtain other discounts, and while they say that it won't cost them money even if the numbers attending quadrupled (of course, that might be a low estimate), it's probably an initial step on the slippery slope. Plus, I don't like his Dick Durbin-esque tone. Says he:
"What people are upset about, they care deeply about their citizenship. It really means something to them... All the governors allow kids – illegal immigrants – to go to community colleges because they don't want to build an underclass in their state. All the states do that... We're not talking about 50-year-olds who are jumping the fence to go to school. We're talking about little kids who've grown up here through no fault of their own. They don't know where they were born... If you slam the door on them, you lose that talent. If you don't take advantage of it, it's just kind of dumb."
I don't know whose "citizenship" he was refering to, whether that of U.S. citizens, or that of the illegal aliens. In the first case, he's implying that U.S. citizens care too much about something that apparently he doesn't value as highly. And, that even applies in the second case and his remarks appear a bit "tranzi". As for "just kind of dumb", perhaps calling those residents of your state who oppose this plan "dumb" isn't the best strategy; I note that there are over 400 comments on the article, and I'd imagine that many or most are opposed to his plan. If he were thinking of the welfare of his state, he might consider encouraging those students to repatriate themselves or ask their home countries to pick up any bills they incur. Rep. Sue Myrick is opposed to the plan, as are other Republicans. Needless to say, the governor and other supporters are Democrats.
And, he even played a part in the decision by the general counsel of NC's CC system (David Sullivan):
Mr. Sullivan said his directive was based on a 1997 opinion by the state's attorney general at the time - Michael F. Easley, a Democrat who is now governor - which said that the colleges could not impose nonacademic criteria for admission.
Note: this issue has also generated one of the dumbest editorials on this issue I've ever read:
And yes, plenty of Latino Americans have broken the law in North Carolina, as have many company owners who rely on cheap labor to keep costs down. But all of them came here for the promise of a better life for themselves and future generations. And most of them aren't going anywhere.
When illegal immigrants do graduate from college, they still cannot find skilled jobs except underground. For the undocumented, a Social Security card would trump a diploma. That's why champions of legalization for the undocumented are staking their hopes on the stalled federal Dream Act. The bill, an acronym for Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors, would explicitly grant illegal immigrants enrolling in college six years of conditional residency that would enable them to work, drive and possibly be eligible in more states for in-state tuition. What's better, it would enable a student who completes two years of college to apply for a permanent resident’s green card.Of course it's an amnesty, because that's how it will be perceived. And, it will send a loud message to millions of people around the world that all they need to do is come here illegally and we'll provide college discounts, even if it means taking them away from our own citizens.
Given how hard two years of college can be, that bill could hardly be considered an amnesty, particularly since the students were not to blame for their illegal entry in the first place.
To address the question of what we should do about immigrants who entered the country illegally, I propose starting with the highest law of human behavior: do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.
But, that cannot mean amnesty. There must be consequences for illegal actions, for violation of our rule of law.
I propose that such individuals be required to register with state and federal authorities, pay financial penalties, and be given the choice of deportation or, undertaking the process of legal citizenship.
Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center offers "The Teflon Nativists/FAIR Marked by Ties to White Supremacy" (splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=846) with the news that it's "official": the SPLC has declared the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) to be a "hate group". They mention how much press coverage FAIR has received, and they include a quote from Henry Fernandez of the Center for American Progress which helps show that their goal is to stifle FAIR:
"The sad fact is that attempts to reform our immigration system are being sabotaged by organizations fueled by hate... Many anti-immigrant leaders have backgrounds that should disqualify them from even participating in mainstream debate, yet the American press quotes them without ever noting their bizarre and often racist beliefs."
I'd imagine that the MSM will just eat this up without even looking into it, resulting in fewer press mentions and a reduced voice for those of us who support our laws. I'll let FAIR speak for themselves (if they deign to do so), but I'll point out a few things:
1. The SPLC is indirectly linked to the Mexican government (see their name's link above); I've never seen that mentioned in any of the "news" reports that take them as a semi-official source. Fernandez is also indirectly linked to that government (see his name's link).
