chain migration: Page 1
In the Wall Street Journal, Jeb Bush and Clint Bolick offer "Solving the Immigration Puzzle" (link).
I'll provide excerpts followed by a discussion of how they're misleading and promoting bad policy.
Janet Napolitano falsely says she needs immigration "reform" to do her job; says border more secure; sounds like Chertoff - 11/13/09
Speaking at the Center for American Progress earlier today (prepared remarks: www.dhs.gov/ynews/speeches/sp_1258123461050.shtm NYT article: link full video: americanprogress.org/events/2009/11/Napolitano.html), Department of Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano said that she needs comprehensive immigration reform (downsides at the link) to do her job and that such "reform" (aka amnesty) is more attainable due both to supposed increased border security and due to fewer people trying to cross because of the economic downturn. In her speech, she sounded almost exactly like Michael Chertoff and used several of the stock talking points such as secure the border and living in the shadows. She also gave a shout-out to John Podesta of CAP and specifically mentioned the National Association of Evangelicals as one of the groups supporting "reform"; most of that group's member organizations are actually neutral or opposed to "reform".
It's extremely unfortunate that I was unable to get anyone else that I know of to help with my plan to ask her a question at today's event. People are willing to stand on street corners and wave loopy signs, but getting them to do things that could be devastatingly effective is incredibly difficult. Because of the flaws in her comments, someone who's familiar with this issue and who's familiar with "cross-examining" people could have undercut her argument and made her look very bad. That would help reduce the chances of "reform". If people aren't willing to confront politicians, they'll just keep on doing the bad things they're doing.
One of her remarks was this Chertoff-like bit:
When it comes to immigration, I took an oath as Secretary of Homeland Security to secure the nation by enforcing the law and managing legal flows across the border. Let me be clear: to do this job as effectively as possible, DHS needs immigration reform.
She is, of course, lying. Doing her job would involve enforcing the laws and trying to reduce the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. As a recent enforcement action shows, she is not interested in doing that. Every illegal alien who stays in the U.S. is a potential Democratic voter if she can get the amnesty that she and Obama want.
She said that "immigration reform will be a boon to American workers" which is completely false; see the immigration wage floor page.
She also supported chain migration, saying that "Community and faith leaders have also emphasized to me that we need reform because of how difficult the current laws can be on families, especially families of mixed legal status. Our immigration system is outdated where families are concerned, and we need to modernize and streamline the laws governing this process."
And, she supported increasing high-tech visa limits (aka the H1B program). That was after she "held a forum where [she] heard from technology executives in Silicon Valley". Obviously, Napolitano is great at only hearing one side of the story: she also referenced meetings she's held across the U.S. with "stakeholders", saying that "all [at the meetings] reach[ed] the same conclusion: we need reform". Napolitano, someone supposedly working for all of us, is ignoring the input of a majority of Americans and viewpoints that disagree with her.
Some of her remarks follow:
Harry Reid says want immigration "reform" this year; NCLR, MALDEF; business-friendly guest worker plan; promotes unrealistic chain migration - 06/04/09
"As far as I’m concerned, we have three major issues we have to do this year, if at all possible: No. 1 is healthcare; No 2 is energy, global warming; No. 3 is immigration reform... It’s going to happen this session, but I want it this year, if at all possible... ...We need (a guest workers plan not just in agriculture but) in the food industry; we need it in the tourism [business]
Aside from a massive guest worker plan, the rest of what the article says he outlined was the standard compehensive immigration reform. Whether they'll have the time to make Reid's wishes come true remains to be seen.
He also spoke at an event celebrating Asian-American Pacific Islander Heritage Month (link), where he also promoted reform and made various misleading statements:
"Finally, we will again pursue comprehensive immigration reform that respects both our nation’s laws and the people from all nations who want to live in America, work hard and pay their fair share of taxes. And it is critical that we bring families together by cutting down on the long waits for prospective immigrants trying to join their immediate family members in the United States. I am committed to reforming our system in a way that is tough, fair and practical."
He's not only promoting chain migration, he's doing so in a completely unrealistic fashion. Any form of legalization would either have a very delitirious impact on those "prospective immigrants" or would result in thousands of criminals and even some terrorists being legalized. See the immigration line summary for the details.
Walter Ewing /IPC: massive immigration is great! (note: assumes we're a completely different country and more like Europe) - 06/02/09
The Immigration Policy Center offers a mini-study (written by Walter Ewing) called "Fuzzy Math: The Anti-Immigration Arguments of NumbersUSA Don’t Add Up" (http://immigrationpolicy.org/index.php?content=fc060209):
According to the anti-immigration group NumbersUSA, immigration to the United States is all about arithmetic: immigration increases the U.S. population, and more people presumably means more pollution, more urban sprawl, more competition for jobs, and higher taxes for Americans who must shoulder the costs of “over-population.”1 At first glance, this argument is attractive in its simplicity: less immigration, fewer people, a better environment, more jobs, lower taxes. However, as with so many simple arguments about complex topics, it is fundamentally flawed and misses the point. “Over-population” is not the primary cause of the environmental or economic woes facing the United States, so arbitrary restrictions on immigration will not create a cleaner environment or a healthier economy.
Ewing goes on to describe all the ways that massive immigration wouldn't impact the environment. To summarize, we'd have to transform ourselves into Sweden in order to reduce or minimize the impact. Ewing doesn't even slightly acknowledge that, no, we aren't Western Europe. According to him, "[t]he problem is less about how many people are in the United States, and more about how the United States produces and consumes". Yet, he and the IPC aren't requiring a coupling between massive immigration and different building and environmental policies; they aren't saying that massive immigration should be possible once we're all green. Their position is irresponsible, encouraging massive immigration into a society that's at most very lightly green. They're basically acknowledging NumbersUSA's point and providing a fantastical way in which NumbersUSA's concerns would be mitigated.
She also continues to think she could solve the eight year legal immigration backlog in six months; see this and this.
The rest of her statement could have been made by any other amnesty-supporting puppet and is included below.
Obama selling reduced price amnesty for illegal aliens, chain migration to Spanish-language radio - 02/13/09
The wonders of bilingualism include politicians like Barack Obama being able to tailor a message for Hispanics that might not sit too well with the rest of us. As an example, he recently did a radio interview with Chicago DJ "El Pistolero", and a Spanish-language TV report is here. The parts they excerpt appear to be the stock boilerplate where he promises comprehensive immigration reform and where he sidesteps a question about whether he'll stop immigration raids.
However, then the TV reporter says (video translation):
Also in a part of the interview... [Obama] said that we could also consider reductions in the fees for documents in the legalization process and also for bringing family members to the United States from Mexico or other countries.
There's a very slight possibility that the "legalization process" could refer to legal immigration, but the overwhelming probability is that he was referring to "reform". Promising an amnesty wasn't enough: Obama had to also promise to make it as cheap as possible and also promised that it would include chain migration.