center for immigration studies
center for immigration studies: Page 1
Mark Krikorian's dereliction of duty: he puts personal issues ahead of stopping amnesty (Center for Immigration Studies) - 12/18/14
As the head of the Center for Immigration Studies ("CIS"), Mark Krikorian has a responsibility to all CIS supporters to use all possible legal means to stop amnesty. Shockingly, Krikorian has rejected - purely out of personal pique - even considering a specific technique that is guaranteed to stop Obama's amnesty.
Ian Urbina of the New York Times offers "Using Jailed Migrants as a Pool of Cheap Labor" (link). At the best, it's agenda-driven journalism, and if you respond in the way Urbina and the NYT want you to, you'll help make the situation even worse.
Marco Rubio leads smear campaign against anti-amnesty groups FAIR, NumbersUSA, and CIS (Mario Lopez, Alfonso Aguilar) - 02/14/13
A new battle has flared inside the Republican Party in recent days as supporters of more-liberal immigration laws wage a behind-the-scenes campaign to discredit the influential advocacy groups that have long powered the GOP's hard-line stance on the issue.
Most new Texas jobs went to immigrants, legal and illegal (Rick Perry; who to blame; what to do) - 09/22/11
A new study (link) shows that most of the new jobs created in Texas - Rick Perry's "Texas Miracle" - went to immigrants and not native-born workers. And, about half of those immigrants who got jobs are illegal aliens.
This is somewhat bad news for Rick Perry, despite the fact that he's only partly responsible. Below I'll tell you who should bear most of the responsibility and what you can do about this.
Supreme Court orders California to release >30,000 prisoners; how much overcrowding due to illegal immigration? (ACLU) - 05/23/11
The US Supreme Court has ordered the state of California to release at least 30,000 state prisoners in order to reduce overcrowding (link, excerpt at ). What you probably won't hear from many others is the role that massive immigration - especially of the illegal variety - has played in this matter.
According to a Public Policy Institute of California study, "[i]n 2005, there were 28,279 foreign born adults and 139,419 U.S.-born adults in California prisons". Not all of the former are illegal aliens; in fact, it appears that statistics on the numbers of illegal aliens in California prisons are kept under wraps (but if anyone has a valid cite, leave it in comments). However, most of those foreign born are likely to be low-skilled legal immigrants and a large number of them will be illegal aliens; few of that number are likely to be H1B engineers. And, all of that number could have been prevented from coming here in the first place. Note that Arnold Schwarzenegger put the number of illegal aliens in state prisons at 20,000 but it's not known where he got that number. The Government Accountability Office put the number of illegal aliens in California state prisons at about 27,000 in 2008 .
Reducing low-skilled immigration would have gone a long way towards reducing prison overcrowding, and without all that massive immigration we wouldn't have tens of thousands of prisoners set free to roam the streets of California.
California now has two weeks to produce a plan that would reduce its prison population by more than 33,000 inmates within two years. [Matthew Cate, secretary for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation] said the state could ask a federal three-judge panel for more time to reach the lower inmate number. He said Brown’s proposal to shift thousands of state prisoners to county jails would reduce the state’s prison population by about 30,000 inmates over the next four years.
So, while the outcome isn't clear, I might be wrong about tens of thousands of prisoners being released to roam the streets. In any case, we wouldn't have the problem in the first place without massive, especially illegal, immigration.
Also, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a friend of the court brief in the case and issues a triumphant press release at . As discussed at the last link, the ACLU is a very strong supporter of illegal immigration; they helped the state get into the current mess.
UPDATE 2: It's worth noting that Sonia Sotomayor was on the wrong side, and the ruling was 5-4. See the link for who's to blame for her making it to the Supreme Court.
"there are 20,000 illegal inmates [she means illegal aliens] that the federal government should be taking care of and they’re not. If they take over those 20 thousand illegal inmates, at least we’d be halfway to what the court has ordered."
And, from this:
Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Hesperia, this week sent a "2010 invoice" for $885,039,426 to President Barack Obama asking him to pay up or take custody of 17,000 illegal immigrants from state prisons.
...Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein has also sought the reimbursement from the federal government through a reauthorization bill. It would provide $950 million for each of the fiscal years 2012 through 2015 to carry out the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (note: see SCAAP).
...In 2010, SCAAP doled out a roughly $400 million to 850 cities, counties and states, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, a nonpartisan research organization.
..."The state has spent over $885 million to house these inmates, but last year we got reimbursed only $88 million," Donnelly said. "That's less than 10 cents for every dollar spent."
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation holds in custody 16,829 inmates who are under U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement hold.
An additional 3,844 are under "potential" ICE hold - deemed possible illegal entrants who have not come into contact with Department of Homeland Security and have no record in the federal database.
 From the Los Angeles Times article:
[U.S. Supreme Court] Justices upheld an order from a three-judge panel in California that called for releasing 38,000 to 46,000 prisoners. Since then, the state has transferred about 9,000 state inmates to county jails. As a result, the total prison population is now about 32,000 more than the capacity limit set by the panel.
Justice (Anthony Kennedy), speaking for the majority, said California's prisons had "fallen short of minimum constitutional requirements" because of overcrowding. As many as 200 prisoners may live in gymnasium, he said, and as many as 54 prisoners share a single toilet.
Kennedy insisted that the state had no choice but to release more prisoners. The justices, however, agreed that California officials should be given more time to make the needed reductions.
In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia called the ruling "staggering" and "absurd."
He said the high court had repeatedly overruled the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for ordering the release of individual prisoners. Now, he said, the majority were ordering the release of "46,000 happy-go-lucky felons." He added that "terrible things are sure to happen as a consequence of this outrageous order." Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with him.
In a separate dissent, Justice (Samuel Alito). and Chief Justice (John Roberts) said the ruling conflicted with a federal law intended to limit the power of federal judges to order a release of prisoners.
Note that their total for the number of state prisoners as of 2005 is almost 168,000, while the LAT says there are currently 142,000. Some of that may be due to shifting prisoners to local facilities, or it could be a matter of apples and oranges. In any case, the percentages are likely to be similar. As I said, it's difficult to find statistics on these matters.
 (added later) Per the GAO (gao.gov/new.items/d11187.pdf):
[T]he total number of SCAAP illegal aliens incarcerated in California state prisons in fiscal year 2008 was about 27,000, which accounted for about 10 percent of all inmate days.
That might again be an apples and oranges number, but it's the closest I've found to a definitive cite.
# In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.
# Immigrant households’ use of welfare tends to be much higher than natives for food assistance programs and Medicaid. Their use of cash and housing programs tends to be similar to native households.
# A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households with children is received on behalf of their U.S.-born children, who are American citizens. But even households with children comprised entirely of immigrants (no U.S.-born children) still had a welfare use rate of 56 percent in 2009.
# Immigrant households with children used welfare programs at consistently higher rates than natives, even before the current recession. In 2001, 50 percent of all immigrant households with children used at least one welfare program, compared to 32 percent for natives.
# Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent), and Ecuador (70 percent). Those with the lowest use rates are from the United Kingdom (7 percent), India (19 percent), Canada (23 percent), and Korea (25 percent).
# The states where immigrant households with children have the highest welfare use rates are Arizona (62 percent); Texas, California, and New York (61 percent); Pennsylvania (59 percent); Minnesota and Oregon (56 percent); and Colorado (55 percent).
Some immigrant-advocacy groups criticized the report, saying it was engineered to inflame anti-immigrant sentiment by making an unequal comparison between immigrant households, which tend to be low-income, and all native households, including low-income and high-income households.
Immigrant households use welfare programs at about the same rate when compared with the low-income native households, said Jonathan Blazer, an attorney at the National Immigration Law Center an immigrant-advocacy group in Washington, D.C.
Since that appears to be the best argument that opponents can offer, CIS's report must be solid. Why are we allowing millions of poor people to immigrate here when we already have more poor Americans than our social welfare programs can apparently handle? Especially since the future for those poor immigrants and their children doesn't look very promising, as even Obama admits? What's going to happen to our social welfare programs as the children of those poor immigrants and their children retire?