2. Part of their designation rests on the fact that FAIR has received funding from an "infamous, racist eugenics foundation." That's a reference to the Pioneer Fund; in the same decade as they gave money to FAIR they also gave money to Stanford, the Tel Aviv University, the Sickle Cell Disease Foundation of Greater New York, and others.
3. Another part is because FAIR has supposedly put forth "racist conspiracy theories about Mexico's secret designs on the American Southwest". I don't know what FAIR has said, but the Mexican government has explicitly stated that they want to meddle in our internal politics and will be using non-profit organizations to do so. That translate to obtaining political power inside the U.S. and, should that process not be stopped, some form of de jure or de facto condominium.
4. Yet another part is because FAIR supposedly has an "alternative theory alleging secret plans to merge the United States, Mexico and Canada". I guess the SPLC missed Congressional testimony from an elite group advocating for that scheme, and all the other flashing neon signs pointing in that direction.
UPDATE: FAIR responds with just some of the things the SPLC got wrong here. Note especially this:
In light of the fact that FAIR has requested the SPLC to correct these errors on at least three different occasions dating back to 2001, the publication of this erroneous information appears to be willful and malicious.
UPDATE 2: On a sidenote, the SPLC's Intelligence Report has won the 2007 "In-Depth/Investigative Reporting" award from the Utne Reader (utne.com/print-article.aspx?id=13124).
Ryan Lizza offers "Return of the Nativist/Behind the Republicans' anti-immigration frenzy". As you might guess from the author, the title, and the fact that it's in the New Yorker, it's wrong. However, thankfully, I have an intern who's read it for me, saving me the need to do so. Per him, it's a:
A classic dumbed-down Remnick-era New Yorker piece--remedial reading for U.W.S. cocooners. Lizza skips over all the wonkish aspects of the immigration debate (like whether "comprehensive" reform will actually work) as if they have nothing to do with the politics, paints opponents as unfeeling racists, ignores well-publicized evidence (e.g., from Carville and Greenberg) that Democrats might have political problems from supporting legalization, falls for the recent Pew hype and generally fits the issue into a comfortable Civil Rights template (moral moderates vs. pathetic bigots). Did I mention that it's a bad piece?
...In the fall of 2006 when Congress passed and the President signed into law the Secure Fence Act, most Americans thought they understood what they were getting. The plain text of the law states that "the Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide for [at] least 2 layers of reinforced fencing, the installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors" along a specified range of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Act then stipulated the precise regions of the border, covering a total of 854 miles...The directives gave DHS a large amount of "flexibility", which they've used to apparently only build a small part of the fence. The article goes on to give evidence that DHS doesn't want to build the fence, and Hutchison makes another appearance to give DHS yet another instance of "flexibility".
But the very same day that the Senate passed the Secure Fence Act, Senate leaders had already hatched a plan to, in essence, un-do the Act. More precisely stated, Congress passed another law giving the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)discretion over how and where the fence would actually be built. That night, after the Secure Fence Act was passed, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison rose to the floor of the Senate and expressed her concern that the Act was too restrictive and would impose too much of a burden on Texas' border communities. Hutchison then submitted into the record two letters written earlier that day. The first was a letter she had received from Majority Leader Bill Frist earlier in the day addressing Sen. Hutchison's concerns; the second, Frist's letter to House and Senate leaders issuing specific legislative directives related to Hutchison's concerns...
[Update here]
Lawrence Downes offers an "Editorial Observer" article in the New York Times entitled "Showdown in Arizona, Where Mariachis and Minutemen Collide". It describes a running protest by illegal immigration supporters in front of the M. D. Pruitt furniture store in Phoenix. He had the temerity to try to keep day laborers off his property, employing off-duty sherriffs in the process. And, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been arresting illegal aliens in front of his store:
For the last seven weeks, a sidewalk protest here by Latino immigrants has blossomed into a feverish reality show, attracting Minutemen, mariachis, children dancing in Mexican folk costumes, white racists, United Nations observers, Phoenix police officers and Maricopa County sheriff's deputies.
