angela kelley: Page 1
Under the Bush administration, the Department of Homeland Security engaged in a small number of showy but not overly effective immigration raids. Under the Obama administration, the DHS switched to (in addition generally not doing its job) what are called "silent raids" where they audit a company's employment records and then request that the employees are fired if they can't prove they're here legally. That lets illegal aliens stay in the U.S. and simply go find work at another company. And, that helps the Democrats maintain a power base. (Over nine months ago I urged people to ask Janet Napolitano about this at one of her public appearances).
Not only does the Obama administration cause long-term difficulties for American workers with this policy, but they're also letting employers off the hook (link):
...ICE audit records obtained recently through a Freedom of Information Act request show that the agency has, in many instances, failed to punish companies found to have significant numbers or high percentages of workers with questionable documents... The records show inspectors identified more than 110 companies with suspect documents, with nearly half of those having questionable paperwork for 10 or more workers... In total, the agency ordered 14 companies to pay fines of nearly $150,000, but noted no employer arrests in connection with any of the cases...
ICE doesn't have much of a defense:
[ICE points] to the fact that this fiscal year the agency has ordered businesses to pay a record-setting $4.6 million in civil penalties and has arrested more than 150 employers, managers or supervisors. However, some of the arrests stem from investigations going back several years. And the fines reflect enforcement actions that date as far back as 2007, including $360,000 from the 2008 raid of a Houston rag factory and more than $536,000 from a 2007 Ohio chicken factory raid. ...ICE did not have a breakdown of how much of the $4.6 million or how many of the arrests stemmed directly from the audit initiative, which began in July 2009.
Note also that one of the components of comprehensive immigration reform is increased enforcement, including cracking down on employers of illegal aliens. Some Democrats even stress that they want to do that now. Are you willing to trust that "reform" would include stepped-up enforcement given the above?
"You have this drip, drip, drip of I-9 enforcement audits all over the country, and it has the same effect - people don’t come to work the next day."
Those she's referring to aren't supposed to be here in the first place; she's on their side and not on the side of American workers.
UCLA CAP IPC deceptive study: immigration reform would increase GDP by $1.5 trillion over 10 years - 01/07/10
Earlier today, the Center for American Progress, the Immigration Policy Center, and professor Raul Hinojosa Ojeda of the University of California at Los Angeles released a study making the deceptive and fantastical claim that legalizing all illegal aliens would increase Gross Domestic Product by $1.5 trillion over 10
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:
The question that remains is whether there is the political will, especially in tough economic times, to move a reform package. Yet as (John Podesta) stated at yesterday's event, "we need solutions that restore the rule of law while aiding our economy by making taxpayers of all immigrants. So, to those opponents of reform we say this - immigration reform and economic recovery are not at odds with each other, but rather go hand in hand."
CAP is still the "think tank that can't think straight". Podesta didn't provide any sort of counter-argument, he just repeated what his group and others have said before. Clearly, the various problems CAP has - constantly issuing misleading statements and faulty studies and engaging in various logical fallacies - starts at the top.
Moreover, Podesta has no concern for American workers. Any form of legalization would swamp the workforce with millions of newly-legalized workers who would compete for jobs with Americans. And, that impact wouldn't just be on low-wage, low-skilled American workers but would also reach up into the middle class.
For instance, there are tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who are underemployed: some might be nurses working as maids, others might be teachers working as nannies, and so on. Those illegal aliens are prevented from pursuing their chosen professions due to their status.
A legalization program would make it possible for those former illegal aliens to compete with American workers in their chosen professions. The former illegal alien nurse who's working as a maid would compete with American nurses; the former illegal alien teacher who's working as a nanny would compete with American teachers, and so on. And, that will have the impact of lowering wages not just for low-skilled jobs but for higher-skilled jobs.
Obviously, Podesta and CAP don't care.
One of the games that illegal immigration supporters like to play is to pretend that comprehensive immigration reform isn't amnesty; they use a variety of misleading euphemisms, such as "earned legalization" and so on. But, sometimes the mask slips, as it did with Angela Kelley of the Center for American Progress. Referring to the recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, she says (americanprogress.org/issues/2009/05/immigration_friends.html):
In fact, in the poll a majority of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, moderates, and conservatives supported an Amnesty Program. "Seven in 10 liberals and 68 percent of Democrats support an amnesty program. But so do majorities of Republicans and independents (59 percent in both cases), moderates (63 percent) and conservatives (56 percent) alike."
