comprehensive immigration reform
Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Page 5
See the summary for this topic on the main Comprehensive Immigration Reform page.
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who also chairs the Senate Immigration Subcommittee, will unveil an outline for an immigration reform bill on Wednesday that will likely detail a plan to offer amnesty to the nation's more than 11 million illegal aliens.
...Sen. Schumer plans to announce on Wednesday the principles that will guide the immigration reform bill that he plans to introduce to the Senate later this year. His announcement comes one day before Pres. Barack Obama will host Congressional leaders at the White House to discuss immigration reform.
American Jewish Committee gets half a million from Ford Foundation for immigration "reform" tour - 06/21/09
Back in 2007, the American Jewish Committee teamed up with the Mexican government on a three-day immigration workshop. Whether they've gotten any money out of that government isn't known, but according to this they're going to be getting a $500,000 grant from the Ford Foundation to promote comprehensive immigration reform:
[The grant] will go toward an AJC yearlong initiative that will include a series of roundtable discussions with those involved in the immigration debate in order to seek common ground, the AJC announced in a news release.
The AJC also will offer advocacy skills-building workshops to Latino leaders and organizations in Arizona, Chicago, Houston and New Jersey.
Chuck Schumer wants national ID card as part of immigration "reform"; liberals, libertarians who support illegal activity to blame - 06/18/09
A "forgery-proof" worker ID card, secured with biometric data such as fingerprints, is an idea favored by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y), the new chairman of the immigration subcommittee. Schumer, who will lead the effort to craft the Senate's comprehensive immigration overhaul legislation, called the card the best way to ensure that all workers were authorized.
"The ID will make it easy for employers to avoid undocumented workers, which will allow for tough sanctions against employers who break the law, which will lead to no jobs being available for illegal immigrants, which will stop illegal immigration," Schumer wrote in his 2007 book, "Positively American."
"Once Americans are convinced that we will permanently staunch the flow of illegal immigration, they will be more willing to accept constructing a path toward earned citizenship for those who are already here."
Rather than repeating myself, see August 18, 2007's Thanks, liberals & libertarians: 71% support "foreigners-only" ID card. If "liberals" and libertarians would support our more-than-reasonable immigration laws, Schumer wouldn't have a leg to stand on. As it is, he might be effective, and all those who continue to support massive illegal activity in the name of "freedom" will have made the U.S. a lot less free. Don't trust those who can't figure out or who won't disclose the downsides of what they promote.
Harry Reid says there are enough Senate votes for immigration "reform"; offers deportation false choice - 06/15/09
He added that although (comprehensive immigration reform) does not have the backing of all Democrats, the bill will overcome the obstacles that stymied the failed 2007 reform.
The majority leader said he has "no doubt" he could find as many as a dozen Republicans who support the measure to make up for defections in Democratic ranks.
"We can't deport 11 million undocumented people, we can't do it physically and financially, as some would want," Reid said. "Immigration is the strength of our country, we bring waves of people to our country who excel in education and the workforce, and that's good."
"We should bring them out of the shadows so that when someone goes to buy milk for their child they're not subject to arrest. Let's clean the slate, let's have a new immigration program that protects our northern and southern borders, a program that brings (these) people out of shadows and makes them more productive," the senator said.
He said people with criminal records would be excluded and that undocumented migrants benefiting from the initiative would have to pay fines, learn English and be up to date in their tax payments.
It's important to note that he might just be thinking "politically": he realizes how difficult amnesty would be, he just wants some Republicans to alienate their base at the same time as, after failing to get all the votes he needs, he's able to alienate the Republican Party from Hispanics who support amnesty.
John McCain not invited to Obama immigration "reform" confab on June 17; Obama not serious about "reform"? - 06/04/09
The White House has kept the guest list private, but invitees include, Sen. Chuck Schumer, who may introduce an immigration reform bill by the end of this year, as well as Reps. Xavier Becerra, the vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus, and John Conyers, the House Judiciary Committee chairman. Not invited: Sen. John McCain, who introduced an immigration bill with Sen. Edward Kennedy and played a central role in the debate in recent years...