I'm sure that some of those attending were indeed "white racists". And, I have little doubt that with enough searching I could find brown racists who also attended. Yet, for one odd reason or other Downes didn't mention that.
[The "weekly confrontation" is] a sideshow to something even uglier: what happens when immigration's complexities are handed to local law enforcers sympathetic to the fury of one side.
He's implying that those who support our laws are motivated only by "fury", and perhaps he might want to mention that, while illegal aliens have certain rights, the position of those who want to be employed illegally is somewhat invalidated.
Then, it's on to smearing Sheriff Joe Arpaio: "hunting undocumented immigrants is his specialty." For those laws that Downes supports, can anyone imagine him refering to the police "hunting" law-breakers? He also refers to Arpaio as a "business ally" of Pruitt, implying a quid pro quo; if that's not true then hopefully Downes will be sued.
Then, he promotes the efforts of Salvador Reza of the group Tonatierra (more). His group isn't identified, nor does Downes indicate that Reza is/was involved with running a day laborer center supported by local businesses (link).
Reza is this article's "person who says what the NYT wants to say": "Mr. Reza says he can't understand why America accepts global flows of companies, money and jobs but not workers." There are a multitude of reasons, but Downes just lets him speak unchallenged.
Then:
...one informed noncombatant, the Rev. Craig Geiger, pastor of a Lutheran church across the street, agrees.
While Geiger might be a "noncombatant" in this particular case, and while I wasn't able to find any far-left outbursts from him, the church newsletter is a bit interesting; perhaps Downes should have picked one up (mountofolivesaz.org/Newsletter.pdf). It includes the news that they were a "Hydration Center" in August, which is only followed by usual Bible phrases about "welcoming the stranger" that are used as religious justification for enabling illegal immigration. No word is provided on what exactly the "Hydration Center" did or whether it was located further south. Then, in a section entitled "A little know fact for that logical side of our brain", he promotes the study from Giovanni Peri purporting to show the effects of immigration on wages. Finally, there's a section entitled "An Immigration Lesson from the land", offering yet another religious justification for supporting "immigration".
Then, it's on to a possible lie:
"Monkeys coming through!" [a Minuteman with a bullhorn] shouted. His side rushed up to drown the music out: "Born in the U.S.A.! Born in the U.S.A.! K.K.K.! Viva la Migra! January First!"
Even if we assume that Downes has the quotes right, does he have any proof that that person was an actual member of a Minuteman group, or did he just make that up?
The article ends with Reza promising economic armageddon should illegal aliens leave the state.
"I don't think there's an inconsistency. When I said a 'pathway' I didn't say what the pathway was. [He's not the only Man from Hope]UPDATE: During the Univision GOP debate, Huck said the following:
I now believe that the only thing that the American people are going to accept and frankly the only thing that makes sense is a pathway that sends people back to the starting point. But, this idea that waiting years, no, I don't agree with that.
In fact, look, if we can get a credit card application done within hours, if we can get passports done within days, if we can transact business over the internet anywhere in the world within seconds, do a background check instantaneously, it's our government that's failed and is dysfunctional.
It shouldn't take years to get a work permit to come here and pick lettuce. So, a part of the plan that I have is that we seal the borders, you don't have amnesty and sanctuary cities, you do have a pathway that gets you back home. But, that pathway to get back here legally doesn't take years.
It would take days, maybe weeks. And, then, people could come back in the workforce. Let me tell you why that's important. Two reasons. Number one: the American people say, do something, do it now. We don't want to have this country ignoring the illegal problem. I get it. Secondly, I want people who are in this country to hold their heads up high. You know, right now there are a lot of people who really are here because they're trying to feed their families. I don't begrudge them that. I say I thank God everyday I'm in a country that people are trying to break into not break out of, but let's give them the means by which they can get here through the door legally, and when they're they don't have to hide, they don't have to keep their heads down and hope nobody catches them. They have their heads held high. Everyone living within the borders of the United States ought to do so with dignity and with a sense of pride, not a sense of fear.
