american immigration lawyers association
american immigration lawyers association: Page 1
Supreme Court upholds 2007 Arizona immigration enforcement law; eVerify; losing: US Chamber, DOJ, Berman, NCLR, ADL, SPLC, AILA, SEIU, LULAC - 05/26/11
In a major victory for states that want to reduce illegal immigration, the US Supreme Court has upheld Arizona's 2007 "Legal Arizona Workers Act" employer enforcement law that requires the use of eVerify and that allows Arizona to pull the business licenses of companies that knowingly hire illegal aliens. Note that the 2007 law and the decision have no relation to Arizona's more recent immigration law. A Los Angeles Times article is here, and links to legal documents are here. Sonia Sotomayor voted in dissent; see her name's link.
Others who filed briefs in the case and who lost today include (see each link for more on that group):
* Rep. Howard Berman
* National Council of La Raza
* Anti Defamation League
* American Immigration Lawyers Association
* PRLDEF (a former associated group of Sotomayor)
* Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (a former associated group of Barack Obama)
* Southern Poverty Law Center
* Service Employees International Union
* National Day Laborer Organizing Network(NDLON)
* National Immigrant Justice Center
* American Immigration Council
* Asian American Justice Center
* Asian American Institute
* Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund
* Asian Law Caucus
* Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California
* League of United Latin American Citizens
* Legal Aid Society
* Los Abogados Hispanic Bar Association
* National Employment Law Project
Others on the losing side were former senator Arlen Specter and Ron Mazzoli (of the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty fame).
UPDATE: Thomas Saenz of MALDEF (which doesn't appear to have been involved in the suit) weighs in. He got one thing right: just because the 2007 law was upheld doesn't mean SB 1070 will prevail. In my opinion, states should just simply copy Arizona's 2007 law for now.
In any case, here's what Saenz says (maldef.org/news/releases/az_evrfy):
"Today's regrettable decision in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting is a tortured product of judicial activism responding to perceived political views of the moment. The majority proclaims itself unable to find implied preemption of an Arizona law that plainly impedes a federal scheme of exclusive enforcement of longstanding immigration-related employment law, and then, with a facile shift, easily finds an implied permission for Arizona to mandate E-verify, a power that Congress denied the federal government itself. All of this is accomplished through providing talismanic significance to the word 'licensing' even though Arizona's use of the term violates any plain-language or historical understanding of the term."
"Despite this egregious outcome, today's decision provides little predictive value as to the constitutional issue of preemption with respect to Arizona's SB 1070 and similar laws recently enacted in other states. Laws that encroach on exclusive federal immigration enforcement by mandating or permitting untrained local police officers to engage in racial profiling will find little refuge in today's decision. Wise state and local lawmakers must continue to tread carefully in areas touching on immigration. As has been the case for well over 200 years, federal action remains the sole legitimate avenue to address immigration issues."
UPDATE 2: The ADL weighs in with a bit of a muted press release (adl.org/PresRele/SupremeCourt_33/6050_33.htm). They're "disappointed":
The law increases the legal risks for businesses that employ undocumented workers but fails to provide sufficient \safeguards to protect those workers against unlawful treatment. It undermines federal efforts to balance discrimination concerns with control of illegal immigration.
The Arizona law also requires state use of E-Verify – a federal pilot program that allows employers to verify the eligibility of newly-hired employees – even though the program relies on records that are prone to error. That is one reason Congress has decided to hold off on making participation in the program mandatory.
Although the Court has upheld Arizona's law, we hope other states will show greater concern for the potentially discriminatory impact such laws can have, and choose not to follow Arizona's lead.
And, I hope they do follow Arizona's lead. We'll see how that works out; I tend to think several will.
FactCheck offers "Obama’s Health Care Speech/We fact-check the president's address to Congress and the nation" (factcheck.org/2009/09/obamas-health-care-speech) which to a certain extent contradicts claims made by their own director Brooks Jackson back on August 14. At that time, he said it was "False" that "Illegal Immigrants Will Be Covered" under the House bill; his claim itself is false.
With the new article they're at least admitting that those who point out that illegal aliens would be covered "have a point", but they furiously spin things - surprise! - to Obama's benefit:
[In his speech] Obama was correct when he said his plan wouldn’t insure illegal immigrants; the House bill expressly forbids giving subsidies to those who are in the country illegally. Conservative critics complain that the bill lacks an enforcement mechanism, but that hardly makes the president a liar.