[One senior GOP aide, whose boss had been involved in recent immigration debates] suggested the White House might be using the meeting as a "smokescreen to cover Obama’s campaign promise," giving proponents of immigration reform a symbolic victory, but not necessarily making a good-faith push to pass legislation.
"This is a show," the aide continued. “There’s neither the time nor the inclination to deal with immigration later this year and going into next year. It’s a political football. Why not highlight the perceived divide between Hispanics and Republicans? What better wedge issue than immigration?"
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.
"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.
Remember Michael Dukakis? You know, former Massachusetts governor? The tank photo you see to the right? Ran for president in 1988? In case no one still remembers, raid a game of Trivial Pursuit, he's probably in there somewhere.
according to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the borders are now safe enough to take a step forward. "We can pass strong, fair, practical and effective immigration reform this year," he said following a hearing on border security Wednesday.
Obviously, the borders aren't secure enough, but it's good that he was kind enough to show how some view border security and immigration enforcement: as simply a way to get comprehensive immigration reform.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce: $10 million for lobbying in 1Q 2009, including twelve lobbyists on immigration - 05/15/09
The government's $700 billion financial rescue package and Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, were among the high-profile issues the Chamber lobbied on during the first quarter... The group also lobbied on: union organizing, wage discrimination, the children's health insurance program, transportation and port infrastructure, travel restrictions to Cuba, pension security, medical liability reform, greenhouse gas standards, health care and immigration reform... Other issues included attorney-client privilege, cross-border trucking, cargo screening, intellectual property rights enforcement, medical product safety, environmental permitting and visas for temporary workers.
How much they spent on each issue doesn't appear to be available, but the reports they filed with the government are at this page. They don't appear to have spent anything on the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, but they had no less than twelve lobbyists listed as handling immigration including their president Tom Donohue and executive VP Bruce Josten. In addition to just general lobbying for comprehensive immigration reform, they also list the following bills from the 110th Congress that haven't yet been re-introduced in the 111th as well as various rules. Looking into their positions on the more obscure ones is left as an exercise:
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.
Washington Post /ABC News poll shows 61% favor illegal alien legalization; didn't ask about citizenship - 05/12/09
Would you support or oppose a program giving ILLEGAL immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here LEGALLY if they pay a fine and meet other requirements?
61% supported that vs. 35% against, up from 49/46, 51/44, and 52/44 in the second half of 2007. The uptick in support is slightly worrisome, as is the fact that this poll can be spun as supportive of comprehensive immigration reform when it doesn't include a main component of most CIR plans: a "path to citizenship" where former illegal aliens would eventually become citizens. The poll question is mostly useless and could also be read as supportive of a massive guest workers plan. And, as with other questions along these lines it fails to inform respondents of all the downsides of such schemes; many or most people are ignorant of those downsides because the mainstream media has done a terrific job at misleading people on this topic.
Tamar Jacoby pins immigration "reform" hopes on Obama-induced "reformist mood", bad policy, racialization - 05/07/09
America's favorite immigration "expert", Tamar Jacoby, takes to the pages of the Los Angeles Times with "The immigration debate, again" (link). It contains the usual smears ("there's a danger that populist resentments will curdle into xenophobia", Lou Dobbs and Tom Tancredo are "anti-immigrant" with "inflamed, angry followers") together with things like this:
Neither the economic downturn nor enhanced enforcement has driven 12 million illegal immigrants to leave the country. Enforcement is still far from effective, either on the border or in the workplace.
That "enhanced enforcement" has been just for show; George W Bush had no intention of reducing the numbers of illegal aliens in the U.S. She's not being completely misleading about the "enhanced" part due to the second sentence, but she doesn't reveal to her readers her thoughts on whether truly increased enforcement - together with reduced non-emergency benefits - would reduce the numbers. Obviously, she knows that it would, and that's why she doesn't mention it.
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."
Simon Rosenberg of the New Democratic Network offers "Making the Case: 7 Reasons Why Congress Should Pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform this Year" (huffingtonpost.com/simon-rosenberg/making-the-case-why-congr_b_193621.html). As one might expect from the source, all seven are actually reasons *not* to pass "reform".