If you can get an American Express card in two weeks, it shouldn't take seven years to get a work permit to come to this country in order to work on a farm. So if our government is incapable of making that process in that length of time, then we should do it in a way to outsource it.This is similar to the Mike Pence plan of having "Ellis Island Centers" in other countries.
John Brummett of the Arkansas News Bureau (arkansasnews.com) offers "Gomer Pyle and the GOP", concerning the Soviet-style question that NPR asked at their recent debate; what's in the post about Bob Herbert applies in this case as well. Unlike Herbert, he goes on to "joke" about how the GOP candidates would answer the same question. He only reserves kind words for John McCain, who he says has "behaved responsibly" on this issue.
Bob Herbert of the New York Times offers "Spies Like You and Me", in which he valiantly speaks out against plans for average citizens to turn in suspected illegal aliens. His starting point for the condemnation was the question that NPR asked at their debate.
The only problem is that no national figure is calling on average citizens to call ICE on random dishwashers and such.
In fact, NPR's question was a strawman argument and helped show that they have no knowledge of this issue. It was also akin to Soviet-style debates, in which the Politburo wrote both the questions and the answers. Anyone in their right mind would know how the candidates would respond, and they did so in the expected fashion. "Do you agree that this Five Year Plan is the greatest plan yet?" was probably never answered with a "no".
Herbert is too stupid or too disingenuous to figure that out.
Click his name at the link and then click "Send an E-Mail to Bob Herbert" to ask him to specify which it is.
Sarah Weaton of the New York Times offers "Huckabee Immigration Plan Emphasizes Security". Most of it consists of a summary of that scheme and, since the plan itself is almost as short as the article, why not just read the source?
She also misleads about this:
Mr. Huckabee has taken heat in recent weeks from his rivals for the Republican nomination, especially after his impassioned defense at a Nov. 28 debate of merit scholarships to children of illegal immigrants while he was governor of Arkansas. In that debate, he responded to attacks on his immigration record by saying, "We're a better country than to punish children for what their parents did."
As detailed at the last link:
1. Whatever The Huckster was refering to, the bill itself, as voted on, was for all post-secondary educational benefits, not just "merit scholarships".
2. The benefits were for illegal aliens themselves, irrespective of their parents' statuses.
And, Weaton also helps show just how misplaced the priorities of the MSM are:
[Mitt Romney] endured tough questioning from reporters in Des Moines yesterday about revelations last week that a yardwork company he employed was found for a second time to be using illegal immigrants... [after being "pressed", he "grew testy".]
Even another part of the NYT admits that this question has already been asked for "like, the millionth time" (link). So, why keep asking it, knowing you're going to get the same response?
And, of course, perhaps the NYT should actually try to analyze Huck's plan and get expert input and then subject him to "tough questioning" about his actual policy proposals. Apparently that's too much for those "reporters".
Sen. Harry Coates on Thursday called fellow Republican Rep. Randy Terrill, author of Oklahoma's controversial immigration legislation, "a mad scientist and Oklahoma is his laboratory."
...At a state Capitol news conference, Coates called for repeal of sections of House Bill 1804, whose primary author was Terrill, R-Moore. Coates said he has both economic and moral concerns about the bill, portions of which went into effect Nov. 1.
"What people don't seem to realize is that the chilling effect of this law has resulted in the loss of both documented and undocumented employees," Coates said. "These are good jobs and they pay good wages, but few American workers are willing to take them."
Jack Gray, whose Oklahoma City roofing company has been in business more than 100 years, said he hasn't lost any business, "but we will not be able to bid on any future business. There are not enough Americans who are willing to work construction."
[Dean] said Republicans are targeting immigrants and told the Republican presidential candidates that the tone of their debates on the issue has become "outrageous."The top GOP contenders are mostly concerned about illegal immigration, with only minor proposals relating to legal immigration. And, all of them pretend to be opposed to illegal immigration. When Howard Dean falsely implies that what they're doing is "scapegoating", he's trying to prevent a debate about illegal immigration and he's enabling more illegal immigration. Thus, I don't think it's unfair in the least to say that he fully supports illegal immigration.
"Stop scapegoating immigrants and stop using immigration as a wedge issue."