They're giving Obama too much credit. Way, way, way too much credit. He knows there are loopholes and he supports such loopholes. The only reason he isn't pushing to cover the entire population of Mexico is because he knows he couldn't get away with it. Obama is being deliberately deceptive; he's a liar.
They follow the quote above with a longer section; the first part of that reprises their previous false claim. Then:
However, conservative critics object to a lack of specific enforcement measures in the bill. They argue that the lack of a specific verification mechanism constitutes a loophole that would allow illegal immigrants to get benefits despite the legal prohibition. Republican Rep. Dean Heller of Nevada proposed an amendment to the bill that would have required the use of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program to check the citizenship of anyone applying for federal coverage or affordability credits. SAVE is the program used by Medicaid and similar entitlement programs. That amendment was voted down along party lines by the House Ways and Means Committee.
Republicans have a point here: More could be done to enforce the ban. But it’s worth remembering that, as a spokesperson for the American Immigration Lawyers Association told us, attempting to get a health care credit would have legal repercussions. "Making a fraudulent claim to an entitlement program when you’re not actually entitled to it would have serious consequences for any person," the spokesperson told us, "but especially if it’s considered a false claim to citizenship, that would have serious immigration consequences that could ultimately lead to deportation." And Rep. Wilson certainly was out of bounds to call the president’s statement a "lie." He later issued a statement apologizing for his "inappropriate and regrettable" comments.
It was at the mention of the AILA that I broke out laughing. While to a certain extent most illegal aliens will try to lie low, the idea that most illegal aliens would be afraid of falsely claiming to be a citizen is absurd. They crossed the border illegally or overstayed their visa; they may be using falsified documents; they know that the chance of being deported are remote due to racial power groups and corrupt politicians. They aren't about to be deterred by a checkbox on a form.
And, of course, FactCheck is trying to imply that Joe Wilson retracted his claim that Obama was lying, when in fact Wilson maintains that Obama was lying.
Napolitano immigration meeting: you weren't represented (vast # of loose borders groups, Obama/Janet anti-287g) - 08/20/09
Earlier today, Janet Napolitano of the Department of Homeland Security held a closed-door meeting with a group of what she calls "stakeholders" (dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1250792978709.shtm) but was actually a vast pantheon (see below) of far-left, racial power, corrupt business, and in general loose borders groups all of which want some form of comprehensive immigration reform, aka amnesty. There were at least 98 participants in the meeting, and none of them represent your interests or the interests of the great majority of American citizens. Why exactly they'd hold the meeting isn't clear; aside from guest workers and minor details they're all pretty much on the same page. Perhaps it was a strategy session to see how they could fool as many people as possible whenever they decide to push for amnesty.
The President said specifically that when it comes to the local police charged with enforcing federal immigration law under 287(g) agreements that he wants these local law enforcement agencies held accountable.
Noorani’s other question concerned the 287g program, which gives local law enforcement the authority to enforce immigration law. Noorani asked Napolitano to revoke the authority of agencies who have clearly violated the spirit of the agreement, and that the immigration reform community looked forward to seeing that happen. Napolitano responded, “Me, too.”
Other statements from those attending the meeting are here. Here's the intro to the DHS's press release:
"Today’s meeting on comprehensive immigration reform was an important opportunity to hear from stakeholders and build on the significant time I’ve spent on the Hill meeting with members of Congress on this critical subject. I look forward to working with President Obama, my colleagues in Congress and representatives from law enforcement, business, labor organizations, the interfaith community, advocacy groups and others as we work on this important issue.”
UPDATE: Griswold of CATO weighs in with a slab of Policy-As-Highschool (cato-at-liberty.org/2009/08/21/the-president-drops-by-to-tout-immigration-reform). After Napolitano gave her "opening remarks we broke up into smaller roundtable discussions of about 15 people each moderated by DHS officials". They then reconvened and Napolitano discussed what they'd learned. Then, Obama entered the building and made his speech "about 20 feet from where I was sitting". Griswold also refers to himself as a "small fish"; he's much too modest since he was some kind of inspiration for Bush's 2004 anti- and un-American guest workers plan.
And, there are so many groups that I've split the list into two parts. The religious, union, city/police, and miscellaneous groups are here. The following has the major groups, the business groups, and the single libertarian:
"Reform Immigration For America": business, labor, CAP, NCLR, CHIRLA begin new push; summit, townhall meeting; John Quigley - 06/01/09
A new group called "Reform Immigration For America" recently launched in order to push for comprehensive immigration reform, aka amnesty. They're a coalition of business, labor, and far-left/racial power groups; see their slick site here: reformimmigrationforamerica.org.