On immigration, while support for a path to citizenship is up, interest in greater border control remains high and strong. Seventy-four percent say the United States is not doing enough to keep illegal immigrants out of the country; 59 percent feel "strongly" about it.
In fact, as detailed at the discussion of the poll, it doesn't mention a "path to citizenship" at all; legalization doesn't necessarily imply that all those legalized would be able to become citizens.
Obama immigration budget: does a McCain: border security, then amnesty; fulfills promise to Mexican government; worried about *southbound* flows - 05/06/09
Remember how when John McCain used the cheap, misleading tactic of talking about how he wanted to "secure the border first" and then use that to push for amnesty, and Obama supporters lied and said he didn't support comprehensive immigration reform anymore? Well, now Barack Obama wants to secure the border first and then use that to push for amnesty. Somehow it's different this time.
From "Obama budget puts security first at the border/He'll ask Congress to help curb the flow of arms to Mexico before seeking any immigration reform" (by Anna Gorman and Peter Nicholas of the Los Angeles Times; link):
President Obama will ask Congress for $27 billion for border and transportation security in the next budget year, fulfilling a promise to the Mexican government to battle the southbound flow of illegal weapons and setting the stage for immigration reform by first addressing enforcement, administration officials said Tuesday.
While some of what he proposes might do something about the northbound flow, and there's no statement from Obama being as upfront as the LAT is, that's a good reminder of who and what are really important to the elites.
Rather than emphasizing fence construction, the budget concentrates on fighting drug smuggling, increasing funding for the Transportation Security Administration as well as:
...[doubling DHS] funding to nearly $47 million to combat southbound firearms and currency smuggling, and adds more than 100 Border Patrol agents and Customs and Border Protection officers... Among the immigration enforcement priorities, the budget increases funding by 30% to nearly $200 million to enable the Department of Homeland Security to hire 80 new people to identify criminal immigrants in the jails and prisons for deportation... Obama also wants to spend $112 million, a 12% increase, to make E-Verify, an employment verification program, more reliable and to get more employers to use it.
The rest of the article consists of Gorman and Nicholas blueskying for the administration:
In devoting more money to security and enforcement, Obama may be creating some political space needed to revamp the immigration system. The president risks alienating many conservatives if he doesn't emphasize strong border and immigration enforcement before taking action on a reform package that would create a path to legalization for an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants... "If the American people don't feel like you can secure the borders," Obama said during a prime-time news conference last week, "then it's hard to strike a deal that would get people out of the shadows and on a pathway to citizenship who are already here, because the attitude of the average American is going to be, 'Well, you're just going to have hundreds of thousands of more coming in each year.' " ...The emphasis on border security isn't a surprising first step by the administration, said Angela Kelley, vice president for immigration policy at the Center for American Progress, a Washington-based think tank. ..."It's a no-brainer that he is going to want to spend a lot of resources and build muscle at the border," she said... [But, the] second chapter better be looking to Congress and being in the driver's seat, both publicly and behind closed doors, driving a legislative package successfully."
Corporation for Public Broadcasting screens pro-illegal immigration film on Capitol Hill ("Made in L.A.") - 04/24/09
Earlier today, the pro-illegal immigration movie "Made in L.A." was screened on Capitol Hill for various politicians and others; a list is at . Not only were those who are public servants wasting time watching movies on the U.S.'s dime, but the further involvement of PBS cranks it up a notch:
Senior Vice President of Television Content at the Corporation For Public Broadcasting Ted Garcia highlighted the story and mission of Made in L.A. and acknowledged the many partners that came together to make the film possible: "Made in L.A. highlights some of the reasons why public service media is so crucial... I'm so pleased that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting through our support of ITVS, P.O.V. and Latino Public Broadcasting has played a role in ensuring that this story would be told."
Has the CPB ever spent money on a documentary made by those who support the enforcement of our laws or the screening at the Capitol of such a film? The filmmakers are engaged in a "May Day Community Screening Campaign" and this screening is clearly part of that campaign, putting PBS/CPB on the side of advocating against enforcement of our immigration laws.