Asked repeatedly by reporters about the split in his party [between those who support enforcement first and those who support "reform"], Mr. Dean sought to marginalize the enforcement-supporting Democrats, calling them "very, very few" and saying they aren't representative of his party.Dean brought along Luis Cortes Jr. from Esperanza USA.
"All the Democratic presidential candidates are clear" in supporting a path to citizenship for illegal aliens, he said, adding that the presidential nominee will set the party's position.
"You can take your cue from that," he said.
Michael Kinsley offers "Kidding Ourselves About Immigration" in which he tries to present an argument for conflating all types of immigration together. You can click his name at the article to let him know what you think. The bottom line is that he's a sheltered Beltway insider who isn't familiar with this issue:
Saying that you oppose illegal immigration is like saying you oppose illegal drug use or illegal speeding. Of course you do, or should.
What he fails to mention is that many politicians claim to oppose illegal immigration, and then take steps to encourage and enable it, such as by giving benefits to illegal aliens or trying to block enforcement.
Another question: Why are you so upset about this particular form of lawbreaking? After all, there are lots of laws, not all of them enforced with vigor. The suspicion naturally arises that the illegality is not what bothers you. What bothers you is the immigration. There is an easy way to test this. Reducing illegal immigration is hard, but increasing legal immigration would be easy. If your view is that legal immigration is good and illegal immigration is bad, how about increasing legal immigration? How about doubling it? Any takers? So in the end, this is not really a debate about illegal immigration. This is a debate about immigration.
To a certain extent that's true. However, what Kinsley doesn't understand is that the illegallity is a vital part of the issue. While we shouldn't expect every law to be fully prosecuted, when millions of people are allowed to enter the U.S. illegally despite the wishes of the American public, one might wonder what's going on. Unfortunately, Kinsley doesn't seem to have figured out that massive illegal immigration is evidence of massive government corruption. Instead of doing their job, many politicians have decided to allow illegal immigration in some way so that they, their party, or their donors can benefit.
He then demonstrates yet more Beltway Cluelessness by saying that giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens is an "arcane" issue. Then:
On the Republican side, the candidates take turns accusing one another of committing some act of human decency toward illegals, and indignantly denying that they did any such thing.
That's certainly cute, but there are strong public policy arguments against doing things like giving in-state tuition to illegal aliens, and enabling illegal immigration is not a "decent" or humane thing to do.
Then, somewhat surprisingly, he admits that we have a right to determine how many are allowed to immigrate here and that "[t]here is no obligation to be fair to foreigners". Then, it's back to Cluelessland:
To characterize illegal immigrants as queue-jumping, lawbreaking scum is seriously unjust... [we're all immigrants drivel]
Most illegal aliens are, I'm sure, nice people. Unfortunately, massive illegal immigration has had a cultural impact that Kinsley doesn't discuss or doesn't know about. Many illegal aliens are used to buying fake documents and engaging in other sorts of illegal activity, and many don't see a problem with that ("If work is a crime, accuse me of committing a crime." and others). If legalized, would they suddenly forswear activity of that sort? Or, would they cut corners when it's convenient for them?
And, some of those coming here have no respect for our laws or our territorial claims. Or, in the case of Elvira Arellano, invent justifications for coming here illegally.
Then, it gets even worse, where he says that illegal aliens would win in an "American-values contest" against past immigrant groups. Considering that most illegal aliens are from Mexico, and considering that, per Zogby, a large majority of Mexicans think the U.S. Southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico, I'd say that Kinsley has no idea what he's talking about.
Let me suggest that Kinsley hires an interpreter and goes out and asks twenty or thirty Mexican illegal aliens whether they'd sign on to the statement "I didn't cross the border, the border crossed me." And, he can find out from the same number of illegal aliens from all countries whether they think things like identity theft are major crimes. Then, he can engage his brain and get back to us.
This plan is partially modeled on a proposal by Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies. ("Re: Immigration: Ten Points for a Successful Presidential Candidate," National Review, May 23, 2005.)Reading that first might be a good way to start; this shout out might have been a mistake on The Huckster's part if Krikorian has issues with the scheme.