Carrie Budoff Brown of Politico offers "Lamar Smith avoids hard line on immigration" . Because we're dealing with definitions of those who aren't trustworthy (such as Brown), it's difficult to tell whether Smith will be weak on immigration matters or whether he just won't support nonsensical "boob bait for Bubba" policies.
Smith's first two hearings as head of the House Judiciary Committee will be about eVerify. However:
At the same time, he downplayed the key planks in the conservative immigration agenda... He won’t say when his committee plans to tackle birthright citizenship, the policy of granting citizenship to every child born in the country. He doesn’t want to talk about whether he will pursue reducing the level of legal immigration, family migration or work visas - all at the top of the wish list for anti-illegal-immigration advocates... “That is later on in this Congress; that is not our initial focus,” Smith said. “We don’t have any specific plans now in the early months to move on these issues. The focus is on creating jobs and protecting jobs.”
In the current environment, it isn't really possible to restrict birthright citizenship to those who have at least one citizen parent. Much groundwork would need to be done, specifically involving discrediting those groups that would oppose such a move. Few people with megaphones have shown any ability at discrediting groups like the American Civil Liberties Union. Further, restricting birthright citizenship, at least when proposed by those like Lindsey Graham, is just a political ploy.
Legal immigration is a different matter and is less prone to being emotionalized because those involved aren't physically present in the U.S. There is, however, a lot of money from those like Microsoft involved. It wouldn't be good for Smith to be weak on that, especially since the rationale the GOP appears to be using is to help with unemployment.
“If he is not willing to do it - there is a lot of public support for reducing legal immigration - he is going to find he will be pressured on that issue"... Camarota said he believes Smith is enough of a dealmaker that he might even consider a modified DREAM Act legalizing young immigrants, if it was coupled with a cut in legal immigration and stronger enforcement — although pro-immigrant advocates would be all but certain to dismiss it as a bad deal.
"People like to really vilify Lamar Smith, but he is not Tom Tancredo... He is someone who will not push legislation if he thinks it doesn’t have the wide support of the American people."
* Frank Sharry:
“He is a very disciplined politician, but he is also very ideological. He is very smart at having lots of smallish-looking measures that add up to a whole lot of harsh enforcement."
* Rep. Steve King:
"I read the Pledge to America. It wasn’t particularly moving... So, OK, they decided not to write the treatise that I would have on immigration. It wouldn’t be the first time that I worked on an agenda that wasn’t laid out for me. I can deal with that."
* Roy Beck of Numbers USA:
"We think there are a lot of issues in the Internet world that people get really excited about, and in many ways, it is a side show,” Beck said, referring specifically to cutting off benefits for illegal immigrants. “It is not as important as one thing, which is taking away the jobs. So if Lamar Smith is going to focus on keeping illegal aliens out of the jobs, that is more important than all the illegal immigration stuff put together."
Pew: illegal immigration inflow fell (Obama not involved; Bush responsible for 5 million; 60% from Mexico; 9.3% of CA's workforce) - 09/04/10
Pew Hispanic recently released a study entitled "U.S. Unauthorized Immigration Flows Are Down Sharply Since Mid-Decade" (link). There are links to two previous studies with similar findings by the Department of Homeland Security and the Center for Immigration Studies here.
According to Pew's study:
The annual inflow of unauthorized immigrants to the United States was nearly two-thirds smaller in the March 2007 to March 2009 period than it had been from March 2000 to March 2005...
...This sharp decline has contributed to an overall reduction of 8% in the number of unauthorized immigrants currently living in the U.S. - to 11.1 million in March 2009 from a peak of 12 million in March 2007, according to the estimates. The decrease represents the first significant reversal in the growth of this population over the past two decades...
...Even though the size of the Mexican unauthorized population living in the United States has not changed significantly since 2007, the inflows from that country have fallen off sharply in recent years. According to the center’s estimates, an average of 150,000 unauthorized immigrants from Mexico arrived annually during the March 2007 to March 2009 period - 70% below the annual average of 500,000 that prevailed during the first half of the decade...
A few notes:
1. Only two months covered by their study were during the Obama administration; if you see someone claiming this has something to do with Obama immigration, leave a cite in comments.