His first reason is that we need "reform" in order to remove the "trap door" that allows employers to pay illegal aliens below the minimum wage:
it needs to be understood that these undocumenteds are already here and working. If you are undocumented, you are not eligible for welfare. If you are not working, you go home. Thus, in order to remove this "trap door," we need to either kick five percent of existing American workforce out of the country -- a moral and economic impossibility -- or legalize them. There is no third way on this one. They stay and become citizens or we chase them away.
1. Even if they aren't eligible for welfare, they can still get it either illegally or legally through their U.S. citizen children.
2. Many unemployed illegal aliens are remaining in the U.S., such as by being intermittent day laborers.
3. We don't need to "kick" that 5% out of the country at once. We could take steps to encourage them to leave over time if our political leaders would let us. Given the job situation and the fact that citizens can obtain a host of benefits, illegal aliens leaving and freeing up a job for a citizen would be a net economic gain. "Chasing them away" over time is not a drastic step, and it's the only realistic public policy.
He also says, "[l]egalization does not create a flood of new immigrants", which is obviously absurd. Then:
On Thursday, a group of putatively moderate Republicans will announce a new effort called "National Council for a New America". While they claim that they're non-partisan, it's clearly a GOP effort. And, the list of those involved that CNN has obtained (link) includes several supporters of comprehensive immigration reform.
4/30/09: Chuck Schumer holding immigration "reform" hearing (Alan Greenspan, Joel Hunter, Doris Meissner) - 04/28/09
On April 30, Chuck Schumer and the Senate Judiciary Committee/Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship will be holding a hearing called "Comprehensive Immigration Reform in 2009, Can We Do It and How?" (judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=3793) It would be a tough debate about the issue if not for the fact that all five witnesses are on the same basic side:
Tim Gaynor /Reuters tries, fails to find economic benefits of amnesty; MPI: little effect - 04/27/09
Tim Gaynor of Reuters offers "Could legalizing immigrants improve U.S. economy?" (link) Just because the only booster he could find to say that granting amnesty to illegal aliens would have a major financial benefit was Scott Smith, mayor of Mesa, Arizona doesn't mean that there aren't others out there; we know there are. However, whenever even Marc Rosenblum of the Migration Policy Institute says the following perhaps massive immigration activists might want to give up:
"A lot of this conversation about economics has to do with the political optics... Immigrants are still a small proportion of the U.S. economy, and it's not going to make or break the U.S. economic recovery or the recession, whether or not we do legalization."
The article ends with this bit of deja vu:
"There are lots of people now who are living as renters who would love to be homeowners if they had a path," [Joan Dodd, a Phoenix real estate agent] said. "As long as they could qualify and had a job history, I think it would be helpful in many of our areas of town that are so depressed."
"The current plan being developed by the administration and organized labor calls for immigration reform that does not adequately address either securing the border or a legal temporary worker program and is a plan I cannot support... We need to act on the pressing issue of border security now, and then seek comprehensive immigration legislation that includes a temporary worker program... Any legislation that does not address these two key components is not real reform."
Various union officials are quoted as strongly behind the plan, but the article also quotes an unnamed Democratic congressional aide:
"There will be some back and forth, to say the least, on the commission idea."
That commission would set future immigration levels; obviously, the Democratic Party's leaders want as many future voters as possible.
Last year, it was difficult to tell where Mitt Romney stood on immigration matters because he crafted his various statements in an ambiguous fashion and - of course - neither MSM journalists nor citizen journalists tried to find out exactly what he supported. Now, he's let us know where he stands (for now at least). From this:
Romney believes that one way to attract more minorities to the GOP is to pass immigration reform before the next election, saying the issue becomes demagogued by both parties on the campaign trail.
"We have a natural affinity with Hispanic-American voters, Asian-American voters," he said.
Passing "reform" before the election would be a great way to absolutely guarantee a Republican defeat. Even if the GOP completely screwed over their base and pushed "reform" as hard as they could, the Democrats would still get most of the credit. No matter how hard the GOP panders, the Dems will always be able to out-pander them. And, the "reform" would give even more power to those Dem-linked groups that will push for even more immigration in order to obtain even more power. The only thing that the GOP could hope for would be a backlash, but the leadership of the GOP has shown time and again that they simply don't have the brainpower to take advantage of anything like that.