3. Prevent AmnestyFirst, the INS hasn't existed for over four years. So, I'm going to guess that whoever drew this up didn't really know what they're talking about. Second, I can just see how this plan would play among the current supporters of illegal immigration, from the New York Times to far-left racial power groups. In fact, I can practically hear the chants of "ethnic cleansing!" and see the images of boxcars right now.
Policies that promote or tolerate amnesty will be rejected.
Propose to provide all illegal immigrants a 120-day window to register with the Immigration and Naturalization Service and leave the country. Those who register and return to their home country will face no penalty if they later apply to immigrate or visit; those who do not return home will be, when caught, barred from future reentry for a period of 10 years.
Employment is the chief draw for most illegal immigrants and denying them jobs is the centerpiece of an attrition strategy.OK, except what's outlined above isn't an "attrition strategy". It's a "mass exodus which will inflame the left and cause endless lawsuits by the ACLU et al" strategy.
Institute a universal, mandatory citizenship verification system as part of the normal hiring process.This section has an asterix which references the recent no-match suit brought to us by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the ACLU:
Prevent the IRS and the Social Security Administration from accepting fraudulent Social Security numbers or numbers that don't match the employees' names.After supporting the Fair Tax and the Clear Act, Huckabee gets ironic:
Reject Mexico's "matricula consular" card, which functions as an illegal-immigrant identification card.In fact, Huckabee enabled Mexico to pass out thousands of those so far this year due to him pushing for a consulate to be built in Arkansas.
No matter how you feel about the morality of the plan, or its practicality, it is amazing that the man who may win the GOP nomination is calling for the forced expulsion of 5 percent of the current American workforce. The economic and societal chaos these kinds of plans would create is almost unimaginable."Booman" links to that (boomantribune.com/story/2007/12/8/112236/031) and goes even nutrootier, saying that Huck is vying (with Joe Biden's Iraq partition plan) for the "Adolf Eichmann Mass Relocation Award".
Via this we learn that attorneys from top law firms such as Dechert LLP, Wilson Sonsini, Skadden-Arps and Orrick, Herrington & Suttcliffe are forming a "task force" to prevent ICE supposedly over-stepping their bounds when conducting immigration raids. All told there are 60 lawyers from 14 firms, and they're doing it pro "bono". Says Andrew Thomases of Dechert:
"All individuals have constitutional rights, and we want to make sure the rights are not violated, and the government is not violating the Fourth or Fifth Amendment when doing searches and seizures."
For their part, ICE says they abide by the law. While it's hard to criticize those who want to defend the Constitution, I don't see those same lawyers rushing to the defense of citizens whose rights are affected by illegal immigration.
The coordinator of the effort is Mark Silverman from San Francisco's Immigrant Legal Resource Center, a group that's received funding from George Soros and which was last seen appearing at a Rep. Barbara Lee event.
The revised children's health insurance bill that Congress is about to send to President Bush still has loopholes that both illegal aliens and ineligible legal immigrants could exploit to join the program, a new Heritage Foundation analysis shows.
Under the bill, those applying for the State Children's Health Insurance Program would not have to prove citizenship. Instead, they only would have to provide a valid Social Security number — something most legal immigrants and many illegal aliens already have, said Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, whose analysis is being released today...
Anti-immigration zealot and GOP presidential candidate Tom Tancredo hired what he often refers to as "criminal aliens" to renovate his Colorado house.There's a difference between illegal aliens and criminal aliens, and I strongly suspect that the workers were just the former and not the latter. And, of course, he's not "anti-immigration".
When Tancredo hired a construction crew to transform his drab basement into a high-tech pleasure den in October 2001, however, he did not express concern that only two of its members spoke English. Nor did he bother to check the workers' documentation to see if they were legal residents of the United States. Had Tancredo done so, he would have learned that most of the crew consisted of undocumented immigrants, or "criminal aliens" as he likes to call them. Instead, Tancredo paid the crew $60,000 for its labor and waited innocently for the completion of his elaborate entertainment complex.1. As