AILF: all common sense to the contrary, massive immigration and unemployment not linked (Rob Paral, Dan Siciliano) - 05/20/09
Take a trip to topsy-turvy world with this:
Contrary to conventional wisdom -- and anti-illegal immigration rhetoric -- immigration rates have no direct effect on unemployment rates, according to a study released Tuesday.
The study was conducted by the Center for Immigration Policy, the research arm of the pro-immigration American Immigration Law Foundation. It compared rates of unemployment with immigration rates in states across the nation, and found no direct correlation.
...The study's author say immigrant populations are inherently more mobile, which means they can move to where the jobs are.
"You're not going to round up laid-off workers in Michigan and put them on buses to agricultural fields in California," (Dan Siciliano) said. "Having autoworkers picking lettuce is an absurd story."
Obviously, the dust bowl internal migrations never happened in his world. However, in our world, if we really wanted to, it would not be difficult to replace deported illegal aliens with unemployed U.S. citizens. Americans already do many farm jobs and - even if it requires a little help from the government - more can do it if necessary. Plus, with a lower supply of cheap foreign labor, many growers would be forced to mechanize which would lead to jobs for Americans to build harvesting machinery.
The AILF is related to the American Immigration Lawyers Association. The lead author of the study is demographer Rob Paral, and Siciliano is "executive director of the Program in Law, Economics and Business at Stanford Law School and a research fellow for the Washington, D.C.-based center."
Ms. Butterfield is certainly qualified for positions such as USCIS Director, USCIS Chief Counsel, or similar DHS positions though based on our sources who are familiar with DHS appointments in the Obama Administration, she has not yet been extended an invitation (the immigration bar would of course be delighted to see her in a key DHS position).
There's more on her here, and if she does wind up in the Obama administration somewhere it wouldn't be too surprising considering his other loose/open borders picks.
DHS Dep. Asst. Sec'y for Policy is from CAP, United Nations, Ted Kennedy office (Esther Olavarria) - 02/23/09
Janet Napolitano has selected Esther Olavarria as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy in the Department of Homeland Security. And, she's from the Center for American Progress, called around here the "think tank that can't think straight". CAP supports illegal immigration and defines opposition to massive illegal activity as "xenophobia"; see the link for more on them. And, since August 2008 she's been a CAP Senior Fellow and their Director of Immigration Policy , 
The first page has her bio containing more nuggets of great news:
Esther comes to CAP/CAPAF from the UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, where she served as senior advisor for government and external relations. Prior to joining UNHCR, she was chief immigration counsel to Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) on the Senate Judiciary Committee. From 1998 to 2007, she served as Senator Kennedy’s principle advisor on immigration, border security, and refugee policies and legislation, including comprehensive immigration reform. Esther began her career as an immigration attorney in Miami, FL, working at several non-profit organizations. She co-founded the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center and supervised the direct service work of that organization. She also worked at Legal Services of Greater Miami as the directing attorney of the American Immigration Lawyers Association Pro Bono Project, and at the Haitian Refugee Center, as a staff attorney.
Almost a year ago, the AILA released "Guide for State and Local Policymakers", attempting to dissuade those political leaders from pushing laws designed to reduce illegal immigration. A look at the first few content pages shows a few misleading statements. Finding the no doubt many more misleading statements is left as an exercise. If you've received this guide, let me suggest reading it very carefully and having a search engine handy in order to do your own research on what they aren't telling you.
Whether she's really tough or not, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand's immigration position is already angering the right people.
Rights Working Group wants immigration enforcement moratorium and much more (ACLU, NCLR, 248 others) - 01/09/09
The Asian American Justice Center runs the Rights Working Group, a coalition of over 250 leftwing groups, and they have a petition calling on Barack Obama to in effect not do immigration enforcement. They want a "moratorium" while the subject of raids and the like is "studied", but everyone knows what that means.
We Can Stop The Hate: Mexico-linked groups try silencing opponents of illegal immigration - 01/31/08
The extremist-funding National Council of La Raza has started a new effort called We Can Stop The Hate (wecanstopthehate.org) which is attempting to silence those who support our immigration laws by highlighting what they call examples of "hate". Three of their cohorts in the effort have at least indirect links to the Mexican government. Note that that government has explicitly stated that they're going to be using U.S.
According to a Gannett study, $3.3 million was spent in that period, and most of that was the pro side. They also mention the Center for Responsive Politics. Their raw data is here, but it looks like some of the dollar figures might include all lobbying an organization does, not just that related to immigration.