3. However, the study notes that "Nearly half of unauthorized immigrants living in the country in 2009 - 47%, or 5.2 million people - arrived in 2000 or later." The responsibility for all of those illegal aliens lies with Bush; his proxies from Michael Chertoff to Michael Gerson; other "Bushies" such as his brother Jeb Bush; and his current and former supporters. Those who currently push the "Miss Me Yet" line should be constantly publicly reminded of that statistic.
4. The study notes that "Mexico accounted for 60% of unauthorized immigrants in 2009, or 6.7 million people. Other Latin American nations accounted for 20% of the total, or 2.2 million people. South and East Asia accounted for 11% of the total, or 1.2 million people." A minor talking point used by illegal immigration supporters is to claim that few on the pro-enforcement side talk about European illegal aliens; remind them of that statistic.
5. And: "In 2009, 59% of unauthorized immigrants resided in California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois and New Jersey. However, the share living in those states has declined from 80% in 1990, as unauthorized immigrants have dispersed to new settlement areas." That helps explain why politicians in non-border states attempt to pass pro-enforcement bills. Note that some illegal immigration supporters question why someone in, say, Massachusetts might be concerned about this issue; confront them with that statistic.
6. And, another statistic Bush and his unrepentant supporters are responsible for: "The number of children who are unauthorized, 1.1 million in 2009, declined slightly over the decade. By contrast, the population of U.S.-born children with at least one unauthorized parent nearly doubled from 2000 to 2009, when they numbered 4 million." The far-left and related groups work very hard to prevent illegal aliens in mixed-status families from being deported, and Bush made the situation far worse.
7. And: "States with the largest shares of immigrants in the labor force are Nevada (9.4%), California (9.3%), Texas (8.7%) and New Jersey (8.7%)... The unemployment rate for unauthorized immigrants of all ages in March 2009 was higher than that of U.S.-born workers or legal immigrants - 10.4%, 9.2% and 9.1%, respectively." If we deported all of them tomorrow, not every one of those jobs would be immediately filled by an unemployed American, and the economy would suffer further due to the loss of consumers. However, it would would free up jobs for Americans and if done over time wouldn't have as great an economic impact, offset by less spending. Make that argument to illegal immigration-supporting and -enabling politicians to their face on video and hold them responsible.
8. The study provides more evidence in support of attrition: the illegal alien population in the U.S. isn't fixed; with increased enforcement the numbers could be reduced even further.
Earlier today, a gunman took hostages at the Discovery Channel building; the situation has been resolved. We discourage using the actions of someone who's most likely insane to score political points.
Between 1970 and 2008 the share of California’s population comprised of immigrants (legal and illegal) tripled, growing from 9 percent to 27 percent... As a result of immigration, however, by 2008 California had the least-educated labor force in the nation in terms of the share its workers without a high school education...
* In 1970, California had the 7th most educated work force of the 50 states in terms of the share of its workers who had completed high school. By 2008 it ranked 50th, making it the least educated state...
* Education in California has declined relative to other states. The percentage of Californians who have completed high school has increased since 1970; however, all other states made much more progress in improving their education levels; as a result, California has fallen behind the rest of the country...
* The large relative decline in education in California is a direct result of immigration. Without immigrants, the share of California’s labor force that has completed high school would be above the national average...
* ...California’s income distribution in 2008 was more unequal than was Mississippi’s in 1970...
More at the link.
"Temporary" Protected Status for Haitian illegal aliens pushed by profiteers (Haiti earthquake) - 01/14/10
[TPS has been approved; see the update below]
Yesterday, Janet Napolitano of the Department of Homeland Security suspended repatriations of illegal aliens from Haiti; that makes some sense as long as it's actually temporary. What doesn't make sense are the calls from some to give "Temporary Protected Status" in the U.S. to Haitian illegal aliens. The word "temporary" is generally a misnomer as that status is renewed over and over.