George Gascon DC trip paid for by "a group of nonprofit organizations that are seeking immigration reform" - 04/04/09
"Who paid your way to get here today?" Poe asked. Gascon replied by repeating the question.Some of the top contenders who could have paid Gascon's way would include the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Council of La Raza, and MALDEF. However, there are plenty of local illegal immigration-supporting groups, including business groups such as those mentioned here.
"You heard me," Poe said. "Who paid your way?"
"A group of nonprofit organizations that are seeking immigration reform," Gascon answered.
"Would you agree with the statement that we dance with the one who brung us?" Poe said, suggesting that Gascon was essentially paid for his testimony.
The police chief bristled at Poe's comment, reciting his military service and long law enforcement career.
"I don't dance with anyone," Gascon replied.
If anyone's in that area, see if you can file a records request so we can find out who it was.
NALEO, LULAC, SEIU, Univision: ending raids for census not enough, immigration "reform" needed - 04/01/09
Following up on her report of yesterday, Hope Yen of the Associated Press informs us that a group of illegal immigration-supporting Hispanic groups - including one with a direct albeit minor link to the Mexican government (NALEO) and one whose treasurer is an extremist (LULAC) - want their race-based power and they want it now (link):
Saying traditional census outreach will not be enough, Hispanic groups on Wednesday urged the Obama administration to follow through now on its pledge to pass immigration reform or risk an undercount of millions of people.
The National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, Univision Inc., the League of United Latin American Citizens and SEIU (Service Employees International Union) announced a grassroots campaign that would supplement Census Bureau efforts to reach the traditionally hard to count Hispanic community. An estimated 1 million Hispanics, or about 3 percent of the U.S. population, were missed in 2000.
"Make no mistake about it: The census cannot succeed if Latinos are not fully counted," said Arturo Vargas, executive director of NALEO, noting that Hispanics make up half of the nation's percentage growth. "We are the future of the United States."
According to Peter Wallsten of the Los Angeles Times, unspecified immigration groups will be making a push for comprehensive immigration reform this fall that would see the Democrats try to get it on their own without bringing business interests into their big, crooked tent: link (See also last month's "Hilda Solis to prefer labor enforcement to immigration enforcement?")
Under their scheme, there'd be a massive amnesty, following by:
an independent commission that would assess labor and industry data to decide how many foreign workers should be allowed into the country. The system, designed by Ray Marshall, a Labor secretary under President Carter, would replace a maze of special temporary worker visas that are granted each year to high-tech specialists, agriculture workers and other foreigners brought into the U.S. by foreign and domestic firms.
To bolster their cause, advocates are planning an $18-million media and grass-roots campaign for the fall. The funding is coming primarily from liberal foundations, including one founded by billionaire activist George Soros.
Since there are several of those it's difficult to know which it could be.
A group of illegal immigration opponents including the California Coalition for Immigration Reform are passing out fliers encouraging tourists to visit the U.S. southwest instead of Mexico (link). More on the boycott below, but first:
[Orange County, CA] Mexican Consul Carlos Rodríguez y Quezada disputes the fliers' claims that Mexico urges amnesty, is violent and is a bad neighbor.
"We've always been good friends and good neighbors," he said. "We're not demanding amnesty but immigration reform."
1. Mexico isn't in the position to start "demanding" things, especially something that the vast majority of Americans would oppose if they were aware of all the issues involved.
2. Comprehensive immigration reform is just a euphemism for amnesty, and it would be seen as an amnesty by those Mexicans who are still living in that country, many of whom would come here in an attempt to take part in that or a future "reform".
3. From the U.S. perspective, Mexico hasn't been such a good neighbor. Most Mexicans would probably say the U.S. hasn't been such a good neighbor either. Perhaps we should keep both of those in mind going ahead.
As for the boycott, those quoted in the article are probably correct in that it probably won't be that effective. On the one hand, people should be encouraged to spend more time spending their vacation money in the U.S. And, it would certainly serve Mexico well to get less money from the U.S. On the other hand, we probably don't want one of Mexico's major sources of (legitimate) income to collapse, since it would cause more people to leave there illegally.