A sidebar shows some of those lobbying for and against the Senate amnesty. On the against side were NumbersUSA, National Border Patrol Council, U.S. Border Control, and Federation for American Immigration Reform with almost a million total.
On the for side were:
E. & J. Gallo Winery: $20,000
American Immigration Lawyers Association: $85,000
National Association of Manufacturers: $60,000
Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform: $430,000 (members included National Council of La Raza, Service Employees International Union, UNITE Here, National Immigration Forum)
Essential Worker Immigration Coalition: $180,000
Chicago Celts for Immigration Reform: less than $10,000
Mike Madden of Gannett News/USA Today offers "Advocates hope new Congress will act on immigration reform", the latest in a long line of similar articles (Tim Gaynor/Reuters: "Democrats' win spurs hope of immigration revamp", the NYT editorial "Signs of Hope on Immigration", Boston Herald wants to "resolve immigration reform", etc.) Certainly, the views of the other side are to a certain extent worth listening to, but one wonders whether six opponents of amnesty have been featured in their own article.
Madden informs us that "[m]illions of immigrants marched from coast to coast demanding new rights", when I recall them actually being foreign citizens or their supporters making a show of force in our streets. Then, after playing the Hayworth/Graf canard, he sets down to work by quoting "Marshall Fitz, director of advocacy for the American Immigration Lawyers Association, which is pressing for reforms." Harry Reid promises to come up with his own version of the bill the Senate passed. Patrick Leahy is mentioned, then we're treated to a quote from:
John Gay, a lobbyist for the National Restaurant Association and co-director of the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, made up of trade organizations for industries that depend on immigrant labor.
Unnamed aides say that Nancy Pelosi, unlike Harry Reid, is on the fence:
Many new House Democrats supported new border security restrictions on the campaign trail, which could complicate matters politically for Pelosi, even though lobbyists working on the issue believe a majority of the House would vote for reform.
So, Hayworth and Santorum lost because of their support for enforcement, but Dems won despite supporting enforcement? Or, did Madden simply forget what he wrote only a few paragraphs before?
Continuing with the internal inconsistencies:
But the stalemate this year taught advocates that they need to act fast, before election-year politics come into play, said Cecelia Munoz, vice president for advocacy at the National Council of La Raza, the nation's largest Latino civil rights group, Munoz hopes the House will take up a bill by spring in order for Congress to finish its work before 2008.
The NCLR also has links to and funds extremists, but who's counting. Finally, Madden refers to the flow of illegal aliens over the border as the "arrival of new immigrants", and says that agricultural interests are complaining about a lack of labor.
A U.S. coalition of business, labor unions and religious groups launched a campaign on Thursday to defeat a bill backed by Republicans that would turn some 11 million illegal immigrants into felons.So far I haven't been able to find out the name or URL of this organization, but if you know please leave a comment.
The coalition of 24 organizations, many of which rarely agree on politics or economics, denounced the bill passed by the House of Representatives last month and called on the Senate to enact legislation to include a guest worker program and a path for illegal aliens to gain legal status.
..."We are extremely disappointed with the proposal that passed the House last month," said Thomas Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce which represents some 3 million businesses...
...Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, which has 1.8 million members, called for comprehensive reform to take control of the border and provided a way for illegal aliens to gain legal status...
...Other groups joining the coalition include associations representing builders and contractors, health care providers, the hotel and restaurant industries, Latino organizations, farm workers, the American Jewish Committee and Catholic bishops...
And, see this remarkably similar page... from April 21, 2004:
Today, a remarkable alliance of business, labor, religious, ethnic, and immigrant advocacy groups ran a full-page ad in Roll Call, the newspaper of Congress, signaling their support for comprehensive immigration reform... [the groups were:]
*Business: American Health Care Association; American Hotel and Lodging Association; American Nursery and Landscape Association; International Franchise Association; National Council of Chain Restaurants; National Restaurant Association; and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
*Labor: American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFL-CIO); Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union; Laborers’ International Union of North America; Service Employees International Union; UNITE! (Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees); United Farmworkers of America; and the United Food and Commercial Workers.
*Religious: American Jewish Committee; Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service; and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
*Ethnic: Hispanic Alliance for Progress; The Latino Coalition; League of United Latin American Citizens; Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund; and the National Council of La Raza.
*Immigrant Advocacy: American Immigration Lawyers Association and the National Immigration Forum.