TPS would be an infected band-aid that wouldn't fix Haiti's structural problems and in some cases would result in importing Haiti's problems into the U.S. It would also result in brain-draining that country of its more energetic citizens, making things easier for corrupt Haitian leaders. These pushing TPS are at root simply self-serving: they're interested in little more than obtaining political power. They're thinking only of themselves instead of trying to solve problems; they're only making the long-term situation worse.
"Well, we have, as you know, many Haitian Americans. Most are here legally. Some are not documented. And the Obama administration is taking steps to make sure that people are given some temporary status so that we don’t compound the problem that we face in Haiti."
Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, both Democrats, and (Representatives Lincoln Diaz Balart and Mario Diaz Balart) of south Florida, both Republicans, as well as John C. Favalora, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Miami... "If this is not a slam-dunk case for temporary protected status, I don’t know what is," said Kevin Appleby, a spokesman for the bishops. He said the status would allow Haitian immigrants here to work here and send money back to relatives in Haiti trying to recover from the quake.
Appleby's proposal is at heart immoral: he would encourage Haiti to become even more dependent on the U.S. than they already are and he would embed that dependence in their society, instead of encouraging them to develop their own commerce.
The letter from Senators encouraging TPS is here; in addition to Gillibrand and Schumer, the signatories are: John Kerry, Paul Kirk, Jeff Bingaman, Bill Nelson, Dick Durbin, Frank Lautenberg, Chris Dodd, Bob Menendez, Pat Leahy, Dianne Feinstein, Tom Harkin, Bob Casey, and Bernie Sanders.
(The Florida politicians including Ileana Ros Lehtinen) are among several leaders holding separate news conferences in Miami on Thursday to draw further attention to the issue. Others include the head of the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, who will be accompanied by Edwidge Danticat, a celebrated Haitian author and winner of a MacArthur Fellow "genius" grant. Twenty-six refugee agencies also sent a joint letter Thursday urging Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to consider TPS for Haitians, and the National Council of La Raza released a statement to the same effect.
That also contains Mark Krikorian seeming to support TPS in this case, as well as this:
"When somebody works here they can support up to 10 times that number back in Haiti. So we're talking about supporting hundreds of thousands of people in Haiti at no cost to U.S. taxpayers," (Steve Forester, a Miami-based advocate with the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti) said.
Obviously, he's either trying to mislead people or he can't think things through. Many or most of the jobs they'd be doing would be jobs that Americans who are drawing unemployment insurance could be doing, and much of the labor those Haitians would be doing in the U.S. would be heavily subsidized.
"We are considering all alternatives available to us in extending a helping hand to Haiti," (Alejandro Mayorkas of the USCIS) said. He confirmed those considerations include temporary protected status for Haitians.
And, Reform Immigration for America is also promoting TPS with a petition drive: reformimmigrationforamerica.org/blog/blog/
The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society has joined with several other groups in calling for TPS:
Likewise with Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform:
"It is in the foreign policy interest of the United States and a humanitarian imperative of the highest order to have all people of Haitian descent in a position to contribute towards the recovery of this island nation."
See the comments above.
1/15/10 UPDATE: Janet Napolitano has now approved TPS, but only for those illegal aliens who were here on Tuesday. How they'll be able to tell isn't clear; some people will no doubt try to provide fake documentation showing they were here at that time.
Groups have "unprecedented amounts of money" to push amnesty; Dobbs leaving was "critical victory" - 01/11/10
"Especially on the left-of-center side, [groups that will push for amnesty] had unprecedented amounts of money in the past year, and they're organizing the field, coordinating among themselves, they're unrecognizable almost from what they were in 2006 and 2007... The business side hasn't had as much money pumped in and hasn't transformed as much, but it's also at a different level of the game."
"With (Lou Dobbs) finally being called to account, I think that's also sent a message to many of these people... At the end of the day, I think in the last two years that this debate has moved much much further in terms of the American people's understanding."
That, once again, shows the importance of handling the Dobbs matter in a nuanced fashion: he's still the bete noire of those who are far worse than he is, and completely throwing him overboard in a loud public way helps them.