Nancy Pelosi: immigration enforcement separating families is "un-American" (Luis Gutierrez, Kelly Zito) - 03/08/09
Because Zito doesn't provide full quotes and because she doesn't even once use the word "illegal" or even "undocumented", it's not clear just how stupid the remarks from Nancy Pelosi were:
"Our future is about our children," Pelosi told a crowd of mostly Latino families at St. Anthony's Church.The easy way to show how Pelosi is wrong is to point out to her that the parents put themselves in the situation with their eyes open. They broke our laws and put their children at risk. Pelosi should ask those parents what they were thinking instead of blaming our laws. And, someone could point out to her that the "taking" is easily cured by the whole family returning to their country where at least the parents are citizens. And, someone could point out that it's horrific public policy to encourage mixed-status families, which her policy would do. Someone could present to her the example of a parent who's sent to jail making knock-off jeans. Is enforcing our laws against making knock-offs "un-American" as well?
No matter if those families arrived two days ago or centuries ago, Pelosi said "that opportunity, that determination, that hope has made American more American."
She said, "Taking parents from their children ... that's un-American."
What most people don't seem to realize is that Pelosi could have been easily discredited over this issue if someone had been there to ask her questions like that. An illegal immigration-supporting hack like Kelly Zitto isn't going to ask those questions; she's too busy trying to mislead people into thinking that we're dealing with legal immigrants. That leaves it up to us to ask those questions. I've been posting things like that for over two years, so maybe eventually others will take notice and do something.
3/18/09 UPDATE: This story is now getting some attention due to a Fox News story (link). There's a transcript of some of her remarks here; those remarks are on this video.
On this video she says, "The raids must end... the raids must end". She mentions SCHIP, which results in a loud cheer; another loud cheer follows when she discusses fighting to lift the five-year wait to receive benefits. She promotes them repeating their sob stories to the president and in the halls of congress.
On this, Walter Coleman (aka "Slim", protector of Elvira Arellano) wants people to fill out petitions listing their problems to be given to Obama. He, of course, hides his support for illegal activity behind a religious veneer.
Gutierrez takes an ahistorical swipe at WASPs and engages in the immigration tradition fallacy on this video.
Note that back in October 2003, Pelosi traveled to Mexico and accused her own government of conducting "terrorizing" immigration raids.
If you want to learn about immigration-related matters before Fox News gets around to them, subscribe to our feed.
Immigration lawyers Gary Endelman and Cyrus Mehta offer "The Path Less Taken: Is There An Alternative To Waiting For Comprehensive Immigration Reform?" (link) Evaluating their claims is left for those intimately familiar with immigration law, but here's the editor's summary:
...The article argues that there is ample room in the Immigration and Nationality Act, for the Executive Branch, acting alone and without Congress, to take decisive curative action. The key is to separate permanent residency from the two critical benefits that flow therefrom - legal work authorization and ability to travel. Both of these benefits can be made available, by Executive fiat, to millions of immigrants - both present and future, immediately, without any act of Congress. Once these benefits are in hand, Congress can grant permanent residency and citizenship, when the time is propitious, without being held hostage by the anti-immigrationists. This article explores how the once-unthinkable can be achieved lawfully through the enlightened use of President Obama's and Secretary Napolitano's inherent discretionary authority under the current statutory regime...
Juan Hernandez - former Mexican cabinet-level official who later worked with the John McCain campaign doing outreach to (U.S.) Hispanics - was interviewed by the Al Dia (owned by the Dallas Morning News) and said he'll be staying in Washington DC to lobby the Barack Obama campaign to pass comprehensive immigration reform, aka an amnesty. Hernandez is still a Senior Fellow of the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Initiative" at the McCain-linked Reform Institute (reforminstitute.org/about/AboutHernandez.aspx), but it's not clear whether he'll be doing his lobbying through them or another group.
Hernandez... will reside in Washington during the next months trying to lobby for immigration reform during the administration of Barack Obama... "Obama has been very quiet regarding reform. When he is asked which are his priorities, he forgets to say immigration reform. And we are not going to let him forget", he said.
While I'm sure Obama would offer a very sympathetic ear, the question is what specifically Hernandez would bring to the table for Obama; the only thing would be more rightward leaning Hispanics and perhaps that might be enough. Note, of course, that there are dozens of leftwingers who believe in the same thing as Hernandez, such as administration member Cecilia Munoz.