We the undersigned applaud the introduction today of Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act... [etc. etc...]The signatories include:
Lee Culpepper (last mentioned here; works for the National Restaurant Association and is Chairman of the National Immigration Forum)
And then there's the National Immigration Forum, the umbrella organization for high-immigration political advocacy, which works closely with sympathetic Republicans. But NIF is not like the conventional lobbying coalitions that exist on numerous issues. It was cofounded by the National Lawyers Guild in the 1980s, back when the Guild was a Soviet front group. The group's first head was Rick Swartz, a leftist attorney who cut his teeth advocating for Haitian illegal aliens and who, during a 1981 Senate hearing, likened the United States to Nazi Germany.You'll note that the signatories are almost the same group as those who signed the "Conservative" Statement of Principles on Immigration from over a year ago.
Like many lobbying coalitions, the NIF board includes representatives of Republican stalwarts like the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the National Restaurant Association, and used to include Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute, now head of the Club for Growth. Whatever his libertarian views on immigration, I imagine Steve hightailed it out of there after he realized what he'd gotten into, because the people sitting around the conference table at NIF board meetings include some decidedly unsavory characters. In addition to the usual leftist suspects — the ACLU, the Service Employees Union, Jim Zogby of the Arab American Institute — the NIF board includes the head of the immigration lawyers' association, one Jeanne Butterfield, who used to be executive director of the Palestine Solidarity Committee, identified by the Anti-Defamation League as an alliance between members of the Popular Front for Liberation of Palestine and the Workers World party (the Trotskyites behind the Iraq War protests)...
Previously: More straw, Tamar?
We were appalled to learn that U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado was invited to make a keynote speech at a Republican fundraising breakfast in Minnesota's Third Congressional District this weekend.You know, the last group discussed here that attacked Tancredo in the same manner was ProgressNow ("Tying up the loose ends on Colorado's guide for the illegal alien"). I showed that they were lying and I believe anyone who believes anything ProgressNow says should lay off the KoolAid. I'd like to do the same thing in this specific case, but Moccio and Fennelly have given me nothing specific to rebut. All we have is their word that Tancredo engages in fear-mongering, and I don't think I'm willing to accept their word for much of anything.
His brand of fear-mongering about illegal immigration and his active encouragement of vigilantes should have no place in Minnesota politics. Immigration reform is sorely needed in the United States, but responsible proposals must be based upon facts and not incendiary rhetoric...
Note, of course, the use of the loaded term "vigilantes."
Tancredo rails against "illegal immigrants," but he doesn't address why so many undocumented workers come to the United States...I'm not going to bother to do the research because I'm pretty sure that's simply a lie. Note, of course, the use of scare quotes around illegal immigrants. Both Moccio and Fennelly should know that that's the correct, legal term and that "undocumented" is a Carter-era PC euphemism.
President Bush has called the militia "vigilantes," but Tancredo calls them "heroes" and has invited their leaders to address members of Congress in his Immigration Reform Caucus.Seriously, who cares what President Bush calls them? Everyone knows he's beholden to those companies that profit off illegal immigration. What did you expect him to say, something that most American citizens would agree with? (Here's an article on their meeting with the Caucus.)
Amongst all the lies and the logical leaps, the article's greatest attempt to lie to the reader stands out:
Among these so-called heroes are white supremacists from the neo-Nazi National Alliance. Members of the Alliance were at the project's kickoff, and some carried assault weapons in their trucks and boasted that they were scouting "sniper positions."Let's examine that in more depth. The word "among" implies membership in a set, and that set is those that are "so-called heroes." Therefore, Moccio and Fennelly are saying that those members of the NA were among the "so-called heroes." Who is the agent behind the "so-called"? Why, none other than Tancredo.
Therefore, we see that Moccio and Fennelly are saying that U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo called members of the NA "heroes," with the implication that he did so knowing that they were members of the NA. Which, of course, is a bald-faced lie.
It is also misleading to state that these aforementioned NA members were also members of the MMP. That is clearly stated above. There were members of the NA who attempted to attach themselves to the MMP but were rebuffed. There may well have been members of the NA who hid their affiliation and were able to join MMP, but if so that's because they made it past the MMP's screening process. Not even the screening process by the CIA or other government agencies is foolproof, and one would hardly expect the same level of scrutiny from private parties.
Some members of the media went undercover among the MMP as well and attempted to provoke the others. I note that Moccio and Fennelly didn't mention that.
Note that the major funders of Moccio's group include the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the Ford Foundation and George Soros' Open Society Institute, so you would probably expect the above from anyone associated with such fine organizations.
However, Fennelly is an academic and presumably has some standards of logical reasoning, and if she wrote the above she should be ashamed of herself.