On a more hopeful note:
...(Steven Camarota), research director for the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports stricter immigration limits, said the unity might be a myth. No matter how unified coalition leaders are, he said, they'll face a skeptical public — particularly with a high unemployment rate... He said "opinion leaders" are significantly out of touch with average voters on the immigration issue, which produces a wide but thin coalition pushing Congress to act... "There are a lot of generals but not many soldiers there. That's their fundamental problem: Most Americans don't agree with them," he said.
Poll: church members disagree with religious leaders' support for amnesty, massive immigration - 12/29/09
In contrast to many national religious leaders who are lobbying for increases in immigration numbers, a new Zogby poll of likely voters who belong to the same religious communities finds strong support for reducing overall immigration. Moreover, the poll finds that members strongly disagree with their leaders’ contention that more immigrant workers need to be allowed into the country. Also, most parishioners and congregants advocate for more enforcement to cause illegal workers to go home, while most religious leaders are calling for putting illegal immigrants on a path to U.S. citizenship. The survey of Catholic, mainline Protestant, born-again Protestant, and Jewish voters used neutral language and was one of the largest polls on immigration ever done.
On the question of whether there are enough Americans to do unskilled jobs, large majorities said yes. On the question of whether immigration is too high, 50% of Jews said yes with 22% saying it was just right. The other groups were higher, ranging from 69% to 78%. And, 60% to 85% aren't buying the line that illegal immigration is caused by limitations on the legal variety.
"Whenever there's an immigration raid, you find white, black and legal immigrant labor lining up to do those jobs that Americans will supposedly not do," said Swain, who teaches law and political science.
Exactly who is filling the jobs has varied, depending on the populations surrounding the plants:
• Out West, one of the Swift plants raided by ICE, had a workforce that was about 90% Hispanic — both legal and illegal — before the raids. The lost workers were replaced mostly with white Americans and U.S.-born Hispanics, according to the CIS.
• In the South, a House of Raeford Farms plant in North Carolina that was more than 80% Hispanic before a federal investigation is now about 70% African-American, according to a report by TheCharlotte Observer.
• Throughout the Great Plains, a new wave of legal immigrants is filling the void, according to Jill Cashen, spokeswoman for the United Food and Commercial Workers union, which represents 1.3 million people who work in the food-processing industry. Plants are refilling positions with newly arrived immigrants from places such as Sudan, Somalia and Southeast Asia.
I'll be offering some live coverage of the July 4th Independence Day tea parties in this post. In the meantime, if you're looking for specific locations where you can protest and wave your loopy signs, see teapartypatriots.org, surgeusa.org/actions/july4.htm, teapartyday.com, or reteaparty.com/teaparties.
But, before you go, please take a look at my extensive tea parties summary. At that page, I lay out all the reasons why those who aren't extreme fiscal conservatives might want to do something more effective instead.
UPDATE: Apparently the most professional "party" this time is the one in Dallas (dallasteaparty.org/2009/06/americasteaparty). It features headliners like Mickey Dolenz from the Monkees and Internet superstar Stephen Crowder. In keeping with their habit of playing dress-up, they've also got a Thomas Paine impersonator. On an ironic note, they've got Michael Cutler from the Center for Immigration Studies, despite the fact that many loony libertarians think there shouldn't be a border at all. Speaking of which, former Bob Barr running mate Wayne Allyn Root will be there, perhaps to try to sell the crowd used cars.
UPDATE 2: I enjoy parts of the last photo here, although I'm too much of a gentleman to try to figure out what sort of message they're trying to send.
UPDATE 3: These might be taken out of context, but here are two pictures from the big Dallas event showing very few people there:
They do have a horse there however.
UPDATE 4: As could be expected, Glenn Reynolds links to some of the events (link). There are more here - including someone apparently promoting Alex Jones' Infowars - and here. Explaining to the loons what's wrong with some of those signs is left as an exercise.
I'm going to start using the tagline "Home of the smart and effective opposition to Obama and the Democrats."
UPDATE 6: First, I misspelled his name "Wayne Allen Root", now corrected.
And, even if I'd known that SNL alumna Victoria Jackson was going to be at the La Canada version I wouldn't have gone. However, Los Angeles Times columnist Chris Erskine did (link). It's not a complete hit piece, but he's obviously not sympathetic to their concerns (nor much am I):
In such a climate, it strikes me as . . . well, almost un-American to be griping so vehemently about helping those less fortunate. Were this a war, we'd all dig a little deeper to buy guns and battleships.