A government report questions the effectiveness of a federal program, long criticized by immigrant advocacy groups, that deputizes police officers as immigration agents.As he later says, who exactly they're supposed to go after isn't spelled out in the law, although the internal Department of Homeland Security policies are to go after smugglers, violent criminals, and so on. The GAO says the DHS didn't make that policy clear, and their report includes a reply from DHS saying that they're making changes. Archibold's report also references Joe Arpaio's efforts and the report from Justice Strategies; he calls the latter George Soros-linked group "a nonpartisan research foundation".
The report, to be released Wednesday by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, says the government has failed to determine how many of the thousands of people deported under the program were the kind of violent felons it was devised to root out...
Rep. Bennie Thompson will be holding a hearing today. More as it becomes available.
UPDATE: The report is available here; if anyone reads it leave notes in comments. Stock comments from Ali Noorani of the National Immigration Forum and Angela Kelley of the Immigration Policy Center are at: lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2009/03/congressional-h.html
Not only does it make no sense, it's dangerous. One of the provisions involves a national ID card for we citizens:
Initial implementation of secure identification tools for all Americans and aliens seeking employment... Legal U.S. residents seeking work will use a high-security proof of identity and citizenship... To avoid fraud, racial profiling, and failure of EEVS system, it will also be necessary for Americans seeking work in the future to use secure IDsIt also has a vague indentured servitude flavor to it:
Seasonal workers would contract with their employers, guaranteeing that the laborer will be available for the duration of the seasonAnd, it contains provisions oddly similar to remarks Mitt Romney has made, such as the "probationary registration of aliens" and "universe of illegals seeking adjustment will be known".
- A seasonal worker may leave a contracted job, but if so he will have to leave the country and go through a one-year cooling off period out of the U.S.
And, I was right in my assumption that its "triggers" for the amnesty would be based on spending and planning and such rather than a reduction in the number of illegal aliens; see the end of this post.
There are two visas involved: the "Y Visa" for a new "guest" worker scheme, and the "Z Visa" for current illegal aliens, giving them legal working permission.
* The Y Visa is further broken down into a "main program" ("In U.S. 2 years, then 6 months at home, 2 renewals") and a "seasonal program" ("9 months in U.S./3 months at home, indefinitely renewable").
* The Z Visa (which I'll call the "legal permanent underclass" visa) is indefinitely renewable, and requires a fine of $2000 at every three-year renewal mark, together with a payment of $1500 for a total of $3500 every three years.
From the U.S. News report:
[U.S. News reporter Angie C. Marek] says the new plan has made a lot of the White House's former allies in the immigrant-advocacy community mighty unhappy. Temporary guest workers in this plan would have a tough time getting any sort of citizenship. Under the visa program outlined by the White House, workers can stay in the United States for two years, at which point they'll have to return home for six months, a process that can be repeated two times.And, from this:
The fee to gain citizenship for immigrants currently in the country illegally would also jump from a proposed $2,000 to about $10,000.
Tom Snyder, national political director of the union UNITE Here, compared the measure with a "21st-century version of the Bracero program" in a conference call with reporters today. And Laura Reiff, cochair of the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, a business group that worked with the White House last year on the guest-worker proposals, called the measure "entirely unworkable."
"For us it's a no go," said Angela Kelley, deputy director of the advocacy group National Immigration Forum...I guess the people the White House was trying to impress don't want to reciprocate the Bush administration's affection.
"President Bush said family values don't stop at the Rio Grande. Evidently they do," said Kevin Appleby, director of Migration and Refugee Policy for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops...
Family unification, said [Teddy Kennedy], "has been an essential aspect of immigration policy since the history of this country" and letting immigrants work their way toward legalization is a framework for previous immigration bills that has received substantial support.
"You don't compromise on the morality of these issues," Kennedy said. "We're not going to."
UPDATE: More unhappy campers don't reciprocate their affection (seiu.org/media/pressreleases.cfm?pr_id=1384):
"SEIU is alarmed by the White House's proposed immigration reform plan which fails to address any of the key elements needed to pass practical, humane solutions to the current broken system. Taking a major step away from our nation's values and our history as a nation of immigrants, the White House plan would make inequality – rather than opportunity – the centerpiece of our immigration system and deny basic rights to our hardest workers."