The rest of the interview is just a longer version of his previous remarks; he adds in a bit more this time about the reason that McCain didn't push Hernandez' agenda harder having to do with mid-level staffers:
"McCain wanted [more pandering, more support for CIR]. Rick Davis wanted it. But when you arrived at the medium level of the campaign, the ones that operated the campaign, froze (the message)",
Cardinal Mahony, Janet Murguia, Unite Here, Frank Sharry, Ali Noorani pretend immigration "reform" would be good for the economy - 01/08/09
The preeminent moral voice supporting just and comprehensive immigration reform joins the President of one of America's leading pro-immigrant unions, the head of the largest Latino civil rights organization, and national pro-reform leaders to discuss the prospects for comprehensive immigration reform as the 44th President and 111th Congress take office.Anna Gorman of the Los Angeles Times listened in, and offers this:
"I don’t think it's possible to fix the American economy without comprehensive immigration reform," John Wilhelm, president of Unite Here, said during a media call.This is the second time I've noticed that line, and I'm calling it a trend. The previous comments apply in this case. Apparently whoever writes the lines for these people thought it up in response to complaints that "reform" wasn't possible during a recession, and it would be great to know who thought it up originally.
Wilhelm said legislation would improve the economy by placing workers and employers on an even playing field, eliminating exploitation and increasing wages and tax compliance.
Cardinal Mahoney opposed the sustenance of an underclass; he's partially responsible for that due to his support for illegal activity. If he really wanted to avoid that, he'd work to discourage illegal immigration and demand that Mexico fixes their own country rather than sending their people north.
It would be fairly easy to show just how corrupt and illogical the "preeminent moral voice" is if anyone would try to ask him tough questions about this issue. Discrediting Mahoney or others who use a religious justification to support illegal activity would take a great deal of wind out of the sails of the "reform" movement.
UPDATE: From this other recounting of the call:
[Sharry said:] "We are confident and very optimistic that there's likely to be a big window of opportunity between September 2009 and March 2010 [in order to pass 'reform']"...
[Mahony said:] "I think that would be a good time simply because there are no federal elections going on, and beyond that, it is really important for us to get this really done at a time when we do not have huge immigration rhetoric going on around the nation"...
While an economic crisis is not the best time to present a substantial immigration reform package, Sharry said, "legalizing workers will increase wages, increase the tax compliance of the workers and the employers who hire them and it would restore the rule of law."
"Comprensive immigration reform" returns: S.9, the "Stronger Economy, Stronger Borders Act of 2009" - 01/07/09
If you want to cut this bill off at the knees, write to your representatives and let them know your opinion. However, for those who want something that would be dramatically more effective, ask politicians tough questions about this issue on videotape and then upload their responses to video sharing sites. Discrediting one national politician over this issue would send a very loud and clear message to the rest.
Note that allowing illegal aliens to become citizens is left open, perhaps as a bargaining chip:
I am confident that our country and our economy will be far more secure when those who are currently living in the shadows of our society are recognized and provided the means to become lawful residents, if not a path to citizenship.Note also that the remarks oppose immigration enforcement, at the same time as SESBA presumably will include ramped-up enforcement as an inducement to those who support our laws:
Those who oppose a realistic solution to address the estimated millions of people currently living and working in the United States without proper documentation have offered no alternative solution other than harsh penalties and more enforcement.So? That would work, and it would restore the natural order of things where people stay in their own countries until we decide we want to admit them. Apparently Leahy et al are afraid that it would work. But, don't worry: he's thinking of you:
We must protect the rights and opportunities of American workers and, at the same time, ensure that our Nation's farmers and employers have the help they need.OK, the American worker isn't at the top of Leahy's list. Rather, he's more concerned with the riding on the coattails of racial power and helping cheap labor employers have a ready workforce.
The remarks also support "family reunification", aka chain migration rather than our historical policies which encouraged people to make a clean break. They also oppose the "wall" on the southern border.
As for this, I'm not sure what exactly it's referring to:
We cannot continue to deny asylum seekers because they have been forced at the point of a gun to provide assistance to those engaged in terrorist acts. We cannot continue to label as terrorist organizations those who have stood by the United States in armed conflict.UPDATE: Brown was added as a co-sponsor.