If those at the parties weren't completely selfish, had an interest in their fellow citizens, and had an intellectual basis for their whining, he might not have written that or at least they'd have an answer to it. As it is, he's mostly right even if his implicit solution isn't mostly right.
Also, the Dallas party was projected to get up to 50,000 attendees. Even one of their supporters is forced to say, "[m]any reported upwards of 15,000 in attendance" (link). And, that was apparently the main event.
And, at the Dallas event, John Cornyn was booed; that's the best the partiers can do because actually engaging him in debate and showing all the ways he's wrong is beyond them.
An MSM report summarizing attendance at all the parties isn't available, and Pajamas Media is strangely silent on that issue. I'll be very, very generous and estimate that the attendance for all events combined was 150,000. That represents 0.05% of the U.S. population, and that's a very high estimate.
UPDATE 7: Instapundit scours Google News for MSM reports; apparently the hundreds of PJTV "citizen journalists" failed him (pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/81371). In addition to towns I've never heard of, one report he links to is "Genesee TEA Party holds Independence Day tax protest, plans campaign against Hurley millage" (link). "Millage" means property tax, and Hurley refers to a hospital run by the city of Flint. These people are practically carrying the local Democrat over the goal line:
The 0.9-mill countywide millage for Hurley would generate $10 million per year for the next 10 years. The owner of a $100,000 home would pay an extra $45 per year in property taxes if it passes.
Patrick Wardell, CEO and president of Hurley, said the city-owned hospital serves 69 percent of the county's uninsured and underinsured. He added that the services the hospital offers, such as a children's hospital and burn unit, are not money-makers but act as a safety net county-wide.
"Because of the nature of the mission of a place like Hurley, serving the whole county, cost-cutting is simply not enough," he said.
At the TEA Party, some county residents disagreed. Mark Berberich of Flint said Hurley should have to run like a business, and some businesses end up failing if they're not bringing in enough funds.
"I don't want anyone to fail, but some will fail," he said.
If Hurley is mismanaged, they should investigate using public records and then suggest ways to improve their operations. That's not what they're doing.
For what it's worth, Mexican government data shows that 226,000 fewer people - a 25% drop - left Mexico to work in other countries in the year ending in August 2008 ("Mexican Data Say Migration to U.S. Has Plummeted" by Julia Preston of the New York Times, link):
The trend emerged clearly with the onset of the recession and, demographers say, provides new evidence that illegal immigrants from Mexico, by far the biggest source of unauthorized migration to the United States, are drawn by jobs and respond to a sinking labor market by staying away... "If jobs are available, people come," said Jeffrey S. Passel, senior demographer at the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research group in Washington. "If jobs are not available, people don’t come." ...The net outflow of migrants from Mexico - those who left minus those who returned - fell by about half in the year that ended in August 2008 from the preceding year.
Unfortunately, many illegal aliens are not returning home, apparently expecting things to improve. Now that the NYT admits that the jobs magnet attracts people to come here illegally, it's just a minor jump to them calling for an increase in workplace enforcement in order to discourage illegal crossing even more and in order to encourage the many illegal aliens who remain in the U.S. to return home. Obviously, the NYT has no interest in that but instead has suggested subsidizing illegal aliens until the economy improves and has supported giving them stimulus jobs.
Preston brings on Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies to say that enforcement works: "The latest evidence suggests that you can reverse the flow... It is not set in stone, so with some mix of enforcement and the economy, fewer will come and more will go home."
Sam Stein of the Huffington Post directs  our attention to a new hit piece from Frank Sharry's America's Voice that claims that Sen. Jeff Sessions has "just one degree of separation from anti-immigrant hate groups, white nationalism" . As a hit piece, this is like a marshmallow wrapped in a Snuggie.
For instance, they accuse him of playing the "terrorist card" in regards to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, including quoting a floor speech he made. Yet, they don't provide any sort of counter-argument other than implying that Senators shouldn't point out that the CIR bill would enable terrorists. If America's Voice could show that Sessions was wrong about that, they might have a case. Yet, they don't. Apparently they don't want Senators to discuss how a bill would endanger the U.S. or something.
Likewise with Sessions' list of loopholes in the CIR bill, including one that would allow those convicted of aggravated felonies to be amnestied. They don't try to say that he was wrong, they just imply that he shouldn't have mentioned that. The rest of the "backgrounder" consists of the same old warmed-over smears about FAIR and the Center for Immigration Studies, including this:
FAIR, which regularly praised Sessions, has been designated an anti-immigrant hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. That might make some members of Congress think twice about developing a relationship with the group, but clearly not Jeff Sessions.
As detailed at the last link, the SPLC is not in any way a credible source. Some members of Congress are obviously dumb or far-left enough to put faith in what they say, but no one else should.
Illegal aliens can apply for mortgage relief under the Obama administration's $275 billion [home mortgage bailout] plan, according to immigration experts and a group the government will use to help homeowners modify loans.
..."There is no legal prohibition against illegal immigrants owning homes," (Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies) said, "and in most cases mortgage lenders will accept a taxpayer ID or a Matricula Consular card issued by a Mexican Consulate office as identification to illegal immigrants from Mexico."
Chad Buchanan, a manager at SaveMyHomeUSA - a group cooperating with the Obama administration that assists homeowners facing foreclosure - told WND illegal immigrants who own a home "could certainly apply under our program."
* The drop in support among Latinos for Republicans between 2004 and 2008 was part of a broad-based electoral movement away from the GOP, and was hardly specific to that demographic group. McCain received only 57 percent of the white male vote, compared with 62 percent for Bush in 2004, and McCain’s 55 percent of regular churchgoers was significantly lower than Bush's 61 percent.
* Credible surveys indicate that the major policy concerns of Latinos were no different than the concerns of non-Latinos: The economy and jobs topped the list.
* There is little evidence that immigration policy was an influential factor in Latinos' choice between the two candidates once basic party predispositions are taken into account.
* McCain's consistent history of advocating a legalization program for illegal immigrants made no impression on Latino voters.
UPDATE: From the other side, the Immigration Policy Center has responded with some polling data linked from here:
The surveys they point to were performed by Frank Sharry's America's Voice, the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, and others and may have been designed to show what those groups wanted them to show. The IPC fact sheet also doesn't address general election trends.
UPDATE 2: The CIS author responds to his critics here.
Bush admin scam: Social Security "no match" letters will have little effect ("tough" new DHS policy) - 08/17/07
Days after unveiling a major crackdown on businesses that hire illegal immigrants, the Bush administration is now quietly admitting that its most heavily touted weapon in pursuing employers will be virtually useless.
...But Homeland Security officials acknowledged this week that because of a privacy provision in the IRS code, immigration officials will actually have no way of knowing which employers have received "no-match" letters, which have complied and which have not...
...Left untouched, however, was section 6103 of the IRS code - a privacy provision the government has long interpreted to mean that Social Security officials are forbidden from sharing tax information with other agencies...
..."I think this is viewed as more of a self-enforcing thing," said John Gay, top lobbyist for the National Restaurant Association, which represents about 1.4 million estimated employees in California. "This is another tool in their kit. It's easier to establish a violation with these rules."
Tom Nassif, president of the California Grower's Association, said any "no-match" letters a company receives will come out during a civil trial if that business is ever cited for immigration violations...
...[Steven Camarota, research director for the Center of Immigration Studies] said he suspects the Bush administration hopes the business community, whose division over the recent Senate immigration compromise bill helped lead to its failure, will be galvanized into action by the threat of economic upheaval.
"They don't really want to upset the apple cart, they just want to tip it back and forth and act like they're doing something," Camarota said of the administration's rules.
...Nassif agreed but called it a risky gamble with the country's economy...
Newsday has a report (link) similar to, but not as good as, the one in the previous post:
Even as Michael Bloomberg heralded New York's diversity Monday, President George W. Bush's controversial plan to put in place a temporary worker program is getting no major billing at the Republican National Convention.